This post was originally published on “The Christian Post” on September 7, 2013. Mike Keas, Ph.D, is Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/csc), Professor of History & Philosophy of Science (College at Southwestern http://college.swbts.edu), & teaches at Biola (http://www.biola.edu/scienceandreligion)
In a comment on my last blog Hraefn refers to this statement from me: “God, if he exists, is the ultimate uncaused cause (self-existent being).” Hraefn responds (emphasis mine):
Why must the creator of the universe, if such exists, be uncaused? By demanding that “God” be uncaused by definition, you are simply raising the (wholly unmet) burden of proof on yourself. I would suspect that few, if any, atheists would accept theist definitions as in any way binding on themselves or view the demand that we reject an uncaused universe, but blindly accept an uncaused creator of the universe, as anything other than a form of special pleading. If God can be uncaused then why can’t the universe? Admitedly, a pantheist would likely look at all of this, smirk and say God is the universe, so why are you arguing which is uncaused (which would most likely offend both theist and atheist).
I aim to understand the views of those with whom I disagree, and this includes understanding the way that these folks define the basic terms of their theory. If I’m going to critique a theory, I ought to first grasp it as it is articulcated by its well credentialed proponents. I hope that critics of theism would extend the same generosity and mutual respect. In this spirit I wrote “God, if he exists, is the ultimate uncaused cause (self-existent being).” No thought-control demands are operating here, just an offer to get a crucial idea on the table for critical examination. One can understand the terms of an opponent’s theory (even using terms as defined by the other guy), but then disagree respectfully with that theory. It’s a free world. Hopefully we can remain civil in our discussion of competing theories about the meaning of life.
Defining divinity as the “ultimate uncaused cause (self-existent being)” has been mainstream in the history of philosophy since Aristotle. No special pleading or idiosyncratic definitions lurk here. A Christian theist further argues:
- Claim #1: God as depicted in the Bible is the uncaused cause of everything except himself.
Others have argued for alternative viewpoints on this most fundamental issue. Those alternative views take the general form:
- Claim #2: X is the uncaused cause of everything except itself.
Fill “X” in with whatever you please. Some might say, matter-energy within space-time. Perhaps others would say a multiverse-generating mechanism (perhaps lurking in an eternal quantum vacuum, or whatver … use your imagination here). In my attempt to save Hawking from self-refutation (see my last post), I suggested that X for Hawking might be the ancient Pythagorean notion of mathematical reality as the source for everything else. This is a non-materialist version of naturalism: Naturalistic idealism. Interesting.
One of the main points I hope to impress on you is this: Whatever you insert for the variable X (go ahead put yours in now), that entity functions as a deity for you, whether a personal one you worship or whether an impersonal one that does not give a rip about your personal existence (and so worship might seem inappropriate). Note, I’m not “demanding” that anyone “reject an uncaused universe” (as Hraefn expressed it above). I’m not demanding anything whatsover. Rather, I’m inviting my blog buddies to think critically about this most fundamental question concerning reality. I, and many other philosophers, have found something like what I’ve outlined above as a helpful way to think about it. You’ve got an alternative proposal for defining terms and debating the issues. Great, put it on the table for review.
Regarding burden of proof, the one making a claim shoulders that burden. So, note, again the two claims above:
- Claim #1: God as depicted in the Bible is the uncaused cause of everything except himself.
- Claim #2: X is the uncaused cause of everything except itself.
So, when an atheist dialogues with a Christian about ultimate reality, both share the burden of proof. The Christian bears the burden of claim #1, and the atheist the burden of claim #2 (with X filled in with something). Do you feel the love? Let’s share the burden together, oh atheist blog-comment friends.
I wish to thank those who came to my talk today in Dallas at the Confident Christianity Conference. We discussed everything above, and more. See my last blog for the main points of my Dallas talk. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Hraefn for the interesting comment above. The folks in Dallas benefitted from this discussion. Peace.
See my more recent blogs that address some of the comments below this blog:
- How Theists and Atheists Share the “Burden of Support”
- Russell’s Teapot: How Theists and Atheists Share the “Burden of Support.”
Since those are two definitionally equivalent statements, the implied difference regards the unstated nature of the left side of the equation as it follow from the right side of the equation. That is, we recognize that the uncaused cause is necessarily personal and others deny that the uncaused cause could be personal. The side with the epistemological problem is the impersonal side precisely because an impersonal uncaused cause could never reveal whether or not it was impersonal. A personal uncaused cause might reveal himself, and we suggest that he has done precisely that. So we refer to him as God.
