Six Reasons to Believe in God
Marilyn Adamson writes:
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if He is there, He says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know Him?
Notice that Adamson assumes two things: the credibility of the Bible and the gender of God ("Him"). Neither assumption is valid in a discussion about whether any gods exist in the first place. If a person doesn't accept the premise that some sort of god exists, it isn't reasonable to cite the Bible as an authority on the matter and it isn't reasonable to ascribe qualities to this alleged god.
1. Does God exist? Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God. Billions of people, who represent diverse sociological, intellectual, emotional, educational makeups...believe that there is a Creator, a God to be worshipped. Now, the fact that so many people believe something certainly doesn't make it true. But when so many people through the ages are so personally convinced that God exists, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?
First, Adamson is probably wrong in the assertion that all cultures "have been convinced there is a God," and for two reasons. The first reason is the existence of certain Pygmy tribes in Africa with no identifiable gods or spirits in their belief systems. The second is the fact that Adamson says "a God," which implies a particular deity with particular attributes. In this case, we can safely say that Adamson is probably referring to the traditional God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is absolutely untrue that all or even most cultures have believed in anything like this god — religious and theistic beliefs have been far more varied than this.
The second thing to keep in mind that a belief is not made more likely true simply because it is common. This is a fallacy that Adamson is using alongside the fallacious appeal to tradition. Adamson employs quite a few fallacies throughout her arguments and it is important to keep in mind that she couldn't even get through the first argument without stumbling over two of them. The short response: the fact that a belief is common or traditional has no relevancy when considering whether or not the belief is reasonable. Anyone who suggests otherwise either doesn't know what they are talking about or does, but can't be entirely trusted.
2. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
I'd addressed teleological and design arguments at some length elsewhere and I won't repeat everything here. All that is important to say in response to this is that Adamson not only doesn't offer anything new or interesting but she does, in fact, offer a form of this argument with examples that have been rebutted in many, many places. If she isn't aware of all this, she hasn't done her homework. If she is aware but chose to offer such a superficial argument anyway, then she doesn't have much respect for her readers.
3. Does God exist? Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation of creation.
What are Adamson's standards for "adequate"? She doesn't deign to inform us, so it is impossible to determine whether her conclusion is valid or not. As it stands, all we have is an assertion devoid of substance or support. I might as well say "Does God exist? Marilyn Adamson's god is not an adequate explanation of the universe" and be done with it.
Notice also that she manages to slip in the word "creation" instead of "universe" — if this is a "creation" then there must be a "creator," but whether a creator exists or not is the point of her argument. Once again we catch her fallaciously Begging the Question.
4. Does God exist? Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
Here we have the Argument from Morals and Values, also addressed at length elsewhere. I won't repeat what I have already written but I will point out that it simply isn't enough for someone like Adamson to assert that our sense of right and wrong cannot have a biological explanation. She may not be able to figure out one that satisfies her, but that's a long way from insisting that a biological explanation is impossible. There is a great deal of literature out there on the evolutionary development of things like ethics and altruism. If Adamson really cared about the subject, she'd read up on it.
5. Does God exist? God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.
Here we find the Argument from Scriptures: My religious scriptures are True, therefore my God exists. The fact that just about every religion can make the same argument with the same validity (which is very little) doesn't bother people like Adamson. Simply asserting that the Bible is true and consistent just isn't good enough. It's a rhetorical device used by weak apologists who count on an audience that doesn't ask too many difficult questions.
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.
Unless we assume not merely that some god exists, but in fact that a very specific God exists, how on earth will we be able to determine that a particular set of writings qualifies not only as a divine "revelation," but is in fact the "clearest, most specific picture of God"? Answer: we can't. Absent a specific conception of God (not "a god," but God), there is nothing to compare the descriptions in the Bible to such that we could conclude that those descriptions are or are not clear.
Thus, Adamson's final "reason to believe that God exists" assumes the truth of exactly what she is trying to demonstrate. Begging the Question appears to be Adamson's favorite fallacy because she uses it so often. I have to wonder if she has the slightest idea how a logical argument is supposed to be formulated. Is she the least bit familiar with logical fallacies? Does she have any idea what some common errors in reasoning are?
