That whole "God has his reasons" logic leaves me to believe that God is a mean, ugly, cynical SOB who punishes good people and rewards scumbags. And I just can't abide by that.

 

For example, I've been watching bits and pieces of the latest History Channel thing on the Gilded Age of the late 1800s when people like John D. Rockefeller forwarded the notion that his wealth in life was because he was "blessed." Oh, and all that other predestination garbage.

It is a certainty, but one that is based on free will. There is a C.S. Lewis quote that better explains this. Unfortunately I can't seem to track it down just yet.

 

Until then, I shall retreat to the kitchen sink for a cold glass of milk & meditation on this subject. God knows this as a certainty, but not because He is causing it to happen. Rather, he knows that in my free will, this is what I inevitably choose.

 

Is the one you were looking for?

 

This is from a classic Randy Parker post. 9/25/12 #322 from a thread that has been cooked and over cooked in the ovens of BGP.

 

I've read a lot of C.S. Lewis,

‎"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

 

Reading Lewis sometimes makes my head hurt, but I had never given this idea consideration. What are your thoughts?

 

For me personally, it's hard to pinpoint the one primary reason for my belief in God. I was raised in a home where I was taught His existence & encouraged to follow Him. But I guess the argument that has always made the most sense to me is the Teleological argument--that design demands a Designer.

We try to put human limitations on God or to figure the deep things of God when we aren't on the same plane. His ways are higher than ours, His thoughts are higher. How could we possibly understand the intricacies like we've discussed? The answer is that we simply can't.

Edited October 25, 201213 yr by spindoc

But if God knows you're going to the kitchen then how could you possibly do anything else? The decision is made.

 

He knows it because He knows me & how I will exercise my free will.

Is the one you were looking for?

 

This is from a classic Randy Parker post. 9/25/12 #322 from a thread that has been cooked and over cooked in the ovens of BGP.

 

I've read a lot of C.S. Lewis,

‎"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

 

Reading Lewis sometimes makes my head hurt, but I had never given this idea consideration. What are your thoughts?

 

For me personally, it's hard to pinpoint the one primary reason for my belief in God. I was raised in a home where I was taught His existence & encouraged to follow Him. But I guess the argument that has always made the most sense to me is the Teleological argument--that design demands a Designer.

 

I love that quote, but it isn't the one I am thinking of.

 

I love that quote, but it isn't the one I am thinking of.

 

My response to that quote. If we believe this to be true, then wouldn't the same rationale apply to God himself? If so, where does the chain begin?

My response to that quote. If we believe this to be true, then wouldn't the same rationale apply to God himself? If so, where does the chain begin?

 

Good question.

 

I would say that at some point there has to be an uncaused cause. Someone or something that has always been & is the starting point for everything else. From my viewpoint, it makes more sense that this uncaused cause is an intelligent being.

 

Good question.

 

I would say that at some point there has to be an uncaused cause. Someone or something that has always been & is the starting point for everything else. From my viewpoint, it makes more sense that this uncaused cause is an intelligent being.

 

So why apply that set of logic to a higher being, but not us? Isn't defying that particular logic applicable in either situation?

So why apply that set of logic to a higher being, but not us? Isn't defying that particular logic applicable in either situation?

 

There are parts of logic that apply to higher beings but not humans:

 

Humans have a beginning and end, a birth and death. God doesn't. I believe in the "prime mover" principle established by St. Thomas Aquinas that says, basically, for there had to be something there to create everything. For the big bang theory to work, there had to be something there to create the existence of the hot, dense universe that rapidly expanded, cooled, and caused the sub-atomic particles to create atoms, etc. etc. etc. There had to be something that caused that universe to exist, and that something is God, who has always existed.

 

I haven't always existed. No human has always existed. To believe that is not logical. God, however, always has existed.

 

There are parts of logic that apply to higher beings but not humans:

 

Humans have a beginning and end, a birth and death. God doesn't. I believe in the "prime mover" principle established by St. Thomas Aquinas that says, basically, for there had to be something there to create everything. For the big bang theory to work, there had to be something there to create the existence of the hot, dense universe that rapidly expanded, cooled, and caused the sub-atomic particles to create atoms, etc. etc. etc. There had to be something that caused that universe to exist, and that something is God, who has always existed.

 

I haven't always existed. No human has always existed. To believe that is not logical. God, however, always has existed.

 

But then wouldn't something have needed to be there for God to exist? Or does he just exist?

But then wouldn't something have needed to be there for God to exist? Or does he just exist?

 

This.

 

As God said to Moses, "I Am who Am."

But then wouldn't something have needed to be there for God to exist? Or does he just exist?

 

Your problem is not an unjustifiable one. These are old arguments and the debates over them are a thousand years old.

 

In this case, the end point of the discussion is that we regress further and further back in such a way that this was caused by that which was caused by that until we arrive at "God said "Fiat Lux" and in that way caused all subsequent things, so what caused God?" The answer, according to Christian thought, must then be that God's existence was not caused but that God is, in fact, existence a se, existence of and from itself, that is to say, God contains within himself the cause of himself.

 

In my opinion, these are excellent ways in which we can talk about the properties of God, but taken on their own, I don't find them particularly useful as proofs. Philosophy is a profoundly useful exercise of human reason, but Christianity's own teachings suggest that God is beyond such reasoning. I don't find these philosophical proofs of existence particularly compelling as they attempt to place the exercise of human reason on a level with theological understanding. To put it simply, I don't think you use proofs to demonstrate that which is inherently a matter of faith.

So why apply that set of logic to a higher being, but not us?

 

Because He is just that: a higher being.

In the ens faith is believing without proof of logic.

In the ens faith is believing without proof of logic.

 

I agree, but faith also does not require that logic be completely abandoned. It requires, in the words of Scripture, that we be "sure of what we hope for & certain of what we do not see."