I have to admit: when I read this I’m reminded of how human language, and especially human logic, has a tendency to only work well in describing reductive logic. Inferential logic feels essentially suspect. And axiomatic claims by their nature form the boundary from whence the reductive logic commences. Or said a little differently: as long as the starting box of axioms is the grounds for argumentation, it is essentially about whether or not to include an unbounded God into the field of reductive reasoning. Science clearly rejects that as a proposition. And one could argue that Science is generally… Read more »
It is difficult to know how to respond to a post which isn’t really saying anything. I expected… more. Even so, there are a few places that can be nibbled. An early mistake is made by assuming the two options presented are the only ones available. Either there was a personal uncaused cause or an impersonal uncaused cause. A further assumption is made that theists belong in the personal camp and atheists in the impersonal. Keas seems to concede that theists have a burden of proof but also argues that atheists have a burden to prove the impersonal claim. Aside… Read more »
I am usually a lurker, reading posts and comments. You are clearly an intelligent, as well as intellectual individual (the two do not always go hand in hand). Having said that, you, along with every other Atheist/Agnostic always seem to avoid the most basic, fundamental principal that Christianity is founded on… faith. You ask for proof of God, but if such proof existed, then that would contradict the very foundation of Christianity (or any other credible religion for that matter). If science could literally prove the existence of God, then would you believe? Assuming science could prove beyond any doubt… Read more »
Your first paragraph is excellent, a wonderful look at the problem. Even if one could prove God, that doesn’t mean we should worship him nor does it tell us which God is the right one. But then you go downhill. Faith is a non-answer for several reasons. First and foremost: why faith? Why doesn’t God just reveal himself? Yes, I know the next non-answer, “God has already revealed himself to everyone.” That answer is thoroughly irrational and doesn’t deal with the fact that even though the Bible still talks quite a bit about faith in what people have not seen… Read more »
John 16:33, I’m glad that you see the same three possibilities that I see. All naturalistic explanations of the origin of our universe fit under your number 1 (involving infinite regress of the chain of cause and effect) and number 2 (which Jack refuted with “ex nihilo, nihil fit” — out of nothing comes nothing. Numbers 1 and 2 are logically impossible. Because all naturalistic explanations of the origin of our universe are logically impossible, we can use a disjunctive syllogism (modus tollendo ponens — mode that by denying affirms) to logically make our point. 1. There must either be… Read more »
Oops! John16:33, I see now that you actually have four options. Sorry that I missed that.
Chris,
You wrote: “so far everything we’ve discovered in science has a naturalistic explanation.”
What other kind of explanation would science be able to provide for anything? Is this not a bit self-selective?
By the way, that is not exactly correct. There is, for example, no “naturalistic” explanation for what happened before the Big Bang, but science still discusses this. Science, and scientists, talk about metaphysical issues on a regular basis. Some of the most exacting metaphysicists are working physicists. I think one can confuse a “scientific description” for a “scientific explanation.” For example: naturalists offer descriptions such as the Heisenberg Theory of Indeterminacy, but there is not “naturalistic explanation” of how this is the case, and certainly no naturalistic expression of “why” this is the case. Interestingly, one can construct experiments on… Read more »
It is of course fair to say that we do not yet have a naturalistic explanation for the big bang – we just don’t know. It’s an active problem. “but not both in the same way at the same time.” I’m not sure what your point is here? Just an interesting science trivia item? Or pointing to another realm of science in which our knowledge is incomplete? But with quantum mechanics, we are learning new things all the time and despite the fact that much of quantum mechanics is contrary to what we might expect from our personal experience with… Read more »
Bart, A fair point, but there is another possibility: we could hit issue after issue about which science has no answer. We could be left throwing up our hands again and again. Instead, we find in almost every instance that we can in fact figure out how it works. The remaining question marks are the issues on the frontier of science – new issues that have arisen as we’ve wrestled past old problems. One might say, “Of course science can find an explanation, God created an orderly universe!” If that were true, then at the very least the theist should… Read more »
In other words, I’m suggesting that where science cannot find naturalistic answers (How did consciousness come to be? Why are human beings nearly universally religious by instinct?) it either declares that it is still waiting to find a naturalistic answer, or it ignores the field and moves on. Thus, it is hardly surprising that science provides naturalistic answers for all of the questions that it considers. But then, when it chases those questions to their ends, it seems always to run into those questions that prove resistant to naturalistic explanation (Where did the information come from in DNA? What exists… Read more »
So Chris’ claim reduces essentially to this: “So far, in accepting only naturalistic explanations to scientific questions, every scientific question that we have answered has been answered naturalistically.”