I sincerely doubt that. Marilyn Adamson doesn't offer any reasons to believe in her god, but she does offer reasons to doubt the validity of any religion that would produce such atrocious apologetics. She cites Josh McDowell more than once and since McDowell is probably the leader of Bad Apologetics, it's not surprising that something derivative of his work would be equally poor in quality.
Read More:
Comments
You just proved her point. Man never walked on the moon because you don’t want to believe it, but God bless you.
“McDowell is probably the leader of Bad Apologetics.” Yours is argument by insult. Not smart.
“If she isn’t aware of all this, she hasn’t done her homework.” Yours is argument by insinuation. As if we can believe you.
“There is a great deal of literature out there on the evolutionary development of things like ethics and altruism. If Adamson really cared about the subject, she’d read up on it.” Yours is argument by presumption. Wonder if you know about the tons of criticisms on evolution that you choose to ignore. Whos calling the kettle black?
I’m not making an argument here; I’m simply pointing out that the “authority” cited by Adamson is actually a very poor source of information.
It’s not “insinuation,” it’s a fact that Adamson presents very superficial and easily-rebutted forms of the argument in question. If she had done her homework, she’d have presented something more sophisticated and stronger.
It’s not presumption to say that a person should read up on a subject before making claims about it.
I’ve read quite a lot of religious criticism of evolutionary science. I’ve even read religious criticism which people try to dress up in scientific language.
No one. I am, however, someone who says that Marilyn Adamson is a very poor apologist whose work isn’t based on facts, research, or sound reasoning. It’s worth noting that all you do is pick out a couple of random quotes to make vague, unsubstantiated accusations about while not once offering any substantive objections to any of the counter-arguments I offered. Do you have anything substantive to offer? Can you actually rebut any of my counter-arguments, or do you agree that they stand as valid?
Austin,
You’ve gone to great lengths to explain the differences/commonalities between atheism and agnosticism. Especially that atheism is NOT necessarily the denial of any gods, but “the absence of belief”. I’ve found it very enlightening and straightforward. It appears to be a distinction without a difference, but I will keep reading more later. You may still win me over.
However, assuming that your reasoning is sound, what do you call one who does specifically deny the existence of any God or gods?
Thanks for clarifying this.
Why?
Curious that you say I’ve gone to “great lengths” to explain what atheism and agnosticism are, suggesting that you’ve read a lot of the relevant material, but never came across the explanation of strong vs weak atheism. What, exactly, have you been reading here?
O.K.
Hate to break it to ya but your article does seem like it is insulting her and NOT arguing against her. Yeah, I know you’d probably say “you’re too young to understand this stuff kiddo” but there are debates in my school that go on for only a little while yet the christian always wins. Most atheists come from broken down homes that some thing happened in their life that caused them to doubt God no matter what cost. You might probably be thinking or saying that it never happened to you ( cant tell for sure). But man, things do not happen by chance. Every thing happens for a reason. If God never really existed then explain to me how the UNIVERSE was created. Explain to me how we say the Earth is billions of years old yet when we went to the moon we only found “a thousand years worth of spacedust”. Explain to me how matter could be created just spontaneously. How the Earth was formed just by chance. How “billion” year old fossils could be so complicated yet they just happened to ‘evolve’ and form.
(Listen buddy, you have alot of questions tonight, so guess what that means? You have homework!)
*Quick note* I’ll be praying for you tonight and lets see if you see the light;)
Then you should be able to explain how, with examples.
Somehow, I question your ability to judge.
Really? Please provide evidence supporting this.
Really? Prove it.
I see no evidence that it was created.
Easy: we didn’t find that. Someone has been lying to you.
I see no evidence that matter was ever “created”.
It wasn’t formed by “chance.” It was gravitation and other natural forces.
They didn’t “just happen” to evolve; they evolved in line with natural forces.
You also made a lot of assertions which you are obligated to support.
Your time would be better spend thinking rather than praying. If you are comfortable proclaiming that I need someone to pray for me, would you mind being told that you need someone to think for you?
“Be Specific” and “So What” is the first answer to all relifious right-wing propaganda.
