God Is After His Own Glory and that Is Why He Remains Invisible
God created the world for his own glory (read Edwards and Piper). Many people who hold an agnostic position on the existence of God insist that they would believe if God would appear to them personally, or speak audibly from heaven, or write in the clouds "Jesus Saves," or rain fire down from heaven. They say that God is powerful enough to perform these signs and if he expects us to believe in him, then he should perform the signs.
But God does all things for his own glory and that, biblically speaking, is why he remains invisible. For example, we read of the faith of Moses...
"By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:27).
It was Moses ability to live as though he saw God that pleased God, that is, brought glory to God. This seems right when we add verse 6.
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
So God remains invisible. He does this so that we have to believe and trust in him - after all, if he were constantly "proving" himself with various signs, there would be no need for faith (and that would mean less glory for God, something he is not willing to do). It is the dependence of his people that lifts him up, exalts his name, and brings to him a maximized amount of fame.
Consider this piece of history from Jesus' life:
When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death. "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe." The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies." Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live." The man took Jesus at his word and departed (John 4:47-50).
Yes, Jesus did perform the sign and seems glad to do so, but he makes it clear that people should believe his words, not just the signs. Consider this passage.
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:38-40).
To those who say they would believe if God showed them signs, I challenge you to understand that God does all things for his maximized glory (to which he is entitled as God), thus he remains invisible. Our duty is to trust the powerful words of Jesus Christ who testifies of the reality of God's existence, power, and nature and who also made it clear that we could trust all the Bible.
Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matthew 22:9).
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life (John 5:39-40).
But God does all things for his own glory and that, biblically speaking, is why he remains invisible. For example, we read of the faith of Moses...
"By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:27).
It was Moses ability to live as though he saw God that pleased God, that is, brought glory to God. This seems right when we add verse 6.
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
So God remains invisible. He does this so that we have to believe and trust in him - after all, if he were constantly "proving" himself with various signs, there would be no need for faith (and that would mean less glory for God, something he is not willing to do). It is the dependence of his people that lifts him up, exalts his name, and brings to him a maximized amount of fame.
But of course the Christian faith is far from being an irrational, unreasonable, or blind faith. We believe in the solid and consistent testimony of a trustworthy man, namely Jesus Christ. He told us these things are true, so we trust him. Everybody trusts some authority.
Consider this piece of history from Jesus' life:
When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death. "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe." The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies." Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live." The man took Jesus at his word and departed (John 4:47-50).
Yes, Jesus did perform the sign and seems glad to do so, but he makes it clear that people should believe his words, not just the signs. Consider this passage.
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:38-40).
To those who say they would believe if God showed them signs, I challenge you to understand that God does all things for his maximized glory (to which he is entitled as God), thus he remains invisible. Our duty is to trust the powerful words of Jesus Christ who testifies of the reality of God's existence, power, and nature and who also made it clear that we could trust all the Bible.
Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matthew 22:9).
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life (John 5:39-40).
30 Comments:
>>Many people who hold an agnostic position on the existence of God insist that they would believe if God would appear to them personally, or speak audibly from heaven, or write in the clouds "Jesus Saves," or rain fire down from heaven.
Even if God were to appear before me, I am not confident that I am qualified to judge the validity of a deity. In other words: to me, the concept of God is so abstract that I don't think it's possible for me to identify a being as God. It is for this reason that I am agnostic.
I assume that God does have to ability to MAKE me believe in him. I can therefore only assume that if he exists, he wishes for me to continue to be agnostic.
Does that make sense, or am I just rambling?
Sure, you make sense. However, I would say that the concept of God is vague and abstract to everyone, simply because of the tpye of being we are versus the type of being he is (given his existence). Thus, I do not think that an inability to fully understand / identify God is a reason not to accept his existence.
Furthermore, one of the major points I am trying to make in the blog post is that a "sign" or some such thing would remove much of the abstract nature of God and put a more concrete edge on who he is.
As to your last comment, I fully agree. The Bible is clear that God calls those who believe and shows them the truth (John 6:44). So yes, he is in full control of your agnosticism. Having said that, it might be that he is calling you to believe given your seeming interest in him.