In the middle of painting a house so I can’t answer other comments at the moment, but I can give a brief response to this. Tweaking your summary to be, well, accurate:
“So far, for every question that has provided us with a fairly definitive answer, the answer has been naturalistic.”
In other words, the things we know (as opposed to guess or assume, which is what religion does) have proven to be naturalistic. And considering how much we now know, that covers a huge amount of territory.
“where science cannot find naturalistic answers (How did consciousness come to be? Why are human beings nearly universally religious by instinct?) it either declares that it is still waiting to find a naturalistic answer, or it ignores the field and moves on.” Setting aside the fact that of your two examples, “one of these is not like the other”, it’s worth noting that consciousness is another active field. Yes, we are still looking, and there are tantalizing hints with research progressing (I’ve mentioned Marvin Minsky before on this) but it remains unclear. I suspect we won’t have to wait too… Read more »
Chris, you mentioned that you are not sure about a singularity. Would you agree that only two alternatives for the universe exist if no supernatural Creator exists?
1. An infinite cause and effect chain leading up to the present moment
2. Spontaneous creation from nothing (involving a singularity)
Mike, As someone who is not a trained theoretical physicist, I would be reluctant to take a firm position, period. But your two options share the same problems as Keas two options: we just do not know. There are various theories – I have a very basic understanding of some of them – and there are mathematical models behind those theories. The models all check out, but that doesn’t mean they correspond with the real world. But this marks another difference between religious speculation and scientific hypotheses: scientists can put pen to paper and show you, using mathematics and our… Read more »
Interesting and boring at the same time, because it shuts out any other way of considering the issues. Begin with the fact (?) that there is no God whatsoever, begin where the child begins, being the center of his or her existence. Follow on with the denial of things we consider necessary for a happy healthy childhood. How could there be a God who denies the basic needs to a helpless being? Eventually, the feeling of alienation and loneliness in a maelstrom of existence leads to denial that there could even possibly be a Being who meets any understanding of… Read more »
Chris, please list those other options that come to mind. It seems to me that without a supernatural Creator, either there is an infinite chain of causes and effects before the present point in time, or things arose spontaneously from nothing. Would not all your options fit under one of those two possibilities?
Your options are two possibilities, but three other options come to mind: 1. God. As I mentioned in my original comment, some sort of divine intelligence remains an option of the table – we just have no reason to believe this option is true, and there are various problems unique to this option. 2. An eternal, self-existent something (perhaps the singularity, perhaps not) that at some point explodes into the universe. The difference between this and your #2 is that this doesn’t necessitate spontaneous generation (the “something” always existed rather than popping into existence), though it leaves the tricky problem… Read more »
Chris, I am relieved that you still believe that God possibly exists and created the universe. I noticed that you listed two other possibilities that both involve an eternal, self-existent something. The first possibility you described was that of an eternal equilibrium that was upset. I guess you mean that an infinitely-old equilibrium at a point in time was upset. Please clarify if I have misunderstood you. Wouldn’t you run into the same problem here that exists with an infinite chain of causes and effects leading to the present point in time? Can an infinitely long time period be crossed… Read more »
Mike,
Before you get too excited, keep in mind that I put God on the same level as space frogs and trans-dimensional children.
Based on the rest of your comment, I wonder if you read the rest of my comment? I already addressed that issue. It’s a variant of the Kalam cosmological argument and suffers from a few assumptions of its own.
P.S.: Perhaps it would be helpful if you described the eternal equilibrium in more detail. Do you mean nothingness, as Hawking describes, or do you mean some type of energy in equilibrium?
P.P.S.: I know you mentioned an eternal something, but some people regard nothingness as something that can produce a universe.