First of all to generalize the entire atheist population, to say,” Most atheist come from broken down homes” is an ignorant assumption. I do not come from a broken down home. I didn’t turn away from god, because you cant turn away from something that doesn’t exist. Everything does not happen for a reason. It is just coincidence. And for the only alternative conclusion that humans are here and people die, and the earth revolves around the sun, and etc.. is not because of god. That is an ignorant answer. Just because people are atheists, doesn’t mean that they are satanic, or that something happened in there to turn them away from god, or that they didn’t grow up in a Christian home. Its that they believe in scientific evidence, evolution, and natural selection. I’m sorry, but Jesus was probably a schizophrenic, and heard voices and came to the conclusion that god was talking to him. And the people were too gullible and vulnerable, and believed him. I just refuse to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa clause. That is what god is to me. Some imaginary fairy tale.
I know it must be hard for you to understand. You react with anger, because the existence of people who don’t believe in any god is threatening to you. It shouldn’t be…but it is. If we didn’t believe it gravity, you wouldn’t feel threatened, because you have no doubts about gravity. But, deep down, you do have doubts about God and goodness and the meaning of life and immortality…so you feel threatened and feel a need to somehow disparage us.
I’d be very interested to see the evidence for your assertion that most of us come from broken homes. Some do, some don’t…just as is true for Christians and other theists. I don’t that there is a correlation…I haven’t heard of any such study.
I don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah…none of them. I’m a moral person, with a strong sense of family. I don’t care what you believe. If hugging a blankie or contemplating a myth helps you get through a long, lonely night, that is fine with me. All that you believe in is a creation of other people. I choose to look at life myself and decide what is valid for myself. I wish you’d respect my views as much as you demand such respect for yourself.
I came from a happy, Catholic background. I lost my faith by reading my way out of it. That includes reading the Bible intelligently, rather than devotionally, from cover to cover. If more Christians had the guts to do that, there would be fewer of them. They rely on others to regurgitate and interpret the theologically “safe” parts of the Bible. I do my own thinking now and it feels great! I highly recommend it. Leaving religion behind has been the most liberating experience of my life.
James T. Farrell wrote a novel entitled “A World I Never Made”. It details his intellectual awakening the led him to abandon Catholicism and leave the intellectually sterile University of Chicago.
“Most atheists come from broken down homes that some thing happened in their life that caused them to doubt God…”
The comment by Young Reader, who stated that “most (?) atheists come from broken homes” was clearly indicative of his complete ignorance about atheism and that he is, indeed, a “young” reader, still wet behind the ears, because anyone with even a modicum of intelligence would never make such fatuous remarks.
I, too, come from a Christian family, never well off, but never wanting. My parents, well-meaning, believed simply because they had been programmed to believe. In earlier times, one believed or else…
Yes, something DID happen in my life. I came to my senses.
I stopped believing when I began to think for myself. Instead of just accepting what I was told by others, I decided to investigate the reason and logic behind religion — ALL religions — and began by reading the Bible from cover to cover. Read it for yourself, YR, and I hope the blood and gore in the OT sanctioned by your god and the death threats in the NT don’t upset you.
My studies and research covered many peripheral subjects such as gods, mind control, thought processes, mythology, superstition, the level (if there be one) of education in olden times, and the like.
My decision not to believe was not a cavalier one reached overnight. I gave both sides my best shot, laced with a great deal of common sense.
I do not particularly like the term “atheist” (without God) because to some it could imply that a god exists but that I have chosen not to accept it.
A more accurate term would be rationalist or freethinker.
Of the main religions, Islam basically derives from both Judaism and Christianity, Christianity derives from Judaism, and Judaism is based on Hinduism, and Hinduism, which involves thousands of gods, is pure mythology, fairy tales and superstition.
As a matter of fact, ALL religions are mere cults, with perhaps the exception of Islam, a death cult, and all are mere instruments of CONTROL.
By allowing religion, the curse of mankind, to regulate and control your life, you, YR, have become a willing puppet, acting according to which of your strings are pulled, all because of an impossible promise made to you — the promise of an afterlife.
Instead of chasing dreams, I urge you to think more about your fellow man, to do what you can to relieve the oppressed and help the poor and deprived, because you only have this one chance in life, and it can be cut short in the twinkling of an eye.