>>So yes, he is in full control of your agnosticism. Having said that, it might be that he is calling you to believe given your seeming interest in him.
Theoretically, since God is omnipotent, I just assume that the day I start believing is the day he wanted me to believe. I also assume that if God wanted me to search, I would search. By definition of omnipotence, these statements are true. However, I do not know that God exists. I remain agnostic.
To be honest, I don't think I'm searching. I used to be religious (when I was young) and now I'm more curious about others (like yourself) who are religious. I guess it would be more appropriate to say that my interest is not in God, but in you.
I really appreciate your honesty on these issues. As to God's omnipotence, I would comment simply that the Bible teaches both God's sveriegn control AND man's responsibility. Even though it might be difficult to constuct a mental model of how these two might coexist, nonetheless, the Bible makes it clear that they do. I'd emphasize therefore that even though God is omnipotent over your unbelief, at the same time you are responsible for it.
As for as your lack of interest in God himself, I would comment briefly. Agnosticism is dangerous in this regard because it seems to be open to the possibility of his existence, in fact it seems to want him to exist, but does not do enough research of the evidence to determine whether he exists or not. Agnosticism seems to miss the importance of God's existence and the consequences, either good or bad, in how we relate to them. If he does exist, there might be eternal consequences to what it is we belief (certainly Christianity teaches that there are). Agnosticism seems to think that whether God exists or not has no bearing on one's life.
So again, I appreciate agnosticism very much. It is a position of humility and usually of openness (unlike the dogmatic assertions of atheism). But agnosticism can be dangerous when it becomes an excusive for not doing the research needed to determine whether God exists and the consequences of following or not following him.
>>But agnosticism can be dangerous when it becomes an excusive for not doing the research needed to determine whether God exists and the consequences of following or not following him
I suppose that if agnostics thought that they were acting in a dangerous manner (one that was displeasing to God) they wouldn't really be agnostic. As an agnostic, I know of no danger in not searching for God (not to say that I haven't, as I said, I used to be Christian)... rather, I know of no danger from God in not searching for him. People on the other hand may react to my not searching for God in a dangerous manner (just as they may react negatively if I WAS searching for God).
fro-frau (if I may briefly interrupt the discussion),
you said I assume that God does have to ability to MAKE me believe in him. I can therefore only assume that if he exists, he wishes for me to continue to be agnostic.
What makes you think you are not capable of acting (or believing) other than how God wants you to? Simply appealing to "the definition of omnipotent" will not do for me. Most everyone agrees that God is incapable of logical impossibilities, and there is an entire tradition in Christianity that affirms the impossibility of forcing someone to freely believe. If you accept this, then it is entirely possible that God is indeed longing for you to place your faith in him, while you are refusing to do so. Thus, there is imminent danger in not trusting him.
I'll try to address your concerns in as fair a manner as possible.
>>What makes you think you are not capable of acting (or believing) other than how God wants you to?
I can't answer this question. I don't believe in God. Any references I have made to God are for hypothetical purposes.
>>Simply appealing to "the definition of omnipotent" will not do for me.
Jason has stated above: "The Bible is clear that God calls those who believe and shows them the truth (John 6:44). So yes, he is in full control of your agnosticism." So, I suppose that my "appeal" works for some, not for others? What kind of reasoning does work for you?
>>Most everyone agrees that God is incapable of logical impossibilities
Argumentum ad Populum. Most != true.
>>there is an entire tradition in Christianity that affirms the impossibility of forcing someone to freely believe
Unfortunately, I don't accept this. As such, I don't see the danger.
fro-frau,
Thanks for your attempt at fairness, it is appreciated.
It seemed in your comments above that you were willing to grant (hypothetically, as you say) the existence of God for the sake of discussion. I gather this from you statements:
Theoretically, since God is omnipotent, I just assume that the day I start believing is the day he wanted me to believe. I also assume that if God wanted me to search, I would search. By definition of omnipotence, these statements are true. However, I do not know that God exists. I remain agnostic.