Chris, would you not agree that an “uncaused cause” has little substantive difference from God? Would this simply be a “rose by any other name?” Singularity, Something, God. Are these not merely different names for the same Entity? There are formidable issues with trying to accommodate contingent beings without some necessary “being.” Simply accounting for P1 by P2 and P2 by P3 infinitely becomes a logical absurdity, commonly referred to as an infinite regress. This harkens back to Zeno’s paradoxes trying to show that “motion” (contingency) is an illusion. To paraphrase Zeno: “that arrow just won’t fly.” Also, the result… Read more »
Jack, God implies personhood, intelligence, more than is implied by just “uncaused cause”. Zeno’s paradox, while clever, has a rather simple resolution and is overcome regularly in mathematics. Just like I’m no theoretical physicist, I’m also no mathematician, but an infinite series is a staple of mathematics and gets used in a whole range of everyday applications. The terms of an infinite series may be infinite, but the series itself can still be worked with as a whole and any given individual term can be examined. Apologists can get away with arguments like yours or the Kalam because on the… Read more »
Chris, you responded to Jack’s statement about an infinite regress being an absurdity with this statement: “An infinite series is no match for a mathematician with pen and paper (and perhaps a calculator).”
I guessing that you consider Hawking to be a pretty fair mathematician. He, like Jack, understands the absurdity of an infinite regress. Thus, he now believes that something came from nothing.
Those are the only two possibilities: an infinite regress or something coming from nothing. If you cannot prove one or the other, then a supernatural Creator is the only explanation for our universe.
“If you cannot prove one or the other, then a supernatural Creator is the only explanation for our universe.” Even if you were right that an infinite regress creates an absurdity, your conclusion amounts to special pleading: it absolutely can’t be the possible conclusions you don’t like, but it must be the conclusion you do like, because reasons. What reasons? Because! Yes, but wha… Because! But as I’ve noted once or twice already, the universe is a wild and weird place full of things we now understood but once never anticipated. Considering there is no evidence for God, you cannot… Read more »
Chris, I agree that Zeno’s paradoxes have answers but they require a complicated scheme of mathematics and even in the end they cannot explain how “fire” is real, and the number represented by the symbol “4” are real in a way that will not violate the long-held law of non-contradiction. Einstein did in fact hold to a steady-state theory of the universe until he came up with his theory of relativity that sent his mind into a state of uncertainty. He lived his entire life after the 20’s trying to figure out what exactly was “real” in regard to his… Read more »
Jack, Einstein took issue with some of the findings of quantum physics. In this area, Einstein has been proven wrong. I’m not sure what point you wish to make by Einstein’s uncertainty except perhaps to note that even very smart people can be fallible. This is why the rules and tools and methods of science are so important – to keep us on track even when we don’t like where the track is taking us. The problem with creationists is many of them jumped ship long ago, as soon as science began to poke holes into this or that holy… Read more »
“””In this area, Einstein has been proven wrong. “”” Einstein has not been proven wrong in this area. Gravity (his contribution) has still not been unified with the other fundamental forces. Also, Einstein took issue with the quantum theory as a whole, not just particular parts; though, he did debate and speculate on certain aspects. He and Bohr (nor Planck) came to see eye-eye. Also, I’m not sure about your hubris of “science punching holes in this or that holy book.” That simply is not a accurate statement. For example, the Bible describes the spherical nature of the earth long… Read more »
Dear Chris: I call your attention to the fact that God has revealed Himself in the created order: such order, complexity, and design demands a source equal to the fact, one that is commensurate with the perceived reality. And then there is the matter of Revelation, His Revelation of Himself in history in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. If you would like to read a beautiful behavioral summary of the man of Galilee which clearly points to something beyond this world, I suggest that you consider I Corinthians 13:4-8a. Both Liberal and Conservative scholars agree that Paul… Read more »
Chris, you have said that there are more than two possibilities, but the ones you have named fit neatly under infinite regress and/or something coming from nothing (depending on how you define “eternal something.” You are again pleading ignorance of other unknown possibilities in the “wild and weird” universe. You cannot base a logical argument on unknown discoveries in the future. Logically, if you are looking for a natural rather than a supernatural explanation, you must choose an infinite regress or something coming from nothing. Every theory advanced so far fits under one of those two categories. If both are… Read more »
“You cannot base a logical argument on unknown discoveries in the future.” I don’t, this is why I’m not trying to prove to you how the universe came to be. I don’t know how it came to be. You, on the other hand, are trying to argue how the universe came to be. Thus far, you have presented no evidence. All you have done is attempted to knock down other possibilities, then asserting that yours must be the correct answer despite the fact that you cannot know that there are no other possibilities (and despite having failed to disprove the… Read more »
Chris, I think I can speak for the majority if not all of those who post here and say that we love you and wish you the best. You are obviously very intelligent, and I will continue to pray that you will see that there are only two possibilities for natural explanations. Either there is an infinite regress, or there’s not. If there’s not, and if something did not come from nothing, then by the logical process of elimination, a supernatural Creator does indeed exist.