Religion requires faith. Faith, according to my dictionary, is: “Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”
Atheists tend to be represented by the most educated and intelligent percentage of the population and have always been so throughout the course of recorded human history.
Hey nickofsarnia… are you actually from Sarnia Ontario?… I grew up there… most of my family are still there…
… I too eventually came to my senses after learning as much as I could about the origins & canonization of the bible…
… I sure wish I’d found some of these web sites earlier in life… but, it did make me do my own studies… I spent way too much time believing all the bunk…
… atheism is freeing… happier than I can remember…
… too bad all my family (including inlaws) are still deeply into christianity… I really feel sorry for them…
Can someone tell me what is the reason behind existence? who has decided for nature of things(anything one can imagine) to get formed?
Note: I will not agree with answers like; is there a need to know the reason?
What do you mean by “reason behind existence”?
What I mean is, simply why is the life exist? what is the reason of being to be exist? who or what and how decided or calculated for existence to appear? if you say “Big bang” was/is the reason, then what is the reason for “Big Bang”?
What makes you think that any “calculating” went on?
According to the best research and math thus far, I believe the answer to that may be a random vacuum fluctuation.
Idea of “Calculating went on” is arising in mind when I look deep in nature of beings (anything you can imagine)that everything is formed as error free as its complexity.
About getting an answer to the question of what is the reason for “Big Bang” or for existence to appear; you say that ‘”I believe” the answer to that may be a random vacuum fluctuation’.
Now, the conclusion,
1. There is no exact answer for the quesion (because you used “maybe”)
2. At the end of everything we reached to a point where concept of believing started to work (You said “I beleive”)
3. Believing is end point for ability of understanding in human-beings during its existence.
And last question for you.
you have said that ‘”I believe” the answer to that may be a random vacuum fluctuation’; my question is; what is the difference between your answer and someone else who says to you that he/she knows the reason behind existence, and s/he describes it in one word “God”? (only for sake of giving the answer not explaining the meaning of it)
Feel free to support that assertion.
No, I used “may be,” a different English construction. It means I don’t keep up on the latest research and so must simply tell you what I think it is.
See above.
I can’t understand this sentence.
Assuming I have described the research correctly: one is based on rigorous science and math where as the other is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Feel free to support that assertion.
If one didn’t understand or s/he is not able to understand or didn’t wanted to understand doesn’t make it assertion.
No, I used “may be,” a different English construction. It means I don’t keep up on the latest research and so must simply tell you what I think it is.
Whatever construction you used is not bringing any changes in the fact that there is no exact answer for the question. (In this case you have no exact answer)
2. At the end of everything we reached to a point where concept of believing started to work (You said “I believe”)
See above.
See above makes no sense for the fact that I mentioned. You used “I believe” which simply means that you don’t know it. And it shows that you are also a believer.
I can’t understand this sentence or (which in first reaction of you was stated as “You need to work on your English”)
Thanks for your feedback. Here is a different version of the sentence.
Concept of “believing” or “to believe” is the last solution that human beings mind can produce for certain issues in order to bring justification for its ability of understanding. (That is why you have started your sentence with “I believe…”).
Note: Focus of our discussion is to find the best answer out for the question; not to discuss whether the used English needs improvement or the mind requires ability of modification.
Assuming I have described the research correctly: one is based on rigorous science and math where as the other is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.
It doesn’t matter whatever the answers are based on, for time being, the following points stay solid as consequence of our discussion.
1. The fact that both parties have no exact answer for the question remains the same.
2. Answers of both parties are based on concept of “belief” or “believing”.
3. One answer brings an individual or seeker to no where, and is against nature of human-being. (has no hope, no love, no value for human-being existence)
4. While the other answer brings seeker or individual to place where his/her nature is formed from. (has hope, has value for existence of beings, and is based on love)
And as last point I want say what the answer for the question is;
The answer is God. God is the reason behind the existence or appearance of the life plus the life or existence itself. This includes anything one can imagine including oneself. Thus, denial of God is only possible if one can deny oneself. Since there is no way out for one to deny his or her existence therefore it is not possible to deny God.