So, I'm not (yet) asking you to concede your agnosticism. I'm only asking you to continue granting something for discussion. So, I'll rephrase the question: Hypothetically speaking, what makes you think you are not capable of acting (or believing) other than how God wants you to?
I'll make no attempt to speak for Jason. All I will defend are my claims. The reasoning that will work for me is this: If you'd like to appeal to some understanding of 'omnipotent,' then let's have a definition to work with. What do you mean by omnipotent? And what do you mean to accomplish by appealing to it? Discussion is simpler with everyone using the same definitions.
Most everyone agrees that God is incapable of logical impossibilities
This statement does not claim that you should believe or accept my position because "most everyone" else does, which is what that fallacy demands. At any rate, Im not here to discuss logical fallacies. Forget everyone else, if you'd like: I claim that God is incapable of logical possibilities. Besides, you neatly sidestepped my point!
What don't you accept about "there is an entire tradition in Christianity that affirms the impossibility of forcing someone to freely believe
? That's a simple historical fact! I fail to see some objection here. You claimed
I assume that God does have to ability to MAKE me believe in him. I can therefore only assume that if he exists, he wishes for me to continue to be agnostic.
The danger is that you'r objection is insufficient to excuse you from belief in God. It may very well be that he does NOT wish for you to be agnostic, and that you are thus personally responsible for your disbelief.
fro-frau
First, I greatly respect your willingness to dialogue on these issues. It is encouraging to find seekers from other schools of thought
You said:
>>I can't answer this question. I don't believe in God. Any references I have made to God are for hypothetical purposes.
I don't think Keith is wanting you to admit God exists in order to answer his question, just to allow for the same hypothetical liberty that you employed when responding to Jason. So why, if God exists, would he have to control your state of belief (i.e. Keeping you from belief as opposed to you freely choosing not to believe)?
You said:
>>Argumentum ad Populum. Most != true.
While you are correct that an appeal to the people is a fallacy, I don't think Keith meant to imply the veracity or truth of the "tradition", but rather to present it as an alternative option to Jason's. Maybe the rule of charitable interpretation could be applied here. Reading implicit premises into other's arguments only leads to straw men!
You said:
>>Unfortunately, I don't accept this. As such, I don't see the danger.
What do you not accept? How did you come to this conclusion?
Keith >> Hypothetically speaking, what makes you think you are not capable of acting (or believing) other than how God wants you to?
Only by the definition of omnipotence (Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful). If a being is literally "all-powerful" then I assume that being has control over all things (my beliefs included).
Keith >> What do you mean by omnipotent?
I'm using the definition from dictionary.com: omnipotence
Keith >> At any rate, Im not here to discuss logical fallacies.
I apologize for pointing one out. I feel avoiding them, and letting others know when they are using them helps me to grow as a conversationalist.
Keith >> What don't you accept about "there is an entire tradition in Christianity that affirms the impossibility of forcing someone to freely believe? That's a simple historical fact! I fail to see some objection here.
Not an objection. I don't accept the authority of Christianity with regard to affirming the impossibility of forcing someone to freely believe. I understand that you accept it, but I do not.
Keith >> The danger is that you'r objection is insufficient to excuse you from belief in God. It may very well be that he does NOT wish for you to be agnostic, and that you are thus personally responsible for your disbelief.
Well, I guess we're back to my original point. If God does NOT wish for me to be agnostic, and God is all-powerful, then he has the power to change it. So, unless you want to use a different definition of omnipotence, I see no reason to feel responsible to a God that I don't believe in, who (if he exists) has the power to change me how he sees fit.
Clint - I tried to answer some of your questions in my post above while addressing Keith's questions.
Clint >> What do you not accept?
I suppose the most direct and all-encompassing answer would be: I am not a Christian. I don't accept Christian authority (though I enjoy the stories).
Clint >> How did you come to this conclusion?
By this do you mean how I came to be agnostic?
fro-frau,
Interesting you should choose such a philosophically unprecise definition, but I suppose it will work.
Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
Christians have always affirmed this truth concerning God. So, first: This means that, for all things that are in fact things to be done, God can do all things; He has unlimited power. Assuming that you don't insist on absurdities, such as "God can't create a stone so large He cannot move it," this is plainly, logically true. Absurdities of this nature are commonly called psuedo-tasks, that is, non-tasks. Simple logical contradictions, such as forcing someone to freely do something. An objection insisting that God is not really omnipotent because He cannot perform a psuedo-taks is non-sensical. Second, God created you with free-will. Thus, you are free to believe as you choose.
So, no, I have no desire or need to redefine anything. It is clear that, given your free-will, you are free to believe or disbelieve in spite of what God desires (which is a personal relationship with you).
Finally,
I don't accept the authority of Christianity with regard to affirming the impossibility of forcing someone to freely believe. I understand that you accept it, but I do not.
I understand what you're saying. Fortunately, I don't need to appeal to Christianity to demonstrate the logical possibility of my position. At your behest, we are speaking hypothetically. So, I've shown that if we grant the existence of God, for the sake of discussion, then there is no logical inconsistency in affirming that He both desires a relationship with you and that you refuse to believe in Him. Of course I accept this logical possibility; anyone could. Now, this doesn't mean that you MUST stop being agnostic, just that you'll need a new objection to theism.
Keith >> So, I've shown that if we grant the existence of God, for the sake of discussion, then there is no logical inconsistency in affirming that He both desires a relationship with you and that you refuse to believe in Him.
If we hypothetically grant the existence of God (any God), that does mean that we automatically grant that he desires a relationship with me. Besides, if I knew that God existed, I wouldn't be able to refuse to believe in him (I can't refuse to believe something I know to be true unless I'm lying about it).
If we hypothetically grant that the God that you are describing exists: an all-powerful being that gave me free will and wants me to believe in him, but only if I choose to on my own (thus exercising free will) and will otherwise punish me if I choose incorrectly...
Then, yes... I'm in trouble.
Fortunately, I don't believe in God. So, for the time being, I am not worried. This doesn't mean that I am not open to the existence of God. This also does not mean that I am not actively searching for truth. I think (hope really) that I'm trying to be as honest as I can be to myself.
Keith >> Now, this doesn't mean that you MUST stop being agnostic, just that you'll need a new objection to theism.
I don't object to theism. I also do not refuse to believe in God. I simply do not have a belief in God.
fro-frau,
I have enjoyed this exchange, and I sincerely appreciate your quest for truth. I pray that you find it. Now then, I have not argued for the existence of God, nor have I made an attempt on agnosticism. What I have done, however, is demonstrate that your first assertion, namely
I assume that God does have to ability to MAKE me believe in him. I can therefore only assume that if he exists, he wishes for me to continue to be agnostic.
is false. In other words, I have shown that if you grant (for discussion, at least) the existence of the (omnipotent) Christian God, then given your free will it is entirely possible for you to continue on in agnosticism contrary to His desires. You conceded this is true if we grant my arguments above. And (if Christianity is true), as you observed, you are in trouble without a relationship with God.
Fortunately, I don't believe in God. So, for the time being, I am not worried.
What if the Christian God does exist, and further, what if He does desire a relationship with you? I'm not asking for the sake of argument or anything, I just wonder how such a propsition strikes you.
This doesn't mean that I am not open to the existence of God. This also does not mean that I am not actively searching for truth.... I don't object to theism. I also do not refuse to believe in God.
I admire your candor, I really do. So, if you don't object to theism, then why not accept it? Perhaps, if you're interested in pursuing truth in this way, we could shift our discussion to whether it is in fact true that God exists.
Keith >> So, if you don't object to theism, then why not accept it?
It's not my place to object to theism. Who am I to question other's beliefs? Why I don't accept theism is a difficult question to answer. Obviously there are aspects of theism that I accept, so I assume you aren't asking if I accept the obvious things (such as the historical importance of Christianity).
