The Bible as the Word of God
What would a logical person accept as proof of God? Would he require God Almighty to appear before him in order to acknowledge His existence? Would he apply this same criteria to everything else in life?
For example, would he not believe in the President of the United States unless he saw him in the flesh? He might counter that he has seen his photograph, but this does not meet the original criteria. Such photos are evidence based upon other evidence. That is, confidence in the news media and photography.
And what of George Washington of whom we have no original photographs? To believe in him requires that we depend on other evidence, primarily written documents by other men.
In all practicality and fairness then, let us apply the same criteria to the proofs of God that we would to anything else in life...namely evidence that demands our belief and places upon us a responsibility.
CREATION VS EVOLUTION
Either man was created by GOD with a purpose and a destiny, as the Bible declares, or he is a multifaceted complex organism accidentally and with no reason or purpose formed from non-living nothing.
If the latter is true, our innermost being is revolted at the loss. In addition, self gratification is the only value to physical life so "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!" On the other hand, if creation is our origin, how our being rejoices with hope and life takes on real meaning beyond the animal senses. We now have a purpose for living that gives our very existence real value. Let's examine the FACTS...
ENTROPY1(second law of thermodynamics) Everything in the universe is in a state of progressive decay or disorder … slowing down and burning out. If evolution were ...
... middle of paper ...
...tion," Christian Victory Publishing, Denver, CO, 1968
3. Duane Gish, Ph.D, "The Bombardier Beetle" (Article), CRI, El Cajon, CA
4. Henry Morris, Ph.D, "Scientific Creationism", Master Books, El Cajon, CA 1987, p. 82
5. John R. Hand, "Why I Accept the Genesis Record," Back to the Bible Broadcast, Lincoln, Nebr.,1959, p. 47
6. Ibid, p. 49.
7. See Duane T. Gish, Ph.D., "Evolution, the Fossils Say No," Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, CA, 1973, p.49
8.See Henry Morris, Ph.D, "Scientific Creationism," Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1987, pp. 78-90
9. Ibid, p. 81
10. Michael Denton, PhD., "Evolution: A theory in Crises," Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD. 1985, p.323
11. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space," J.M. Dent & Sons, London, p.24
12. Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Superunification and the Planck era," Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 97, 1996
Clifford’s claims. Clifford believes that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence, including belief in God (Feinberg 139). Clark’s issue with this statement, is that Clifford emphasises that adequate evidence is necessary for all beliefs and in every circumstance (Feinberg 139). Personally, I do not think it is necessary to hold every belief to the same standard of evidence because of the existence of faith and the fact that not everything has to be seen to exist. In John 20:29 it says, “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (NIV Bible). In this passage, Jesus is saying that believing without the visual evidence is particularly harder than having the evidence, but more importantly, it is possible and blessed. Additionally, in 2 Corinthians 5:7 it reads, “For we live by faith, not by sight” (NIV Bible). It is important to notice that in this verse it does not say that we only live by faith and not by sight when it comes to belief in God, but instead we can in every area of life. One reason why we live by faith and not by sight or complete evidence is because it is more practical because as humans we have limited knowledge about the vastness of the universe and every individual thing. Furthermore, in conjunction with Clark’s example against Clifford, it would not
Zhao, Buyun. "Charles Darwin & Evolution." Charles Darwin & Evolution. Christ's College, 2009. Web. 04 May 2014.
The. The “Challenging Darwin”. Bioscience. 2(2005). The 'Secondary' of the 'S 101, eLibrary.
Bowler, Peter J. Evolution: The History of an Idea. London: University of California Press, 1989.
Just because there is not evidence does not mean that is evidence he does not exist. I do not believe that people believe in god, just because they do believe that god exist, but because it gives them something that others cannot. It brings people together and gives people hope in the worst of times, and it can fill voids in peoples lives that are rather impossible to fill. It also gives them a reason to live, and live moral ones at that. However, this is also a problem in the discussion of th...
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t
...bras, can deduce that he is not seeing disguised donkeys, and still fail to know that he is “is not seeing donkeys disguised to look like zebras.” Dretske’s anti-skeptical strategy is open to challenge, however. Consider a man believes that his friend, James, is the President of the United States of America at 9:00am on Friday. He holds evidence, such as the fact that he witnessed James’ inauguration ceremony, has spent time with James in the oval office, and sees vast media coverage on James’ presidency. As it turns out, James dies from a heart attack at 9:05am on Friday. It is questionable whether or not this man knows that James was president at 9:00am, 5 minutes before his death. This man would have the same reasons at 9:00am, 8:55am, and 9:05am to believe that James is president. This means that this man does not actually know that James is president at 9:00am.
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
It was during his journey on board the Beagle that Darwin developed his theory of evolution. “On the Origin of Species” (Darwin, 1859) proposed two main principles: evolution really occurs and natural selection is its mechanism. This work published on 24th November 1859 traces a coherent portrait of life bringing together in an orderly manner an astonishing variety of apparently independent facts. It led biologists to concentrate on the diversity of organisms, their origins and their relation, their similarities and their differences, their geographical distribution and their adaptation to various environments.
Instinctually, humans know that there is a greater power in the universe. However, there are a few who doubt such instinct, citing that logically we cannot prove such an existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote of five proofs for the existence of God. The Summa Theologica deals with pure concepts; these proofs rely on the world of experience - what one can see around themselves. In these proofs, God will logically be proven to exist through reason, despite the refutes against them.
Darwin, Charles. From The Origin of Species. New York: P.F. Collier and Son Corporation, 1937. 71-86; 497-506.
...ilosophers, and theologists alike, agree with Lonergan's theory: there is an infinite number of answers to life's ultimate questions, whether those answers are found through faith, or a belief that one has to find meaning in one’s life, or a belief that life has no meaning, and everyone is just existing; waiting to die. All that can be concluded is that one should just live, be here in the present, one should not spend a lifetime searching for meaning, because if one lives each day with meaning, meaning will come. "People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances with our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive." (Nin).
Many times we have been in a dilemma whether to believe or not someone who tries to persuade us for something and very often by listening his arguments and by having enough evidence we finally manage to get out of the dilemma. Nevertheless sometimes we cannot be sure about an event because although there is enough evidence, our minds cannot be persuaded. An example to justify that is the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as it is widely known “Nessie”.
Proving the existence of God is a worthwhile task. If someone did come up with a complete, foolproof argument for the existence of God, the people of the world would have no choice but to believe in His existence. However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy effort, I believe that such a task is not possible through logic and reasoning alone. There is an element of faith that must be present for people to believe, and if that element is not there, no matter how foolproof an argument seems to be, there will always be those who do not believe. In his fifth argument, St. Thomas Aquinas makes as close to foolproof argument that I believe anyone could make, and, for me, it does prove God's existence. However, if that element of faith is not there, I do not think you can completely prove God's existence to everyone.