Except you still haven’t demonstrated why it has to be a supernatural creator (by which I assume you mean has to be an intelligent, personal entity) instead of some other natural, self-existent possibility. Don’t just give me your answer – I already know that – show me your work.
If you are referring to a “natural, self-existent” universe, then you are returning to an infinite regress. The natural universe is constantly changing; the supernatural Creator does not change. An impersonal force that is not omniscient would be incapable of creating the universe. Geisler’s version of the cosmological argument is appropriate here: “(1) Some things undeniably exist (e.g., I cannot deny my own existence). (2) My nonexistence is possible. (3) Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another. (4) There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence. (5) Therefore, a first… Read more »
Mike, “If you are referring to a “natural, self-existent” universe, then you are returning to an infinite regress.” Nope, I’m not limiting myself to that, as I’ve explained several times in my comments. Your modified Geisler is rife with unsubstantiated leaps. Surely you don’t take them seriously. We’ve already noted some of the problems throughout the discussion but this introduces several with serious problems. Please tell me I don’t have to point them out. At any rate, his syllogism doesn’t come close to proving your claim that the self-existent cause must be omniscient. See my option #3. I’ve already explained… Read more »
Chris, you said: “The uncaused cause of my #3 differs from ‘God in only two ways: (1) many created universes instead of just 1 (though I should note that such a hypothetical thing could perhaps spin off just one and done, or 10, or 100, or 500 trillion), and (2) it is not a personal, intelligent being.” Okay, let’s reexamine your #3: “3. An eternal, self-existent something that spins off new universes (this would be close to the ‘impersonal’ uncaused cause mentioned by Keas) – something that always existed, had no cause, was not intelligent or personal, but was the… Read more »
To sum up, all theories of origins (e.g., oscillating, steady state, vacuum fluctuation, quantum gravity, string theory, young earth creationism, old earth creationism) presented so far fit under three possibilities:
1. Supernatural Creation from nothing
2. Infinite Regress of the chain of cause and effect
3. Spontaneous generation from nothing
Numbers 2 and 3 are logically impossible; thus, number 1 is the only logical possibility. Chris, all of your proposed theories fit within numbers 2 and 3. I understand your frustration.
Mike,
I’m not sure what to tell you that I haven’t already said. You are trying to win an argument by fiat. You are declaring What You Think Must Be but, as I said before, you have not shown your work. We have before us five distinct options for origins – and those are just the ones we’ve come up with in the course of this discussion. However inconvenient it may be for your argument, the positions I’ve presented cannot be shoehorned into your convenient straw men.
Chris, I did my best to understand the “eternal somethings” that you posited, but you did not provide any more detail when asked for it. With that degree of vagueness and lack of detail, your theories could be “shoehorned” into a number of places. If you want accuracy in my analysis of your theories, please provide details. It’s not too late to do so.
Mike,
I provided sufficient detail. What I did not do was concede “God”. Therefore, you shoehorned.
Chris, do you understand that by using the term “eternal something” to describe a naturalistic origin you have admitted the existence of an infinite regress? Anything natural changes with time. It is part of spacetime, stuck on the timeline, and therefore part of the chain of cause and effect. By using the term “eternal,” you have made it an infinite chain of cause and effect (the infinite regress that is logically impossible).
Mike, “Anything natural changes with time.” Two quick thoughts: 1. You keep saying that, but have not yet defended it. Why do you insist that anything natural changes with time? How do you know that every natural thing changes with time? 2. As far as change goes, God (as found in the Bible) changes. It is a peculiarity of Christian theology to claim that God does not change, but the claim doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. Here’s a basic example. Consider: Today I don’t have a shirt. Tomorrow I buy a shirt. Something about me changes. I go from shirtless… Read more »
Chris, Regarding proof of change for natural things, note what Ronald Brown, professor of physics at Cal Poly said: “All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases.” Entropy implies change. As you know the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the entire universe. The universe is considered to be a closed system, and everything in the universe is affected. In regard to God changing, I’m sure you know that we consider God to be both transcendent and immanent, living in eternity. This topic has been discussed in atheism.about.com. You seem to believe… Read more »
Mike,
On change for natural things, no doubt the good professor was speaking with reference to things within the universe. I doubt very much that general statement was meant as a comprehensive definition of all possible natural things.