I assume you are asking why I don't accept the existence of God. Simply put: I've looked inside myself and found that I have no knowledge of God's existence. From this I came to realize that I didn't believe in God. I have discussed God's existence with many others, and I have yet to find any reason to conclude that God must exist. For that matter, I have talked to many strong atheists and found no reason to conclude that God must not exist.
Keith >> What if the Christian God does exist, and further, what if He does desire a relationship with you? I'm not asking for the sake of argument or anything, I just wonder how such a propsition strikes you.
If the Christian God exists and wants a relationship with me, it has not been made apparent to me. Not that others haven't tried to make it apparent to me, just that no one has succeeded (including friends, family and myself).
fro-frau said...
I have discussed God's existence with many others, and I have yet to find any reason to conclude that God must exist.
In my mind, this is the most significant point you've made. It seems to underscore the real point of "debate" between the agnostic and the theist. From my own perspective, I have always found it very odd when atheists and agnostics has said things like this because it seems to me anyway that the evidence for God's existence is very weighty if not compelling. So, I guess I am wondering, first, what evidence you have considered for God's existence and why you have rejected it; and second, what you would take as sufficient evidence of God's existence?
Steve >> it seems to me anyway that the evidence for God's existence is very weighty if not compelling
I would assume that would be the case. Just as you should assume that for me, this is not the case.
Steve >> So, I guess I am wondering, first, what evidence you have considered for God's existence and why you have rejected it
I assume you mean the Christian God. I have been presented with many arguments for God's existence (including several that I've read on this blog). To list all of them would be a near impossible task. I've read and heard mathematical, logical and philosophical arguments. My parents tried the "it's your heritage" argument. In short: I've never come across an argument that convinced me.
Steve >> what you would take as sufficient evidence of God's existence
If I had an idea of what it would take to make me believe, I have exhausted it.
fro-frau said...
If I had an idea of what it would take to make me believe, I have exhausted it.
I'm not quite sure I understand your remark here. Perhaps you can clarify. It may help if I clarified precisely what I was asking for. As you indicated in your response to me, you have examined many arguments for God's existence, but not found them convincing. But, surely you know that many people have found those very same arguments compelling. It seems to me that there are two explanation for this phenomenon: (1) Others have gullibly succumbed to inadequate arguments, but you have wisely avoided falling victim to some fallacy that these arguments commit (or false or unsupported premises that they contain; or (2) you have set a standard of evidence that is unreasonably high and thus rejected arguments that you should have accepted as other more reasonable people have done. Which is it?
If it's the first case, I'd like to know what you think the flaws are in some of the standard argument. If the second, then you need to lower your expectations. But in either case, it would help me (one who finds some of the arugment to be pretty strong) to know what you standard of evidence is. Or, Is there another alternative I'm missing?
Steve >> I'm not quite sure I understand your remark here. Perhaps you can clarify.
If at any time I had an idea of what it would take to make me believe, I have done by best to examine that information fairly until I have exhausted it.
Steve >> (1) Others have gullibly succumbed to inadequate arguments... (2) you have set a standard of evidence that is unreasonably high... Or, Is there another alternative I'm missing?
Well, I don't necassarily think that people who accept arguments that I don't are gullible. So, it's not (1). And, I don't think that my standards are unreasonable (or I would change them). So, it's not (2). My standards are a result of my own perspective. I'm not sure I am capable of verbalizing my entire perspective to you.
Steve >> But in either case, it would help me (one who finds some of the arugment to be pretty strong) to know what you standard of evidence is.
I likely have the same standards of evidence that you do. Perhaps if you listed yours, I could compare them to my own.
fro-frau,
Perhaps it would be more productive for us to approach this discussion from a slightly different angle. You mentioned above that you've evaluated many arguments concerned with God's existence. If you'll permit, then I'd like to propose a question along those lines:
If God does not exist, how are we to explain objective moral values?
I'm sure you've considered this question before, as it's answer seems quite relevant to a quest for truth. I think such a discussion will help us all become acquainted with one another's concerns like Steve's (1) and (2) above.
By the way, if I am slack on posting over this weekend, please excuse me. My wife and I will be away celebrating Easter with family, so I'll be away from my computer (and free time!).