I’m sorry, I can’t understand this sentence. Once again, please support your earlier claim.
That’s not a “fact,” it’s a mistaken implication you made based on your poor understanding of English.
I am indeed uncertain at the precise conclusions of science right now. If you are interested to know what they are, you can do some research of find out. Not knowing for certain what the precise conclusions of science are right now does not make me a “believer.”
In this case, “I believe” means “I am under the impression that” or “it is my understanding that.” It is not a statement of faith, but a report about what one thinks to be the case.
I can’t make sense of this, either.
If you can’t make yourself understood in English, it isn’t possible to offer any answers to your questions.
It does if you actually care what the difference between the two is.
You don’t know that, you simply assume it based on your poor English skills.
Once again, that conclusion is based on your poor English.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
I have said when you look deep into nature of beings. You see two things; the nature of “thing(s)” is designed error-free and complex. For instance your mind, it is designed as much error-free as its complexity. (I only mean it is designed, not that it is functioning like that)
You better train your mind for better understanding. That’s a fact that you don’t know the answer. And it is simple enough to understand that you can not prove it, that’s the reason you used that construction for your sentence.
It is very obvious that level of understanding in your mind is very much limited, especially when you try to understand complex issues such as “reasoning about life”. Let me simplify it, when the “mind” has no answer for certain questions, it produces a defensive statement with a start of “I believe”. It is a “built-in” functionality of mind.
It is has nothing to do with the English. I urge you to answer these questions only with yes or no.
Do you have an exact answer and can you also prove it?
(The question is; what the exact reason behind appearance of the life or the existence is?)
Note1: Exact answer means based on logic and provable in the current time
Note2: Answers like, “some people are working on it, they didn’t find it yet, so when it is found I would tell you” or “I believe it is like this or like that” are not accepted.
I see no hope, no love and no value for my existence, if someone says that the life or existence is appeared due to conditions that “Big Bang” was formed, then it was happened and consequently the life was appeared. I would just doubt and forgive that person for his disability of understanding. More ridiculously, this statement is even not fully covering the entire question. Because occurrence of “Big Bang” is requiring some pre-existed circumstances which simply mean that “existence” was there already even if you think that the life is appeared due to occurrence of “Big Bang”. It is just an empty and ridiculous answer. Thus it brings me to no where.
My nature requires, hope, love and self-value. Since that answer brings me to an empty point which doesn’t fulfill the requirements of my nature; therefore I say it is against my nature.
As I said, my nature requires hope, love and self-value. God answer is based on love, or God self is love. This answer gives me hope, gives me value, makes able to love and care for all “beings” regardless of “beings” reaction to me. It makes me able to own the entire life or the existence.
Concept of this answer is exactly matching my nature, and resolves all the questions that I have had about my existence. That’s the proof for me. A drop of water can become the ocean only if it is dropped into the ocean not into any other place.
As I have said before, God is the existence and the reason for it. It means that you are part of the existence. Since you can not say that you didn’t exist anymore, you can neither prove that God doesn’t exist. You exist and so does the existence and it is logic enough to say that God does exist because God is the existence and the reason for it.
Last conclusion,
You had and have no influence for your existence in this life. And no one will have that luxury but can contribute to existence or can be destructive for his/her existence.
You will stay in the existence in one or another form for ever but you have no influence to change this.
You have no where to escape from the reality which the reality itself is God. Everywhere is filled with existence of God up, including you. You can do nothing about it. For you it would be the best solution if you start to realize and begin to practicing.
Now at the end of everything still if you ask for prove. I would say to you, that it is impossible to describe taste of “apple” for someone who has never eaten and refuses eating the apple unless one accepts and starts eating the apple.
Note: if you still have more questions about the matter, I would urge you to start walking the same line with me. That’s the requirement for the next session. No reaction shall you get from me unless you are willing to walk together.
Over all it was a nice conversation. Thanks for your time
I understood this assertion. I have asked you to support it.
It’s a fact that I’m unsure if my information is up-to-date or not. Others know the answer, but you assume that no one does.
I have done no such thing, thus demonstrating that you claims about the nature of the mind are false.
So, your position is that if you cannot imagine it, then it cannot exist?