Now we see more equivocation. If you say God was changeless because he existed out of time, then my eternal something was also changeless because it too exists out of time. It creates spacetime, it doesn’t live within it.
An additional point I meant to note: the way you attempt to worm around the problem of God changing reflects something I observed much earlier – namely, we have difficulty even understanding what “before time” means. You want to claim that only a self-existent intelligence (for whom we have no evidence – you still haven’t shown the work) could exist outside of time, though we don’t even know enough to know what could or could not be possible in such a circumstance.
In this context, “natural” by definition indicates something in nature, something in a universe, not outside of it. Thus, “all possible natural things” occur in a universe, not outside of one. If your “eternal something” exists outside of a universe and thus is not a “natural” creator, then it must be a supernatural creator, correct?
Mike,
You’re stretching even more than usual this time.
Chris, if you are an atheist rather than an agnostic, then you obviously believe that God does not exist and you believe that you have logical reasons for that belief that can be presented in this forum. As a Christian I obviously believe that God exists, and I believe that I have logical reasons for that belief by using the process of elimination (disjunctive syllogism). The burden of proof is shared by both of us. I believe that I can put every naturalistic theory of origins under the two categories that are logically impossible. We disagree about your naturalistic “eternal… Read more »
Mike, When it comes to my atheism, it means that I do not believe in God. You do believe in God. The burden of proof is on you, not both of us. When it comes to the Christian God, I believe he clearly does not exist. That puts me under a burden of proof. But this post has been a bit more general: whether or not God exists. As I have had to repeatedly explain, the burden is on the person who believes, not the person who does not believe, just as the person who believes in big foot must… Read more »
Good night, everyone!
Dear brothers in Christ, I fail to see the need to prove anything, as if God can be proved naturalistically. The Bible doesn’t ‘prove’ God, it presupposes Him. You can’t argue someone [for example: Chris Roberts] into salvation. So what is the point? If the point is only to show that such an argument can kind of be made, oh good… We read from Romans 1: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to… Read more »
Furthermore, Scientists seek to find the origins of the universe but are just chasing their tails. Science can never find any proof of the supernatural. If all the now known scientific experiments were used to examine the water Jesus turned into wine, all the would find is wine. The multiple loaves and fish: just bread and fish. Examining the scene after the red sea came back together: just drowned Egyptians. The supernatural can not be discovered by scientific methods. Thus if you believe that God created the world and universe from nothing, then science can never prove [or disprove] that… Read more »
One more thing:
Everything is made up of something.
But every time we figure out the smallest thing that seems to make up everything else, we find something smaller that makes up that.
Likewise, the outer limits of the universe will never be found.
To one with understanding, we see these as evidences of the greatness of the Almighty God. But to the hardhearted and ignorant, they keep looking for answers anyplace but where they are.
“Christian attempts to shift the burden of proof are a tacit admission of defeat: knowing they cannot sustain their burden, they try to shift the playing field.” Brothers, Who makes up these rules? And why do you act as if they are important [the rules that is]? God is only known by faith. Our faith is the evidence. To us. By embracing the idea that our faith is all we have, we fling ourselves upon the Lord, and in doing so, cut the ties of the world. Those ties bind us to worldly ways of thinking and understanding. Now if… Read more »
Mike,
Faith doesn’t work. Believe me, I know this from my former days as a faithful and faith-filled Christian.
Chris R.,
You have created a paradox where none is necessary. God given faith does work, man generated faith never works. Your testimony is clearly a reality of man generated faith. So, when you say “Faith doesn’t work”…that is your testimony, …yet not one faith-filled Christian would have the testimony you depend upon.
You have been very clear on those points since you started interacting with this site, but you continue to be confused on what faith is, and who believers are. You are persistent though!
Chris,
Begging the question (“God given faith”) does nothing to resolve the problem.
As for when I started interacting on this site, you might recall that I started coming here several years ago, back when I was still a Christian – and a pastor, to boot!
Chris R, no question begging necessary. You are wrong, God is right. End of story. The faith that God gives is evidential and substantive. The writer to the Hebrews makes that abundantly clear; history bears it well.
The confusion you have about faith and belief does not beg any question.
God is never mocked, even in the instance that your mind deems him absent, or none existent.
As far as the pastor thing,… history is replete with pastors that “were Christian”. That is nothing new my friend.
“You are wrong, God is right. End of story.”