If God does not exist, how are we to explain objective moral values?
Yes, I have heard this argument before (several times, and in varying forms). I'm skeptical of it's veracity (skeptical because I cannot PROVE that God didn't want us to have moral values). I think that there exists enough evidence for me to conclude that God is not the only logicl conclusion to draw from the existence of morality.
Before I engage in a debate over the truth of this claim, I just want to point out: I have done research on this, just as you have likely done yours. I've engaged in this conversation before, over this exact argument. I would guess that the chance of either of us changing our mind is close to 0.0000001%. I mention this because I want you to have realistic expectations of the outcome of this conversation.
Keith >> My wife and I will be away celebrating Easter with family
Me as well (almost all of my family is Christian). Enjoy your holiday!
fro-frau said. . .
Yes, I have heard this argument before (several times, and in varying forms). I'm skeptical of it's veracity (skeptical because I cannot PROVE that God didn't want us to have moral values). I think that there exists enough evidence for me to conclude that God is not the only logicl conclusion to draw from the existence of morality.
The last part of this statement actually comes close to answering one of my previous questions. I asked you to lay out for us your standard of evidence by which you have judged various theistic arguments. In an earlier post, you told me you couldn't verbalize them and asked me to tell you what mine were. Forgive me if I sound blunt, but it seems to me that you really haven;t thought much about the issue of what constitutes good evidence.
However, let's lay that aside for now. In the above quote, in response to the moral argument for God's existence, you say that "God is not the only logicl conclusion to draw from the existence of morality." Now, I could be misinterpreting you, but it seems to me that your standard of evidence here is absolute certainty. In other words, you judge the theistic inference from the existence of morality to be unworthy of acceptance because there are other logically possible inferences (i.e., other logically possible explanations for the existence of morality). If the theist cannot show that other alternatives are logically impossible, then the theistic argument is, in your judgment, less than adequate as a proof. Is that right?
Steve >> Now, I could be misinterpreting you, but it seems to me that your standard of evidence here is absolute certainty... If the theist cannot show that other alternatives are logically impossible, then the theistic argument is, in your judgment, less than adequate as a proof. Is that right?
Not correct. It may be impossible for a theist to show that ALL other alternatives are incorrect. I could just keep making up alternatives, and the theist would have to spend their entire existence proving me wrong.
Perhaps this rephrasing would be better: I have not seen enough evidence to be convinced that God is the only logical conclusion to draw from the existence of morality. Additionally, I think there are better explainations for the origins of morality than the existence of God.
Steve >> Forgive me if I sound blunt, but it seems to me that you really haven;t thought much about the issue of what constitutes good evidence.
Alright... But if you really think that I am inept at judging the worthiness of 'evidence', why are you trying to present me with it? Obviously, if you are correct: I won't see the value of whatever evidence you are about to provide for your argument.
fro-frau-you stated that you were a Christian at one point,and pretty much had "been there and done that".Well,I want to let you know that if you were a Christian,then you had accepted Jesus in your heart.That is what Christian means.Also,after you accept Jesus,you don't just turn back,and stop believing.Who would choose their old lifestyle rather than eternity in heaven with Jesus? You actually may not have been saved,and you may be searching for concrete proof of God.That is what I gather from your defensive comments. True faith does not look for proof written in stone,that is obviously what you're after.God does not have to proof himself to you.But if you want to talk proof,ask yourself where you came from,a monkey or God?This is obvious.God is the intelligent designer,not some monkey who is under our intelligence level.Now,i'm not saying that you believe in evolution,i'm giving you a little something to go by.I hope you find what you're after,and hope that it's God.I want to encourage you to not listen to what the world says,please look higher.Being lost is confusing,I have been there.Take care.
fro-frau said...
Perhaps this rephrasing would be better: I have not seen enough evidence to be convinced that God is the only logical conclusion to draw from the existence of morality. Additionally, I think there are better explainations for the origins of morality than the existence of God.