Prove it.
So, if you think that “god” answers your question, then it’s the only answer? Are you infallible?
Prove it.
Prove it.
What line is this?
Well, if you can set a “requirement” then I can as well. My requirement is this: when you make assertions, you must support them with sound, valid arguments and evidence. Offering more assertions that are as questionable as the ones in question will not suffice, as that would simply be the fallacy of Begging the Question.
Well, I must confess to having an entirely different impression here. You have made numerous assertions, many of which are incomprehensible and none of which have been supported. You have not offered a single piece of evidence or a single argument to support or justify any of your claims. It’s not a nice conversation when a person just offers one assertion after another, never demonstrating any comprehension of what it means to support one’s claims. I assume that this is not the impression you wished to create, but it’s precisely what happened.
Lol, that yakki guy really made my lunch hour. Is there some sort of garble machine I am unaware of?
Once again ‘The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits’
Let’s take your question seriously. You ask about reasons behind existence. Well, what IS behind or prior to existence? Whatever you care to name, such as God, would have to exist, or it could not be a reason behind existence. But, if whatever you name does exist, then…strangely…it is IN existence, not prior to existence. So, how could there be anything behind or prior to existence? Now, there are those who argue that non-existence is primary or prior to existence. But, for everything to not exist gives us a condition in which there is nothing…and nothing cannot cause anything. So, if there ever were a time when non-existence was all there was, well, then there would have been not any thing at all to bring existence into existence. This is not verbal trickery. It is asking what could be the cause of existence, yet not exist.
All right. So, where are we? If non-existence is not what we have and could not be before existence, then what we have is only existence. No matter what you examine or when, you find existence.
So, existence does NOT have anything behind it and, in the nature of things, cannot have anything behind it. There is a strange and utterly basic fact about existnece. It is. Or, to put that in an axiom which you can use to build on, Existence exists. Wanna examine that starting point for a scientific philosophy some more? Get the book by Leonard Peikoff called Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. She was the champion of existence and the human faculty which is capable of grasping what it is, reason. Good premises to you as you explore.
No reaction shall you get from me unless you are willing to walk together. Comment by yakki — March 28, 2008 @ 9:30 am
Yakki… or Yoda?
How come it’s always the guys who can’t master standard English who are sure they have unlocked the deepest mysteries of the universe?
Sure — I could throw a dart at the purpose for existence. While I exist, that is to say last time I checked I was still here. I can not tell you if I was another’s dream, a product of some other dimension, or if my existence is simply a delusion, but assuming all these to be nothing, I must be. But my existence is not the question. The question is “What is the purpose for my being?”
Hmmmmmmmmm! To begin to answer that question, suppose we ask an obvious question, what is purpose? That seems like a brain dead question until you attempt to try answer it. Does a bird fly because that is its purpose — or does a bird fly because it can?
Austin
The evidence for this statement is very simple, “you” are the prove itself, or existence of “you” is the best prove. Think or doubt or question yourself like,
1.Who has decided for “me” to be “me”?
2.Did I have any chance to ask for my existence?
3.Did I deserve to exist?
4.Did I have the right to exist?
The answer is that no one had any right to exist, and neither anyone deserves for her/his existence yet everyone does exist. In another word, whatever “one” has is all extra, including his/her existence. Since only nature of “Love” is creative, constructive and generous, then I can easily say that God is “Love”.
So, if you think that “god” answers your question, then it’s the only answer?
Since the existence is one and it has one reason, I can simply say that God is the only answer.
The line is “Owning the life” and “being constructive to all beings”.
George,
As you said it yourself, “genius has its limits”, reasoning about the life requires abilities beyond being genius, if you feel like a “genius???!!??” with limited understanding, feel free to enjoy being alive. Nature is designed in such a way that no matter what, any being is able to enjoy it.
Zack;
Do you think mastering Standard English is the measurement for one’s knowledge about the life? For me the language is just a tool, I use it as much I need. It can never be the purpose. “Gold is always gold no matter in which form you get it. it is important to know what Gold is not the form which it has been rendered”. In order to know the life you don’t need to master any language.