The ultimate example of someone throwing in the towel. “I can’t prove my case so I’ll just declare it and close the door.”
Chris R.,
“…back when I was still a Christian…”
You keep saying that yet no one here will ever agree. As one who denies the God of the bible and his holy word, you simply don’t get to define the terms of Christianity. You never were a Christian. Curiously, why do you like to say you were? According to your belief system, that makes you look like a complete idiot, right?
Les,
No doubt no one here will ever agree. And no doubt you will never convince me that I was any less a Christian than you are right now – or, conversely, you are no more born again and Spirit filled now than I was then.
Chris R,. You still don’t get it. No one here is trying to convince you. It is your confession alone that bears out the truth about which faith is alive in you, and it is by your testimony that it is you and you alone. If I could persuade you to receive the other faith,…by all means I would try. Yet, my mission is to try to tell you the truth,….not attempt to convince you that your testimony is false.
Chris,
Then why are you trying to convince me?
Chris R, I’ll type more slowly this time…. I am trying to tell you the truth. Convincing takes too much debate. I certainly can’t convince you to have faith. Telling you what is true is better for both of us.
Chris,
There you go again, trying to convince me.
Chris R.,
If God does indeed save you some day it will be fun to look back over these comment streams.
Les,
Indeed.
Chris R., Oh come on, you’re smarter than that. You know perfectly well that whatever you subjectively felt when you were professing Christianity does not have to be what anyone else is feeling. I wish you would quit being so hypocritical. One moment disdaining anything but what can be proven scientifically, and then the next, judging everyone else by what you yourself felt. These guys are being so patient with you, and do you know why? Because, just like you, they know that they too were losers, and still would be, except by the grace of God. And just like… Read more »
Yes Mike, that’s right.
If one BY THE SPIRIT truly has faith in Jesus – and is a real “faith filled Christian” it always sticks.
Notice our resident blasphemer spoke of “faith” and never spoke of the Spirit – “no man comes on that’s the Spirit calls him.”
This blasphemer is a prime example that one cannot “intellectualize” themselves to God – he is right about one thing at least – THAT doesn’t work.
Tarheel,
You realize, of course, that no matter how I express my former faith, you or someone will find some way to nitpick it to try and make it appear it was all fake. One could do the same with any statement you make about your relationship with Christ (or apparent lack thereof).
“You realize, of course, that no matter how I express my former faith, you or someone will find some way to nitpick it to try and make it appear it was all fake.”
Oh – We don’t have to “make it appear” anything – the proof is obvious for all to see.
Despite that reality – I continue to pray that you will soon repent and believe.
Chris, Just an observation, and it’s related to the article, if you’re former faith was genuine then you have a basis to discern the nature of the genuine faith of others. If, on the other hand, you didn’t have genuine faith, then you don’t have a basis for judging the nature of the genuine faith of others. At this point someone who doesn’t have genuine faith could only hold genuine faith to be subjective. However, for someone with genuine faith, the Bible gives us objective categories for assurance of faith. How does this relate to the article? The proof is… Read more »
Jim, Your position is essentially begging the question and somewhat circular: genuine faith proves that faith is real. But if there is no Spirit, no regeneration, no God at work in the ways described by the Bible, then there is no such thing as genuine faith and all of those subjective experiences which you attribute to the Spirit turn out to be psychological phenomena after all. “…the believer’s appeal to the objective will never convince a devout unbeliever and the unbeliever’s appeal to the subjective will never convince the believer. What is required for recognition of the objective is a… Read more »
‘You want what is classically formulated in Christianity: “have faith in order to understand.”’
I didn’t tell you what I want. Whether your statement is true or not, you must assume something you don’t know.
“What I appeal to are the objective tools of science. “
You assume naturalistic monism without proof.
“There is no objective measurement to show the Spirit at work.”
I predicted objectively that you would argue like this and gave the reason why. My argument stands.
“Believe me, I know this from my former days as a faithful and faith-filled Christian.” And then there’s this: “Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of… Read more »
Les,
All I can say about your comment is Amen!
As usual – Les nails it.
Monkees theology. No really, a little humor here. Posted on Facebook: >>>My girlfriend said she was leaving me due to my obsession with the Monkees. I didn’t believe her… Til I saw her face. <<< Remember how the song goes… When I saw her face, Now I'm a believer. I couldn't leave her if I tried… The theology part? 2nd Cor. 4 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the… Read more »