Your first assertion here seems to be just another way of stating what I thought you were saying before. You say that you "have not seen enough evidence to be convinced that God is the only logical conclusion to draw from the existence of morality." If this is supposed to be an objection to believing in God, then it is seems inadequate from a rational point of view. I will grant you for the sake of argument that there is not enough evidence to show that God is the only logical explanation for morality. So what? God doesn't have to be the only possible explantion in order to be the best explanation. Just because you can think up other possibilities doesn't make your disbelief rational or permissible. You have to show that there is a better (or at least equally plausible) alternative. Anyone can come up with any wild, hair-brained theory to avoid an unpleasant conclusion, but that doesn't make it plausible.
Of course, you would seem to imply as much yourself in your second statement: "there are better explainations for the origins of morality than the existence of God." Perhaps. But, we haven't heard you provide any of those better explanations yet.
>> If this is supposed to be an objection to believing in God
It isn't.
>> I will grant you for the sake of argument that there is not enough evidence to show that God is the only logical explanation for morality. So what?
So, that's why I don't take it as proof of God's existence.
>> Anyone can come up with any wild, hair-brained theory to avoid an unpleasant conclusion, but that doesn't make it plausible.
To be honest, I'm growing uncomfortable with your tone. I don't think I implied this. In fact, in my last post, I implied that I agree with you on this point.
BTW - I didn't post to start an argument regarding the divine origin of morality. I'm sorry it somehow became that.
To fro-frau. My tone in my last post was not meant to be offensive, and I apologize if it was. My objective in these posts has been two-fold. First, to get you to consider the possibility that you have judged some of the arguments for God's existence by un unreasonably high standard--that is, by concluding that the arguments are inadequate as proofs because they don't give you/us deductive certainty. God's existence can be the best explanation for morality even if it isn't the only explanation for it--and if it is the best explanation then you and I have an obligation to believe in God, don't we?
Second, you have said that you do think that there are better explanations for morality than God. I know that you said you don't want to get into a debate on this issue, but you have made a claim here that is controversial (at least on this blog site), and you have given no supporting evidence for that claim. I at least would like to hear what you think is a better explanation and why. These are some of the kinds of things that this blog is designed to discuss and it might be profitable to all concerned to discuss them.
Hey, guys. The mighty Google, which isn't omnipotent, but so close, it's scary, brought me to your blog. Pardon my interruption, if you will.
I appreciate the authors of this blog for their dedication to logical thinking, and, also, Dr. Cowen's admission that nothing can be known with deductive certainty. In the end, one must place their faith in the best answer, if not the certain one.
Still, I have come to a place of signficant doubt concerning the biblical God. First, let me quote from this post:
So God remains invisible. He does this so that we have to believe and trust in him - after all, if he were constantly "proving" himself with various signs, there would be no need for faith (and that would mean less glory for God, something he is not willing to do). It is the dependence of his people that lifts him up, exalts his name, and brings to him a maximized amount of fame.
The Bible clearly states, especially in John's first epistle, that God is love. Not that God is loving, but that God is love. Love, by it's very nature, places the welfare of the one loved on equal status with one's own. Paul's poetic description of love in I Corinthians 13 makes this wonderfully and abundantly clear.
According to this post, God is driven by one essential concern - his glorification. I would agree that this is the central theme of the Bible: God's love for his elect - a striking minority of humanity - in order to bring increased glory to himself.
In the end, the biblical God doesn't seem to care at all for our temporal or eternal welfare except as it relates to his glory. This is not love, this is egocentrism, and to state that God is worthy of this glory is simply to state that God sets the rules and whatever God does is good, and all talk of morality, love and justice is just smoke and mirrors.
Agnosticism isn't on the rise because we live in an intellectually lazy world, but one which demands that people think their worldviews through.
I mean you know offense, but I shoot for clarity when I state that your God is an egocentrist who cares only for the welfare of those who will bring him glory. What makes you think you can trust an egocentric God any more than you can trust an egocentric man? His love is as fickle as his next move for his own glory.
Wouldn't it be better to trust in love - objective, temporal love - and assume God, if there is one worth worshipping - resides there?