DL Johnson
To get the right answer first of all, you need to know who has decided for you to be you or you become you. Secondly you need to get to know that “one (reason)”, only then you will know what is/was the purpose for your being.
But if you ask me what the purpose is? I would dare to say, everything has direct connection to “you” (interdependency of everything), set the purpose yourself, either be constructive or destructive. In any case, you are the first and the last beneficiary of your actions.
I would like you to ask the question like this. Does a bird know that it can fly? Or does it fly because it can?
If the “bird” knows and is aware of its abilities, for sure it can set the purpose for its fly. And duly flying becomes its purpose.
Wish you all what you wish for yourself to be constructive for the life.
Show how.
Prove that exisence has “one reason.:
Prove that you can say “God is the only answer” and not “elves are the only answer” or “Doctor Who is the only answer.”
No, but it does define one’s ability to make oneself understood in English — and much of the time, you can’t.
Do you think mastering Standard English is the measurement for one’s knowledge about the life? Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
There is a becoming humility in mastering the small things before setting out to lecture others about the big things. This has been expressed elsewhere as, “Remove the beam from your own eye, and then you may see clearly to remove the mote from your neighbor’s eye.”
For me the language is just a tool, I use it as much I need. — Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Time to sharpen the saw, yakki.
It can never be the purpose. — Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Do you know this to be true, or is this just an assumption of yours? Clear expression is not my foremost principle in life, but I can imagine that it may have been for, say, Earnest Hemmingway.
“Gold is always gold no matter in which form you get it. it is important to know what Gold is not the form which it has been rendered”. Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
The Bible reports quite a dustup over some gold shaped like a calf. Apparently some people think that its form is important. We can probably include the folks down at the mint in this group as well.
In order to know the life you don’t need to master any language. Comment by yakki — April 5, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Maybe not, but why not try it for yourself before making up your mind?
One of the most interesting things to note about this article is that since it was published in November 2004, the original site’s “6 reasons to believe in God” have changed fundamentally. It’s funny how these immutable, incontestable reasons mutate over time, as if the author (Marilyn Adamson) were just trying to wriggle around the objections that such logic-free, faith-based pseudo-reasoning inevitably attracts and deserves. Let’s check back in another couple of years and see if Marilyn still believes in her current reasons to believe.
1 reason would have been sufficient… I found no reason whatsoever in the Marilyn Adamson or Yakki drivel… just unsupported assertions…
Austin, I think you are guilty of trying to look much too deeply into Adamson’s very shallow writings. That she is not skilled in the art of philosophy is the least of her problems.
Clearly, she cannot (or will not) distinguish the difference between fact and belief, as is the wont of the apologist.
For starters, she wrote “If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away.” I would submit that the coverse actually true: If a person opposes even the possbility of there NOT being a God, then any LACK of evidence (unaltered photographs, recorded interviews, etc.) can be rationalized.
Her contention that “The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today” is an incredible assumption. The only thing the complexity of our planet points to is, well, a complex planet. How it got that way is best left for scientific study, not theistic belief.
Likewise, her assertion that “The human brain’s complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.” No, the human brain’s complexity shows a complex human brain. She’s free to believe if she chooses that there is indeed a God who is (among other things I’m sure) the God of Neurology. But it’s just that: A belief.
She even argued against herself when she wrote “To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true.” Nuff said!
She further assumes “We know God exists because he pursues us.” I can’t speak for the rest of humanity but in all my 49 years, I have yet to be pursued by God. On the other hand, I have been pursued by many people of many different faiths who would like me to believe as they do.
She asks: “What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don’t believe even exists?!” Again, while I can’t speak for other atheists, I can tell her that my motivation in responding to Web sites like hers stems from a passionate respect for the truth. As the humanist and moralist Andre Gide said, “Believe in those who are seeking the truth and doubt those who find it.” In the absence of a few clear and unaltered photographs and perhaps recorded interviews of the Almighty Itself, I will continue doubting her.
As for her of God of choice, Jesus Christ, as the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us,” I would suggest that this is merely another instance where Man created God to explain the unknown and then created religion to define and further explain God.
It’s a one-two punch from which civilization is still trying to recover. Maybe it never will.
At any rate, her six reasons to believe God fall about six short of a half-dozen.