Some comments about my own history with my own agnosticism, if I may.
I grew up in a Christian home, attending a Christian church and a Christian school, said the sinner's prayer for the first time (reportedly) when I was 4 or 5, and so grew up Christian. After graduation of high school, I went on to college and experienced a freedom of decisions and thought that comes with the transition from child to adulthood.
I started to think about my religious beliefs. Not deeply at first, indeed hardly at all, but I began to feel a vague discomfort about life in general and a disinterest in church in particular. I had never had much discipleship or mentoring growing up, just general absorption of Christian teachings and culture from the influences in my childhood and teenage years. It really wasn't until the last 3 years or so that I put a fine point on what my malaise, indeed it had become full and serious depression, was about. It was a rejection of religious/philosophical beliefs based on proscription - a growing desire to form my philosophy of life on something that made reasonable sense, and not only appealed to blind faith. This, too, is part of the transition from childhood: as a child forming experience with life and learning to survive emotionally and physically, we must rely on what parents and trusted sources tell us about the truths and nature of reality, but when we become adults, we must test these assertions for truth beyond proscriptivism.
I remember about 4 years ago asking myself the same question that I saw above, and that is, “I don’t know if God exists, but what would it take for me to believe in him?” I couldn’t answer that question – what proof would it take? I have since read a book that illustrated this pretty well (unfortunately I can’t remember the book or author). The author said something to the effect that if the skies parted and a 10,000 ft. Zeus-like figure appeared for the world to see and thundered out “Jonathan, I am God and I am real, all that you have been taught as a child about me is true. Stop fooling around and believe,” that within an hour of the event, he would have 10 rational ways to explain that away besides crediting God. It’s an exaggeration, but I felt the same way about any experiential method of proving God’s existence and accuracy of Christian teaching.
I have since been working on improving my critical thinking, logic, and reasoning skills, and studying Christian apologetics, and as Dr. Cowan said, it’s the cumulative case made by the many logical arguments in support of Christianity that has made the impact on me to accept that God exists, and that he is the Christian God of the Bible. I am still trying to identify assumptions in my life concerning morality, philosophy, and religion that I accept without thinking about them, to inspect them for truth, and I expect that to continue until I am no longer a fallen, but transforming, being influenced by other fallen, but transforming, beings.
Having Words said...
I mean you know offense, but I shoot for clarity when I state that your God is an egocentrist who cares only for the welfare of those who will bring him glory. What makes you think you can trust an egocentric God any more than you can trust an egocentric man? His love is as fickle as his next move for his own glory.
It is true that God acts for his own glory, but I think you have a misunderstandign about what this actually means. For one thing, it surely doesn't imply that God's love is fickle. After all, we also believe that God is perfectly and necessarily good, as well as immutable. So, if he sets his love upon you, you can be absolutely certain that he will not stop loving you and looking out for your welfare.
For another thing, God is glorified when his creatures worship him and recognize his intrinsis goodness and holiness, and when they live lives in humble gratitude for his benevolence. If God were arbitrary and fickle, then we wouldn't be able to worship him in this way and God would not be glorified.
Moreover, as John Piper has so aptly argued in his many books on the subject, God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him. That is, it brings glory to God when his creatures find their ultimate happiness and contentment in relationship to God. So, you might say that God has a vested interest in the well-being of (at least some of) his creatures. God, though concerned about his glory is also intensely concerned about the well-being and happiness of his elect.
So your claim that God is a capricious egocentrist doesn't seem to stand when you have a fuller understanding of what it means for God to have glory.
BTW, and from a completely different tack, it does need to be said that no one can fault God for being concerned for his own glory. Much of your criticism is based on comparing God to an egocentric man. But, why do we object to egocentric men? Isn't it because (1) we know that they are not any more special or valuable that the rest of us, and (2) they are just as flawed and sinful as the rest of us? But the same cannot be said of God. He is absolutely perfect, good, and beautiful. He is not comparable to us. He positively deserves to be worshipped and adored. What could be wrong then with God himself recognizing and demanding what he deserves?
Post a Comment
<< Home