Logic speaks of God.

i love when christians (or anybody of ANY belief) know what they believe, and can argue knowledgeably and ably for it. I can't wait to see the comments you get! ^_^

I have nothing intelligent to say, yet. I just want to subscribe to this post and I know of no other to do it than to comment on it.

Since it was obvious that this universe with all its energy, matter, and order was created, it must have been done through a super-natural process.

Just because we don't currently have the means to understand how things came to be as they are, it does not mean that a creator of any type exists.

Why do I say this? Because people said the same thing about absolutely everything about the world around us that we couldn't understand at one point or another.

Darwins Beagle has a number of posts regarding theology and science, one in particular goes into quite a bit of detail about the theories of how the universe began, I highly recommend reading them.

That's better than other "holy books" where either it was written by only one person (Islam)

First of all, the Abrahamic religions are "revelation" religions, all three books claiming to be "God-breathed," or ultimately from God. Therefore, it shouldn't matter who actually put it down on paper.

That being said, what about the other books, that, while overall are written by a number of people, groups of which were or may have been written by one person?

Also, having more than one author is a double-edged sword. While having numerous sources can be a good thing for verification, it can also cause a number of discrepancies. Matthew, Mark, and John, for example, have vastly different accounts of the same thing -- Jesus' life and death. Different accounts of the creation story are also different.

The reality is that, "More than three hundred prophecies from the Old Testament which deal with the first advent of Christ have been listed. Every one of them was completely fulfilled by Jesus Christ."

Tell that to the Jews, who don't believe he fulfilled the prophecies.

-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It's all about faith. If that's how you feel, then great. :)

+mspin

lol. Well done for a response blog.

2) My experience with God.

"Like I stated before, this is not empirical proof, but it is logical to accept the existence of a being because you experience them."
True, but I haven't and I have no reason to believe that you did. I'm not saying you're lying. I am saying that there are other possibilities. I am deeply moved by parts of services in synagogues, but I attest that to the beauty of the language, my friendships, etc. Others attribute it to god.

"That's how I accept that I have parents, siblings, friends, etc. Not because I can scientifically prove it, but because I have no reason to doubt my senses."
lol. But you could scientifically prove it.

I guess my brother could be nothing more than my imagination, but I have no logical reason to believe that.
Indeed. I guess god could exist, but I have no logical reason to believe so.

"No, it really works the other way. I have no logical reason to reject my senses unless I am absolutely convinced there is no God."
I have an experience, where I believe I see a bunch of little green men summon a giant demon. What's more reasonable? To believe it unless it can be proved %100 untrue. Or to be skeptical until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be true.

"As outlined in point one, not only do I not have a reason to reject God, but I have every scientific reason to accept that he exists."
Perhaps, but those are not reasons that you can pass on to others... alas.

"If you are truly open, you will ask God to give you an experience."
Been there....done that...

"-bah!! Pardon the "bah!" I feel several "bahs!", but out of courtesy I only say one."
H.P. Lovecraft

... According to [natural] laws, it is impossible to create more energy, matter or order. The catch is by natural process. Since it was obvious that this universe with all its energy, matter, and order was created, it must have been done through a super-natural process.

Error 1: Let's assume that your characterization of natural law is correct for a moment.. Natural laws are man-made concepts. As such they COULD be wrong. And since it could be wrong we need to ask, "Which is more likely, we are wrong in our construction of these conservation laws, or a whole unseen and unseeable world exists that interacts and ultimately controls what happens here?" We have very good evidence we have been wrong before. We have absolutely no evidence that such a world exists, and indeed our everyday experiences suggest that it doesn't. Therefore, by saying something violates natural law is NOT evidence for the supernatural at all. The only viable evidence for the supernatural is evidence FOR the supernatural, not evidence against the natural. All evidence against the natural implies is that we are wrong in our assessment of the natural.

Error 2: You fail to note natural explanations that do not fall prey to this objection. Dragonwolf already directed you to a blog I did concerning a comparison between naturalistic and supernaturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe. You can read it there, I wont repeat myself here.

Error 3: You actually don't have natural law quite correct. The conservation laws concerning mass and energy can be violated on a quantum scale quite easily. And since according to the Big Bang Theory (BBT), the universe started as something akin to a quantum fluctuation, such a violation is quite permissible at the beginning. Finally the maximum entropy permissible in our universe grows as the universe expands. Therefore, if as the BBT suggest the universe started off in quantum fluctuation from a minuscule area of space and expanded rapidly, it could have started off in a state of maximal entropy and with that expansion have more entropy available to create all the observed order we see in this expanded universe.

Likewise, the lack of a clear scientific explanation for the origin of the universe does not signal that a higher deity exists.

Why? If something cannot be explained through natural means, it must be explained through super-natural means.

Error 4: The reason is because simply because something isn't yet explained is no reason to think that it can't be explained.

Believing that the universe began with no reason requires more faith than believing that God did it.

Error 5: Not at all. There are several potential scenarios in which the universe could have come about by natural means (again I refer you to my previous blog). All of them fit with known scientific facts BETTER than does the "Goddidit" hypothesis. Plus, there s no reason to postulate the existence of an unseen and unseeable realm for which there is no positive evidence. Sorry, but it takes quite a bit more faith to believe Goddidit than to believe that the potentially viable naturalistic explanations are much More credible.

2) My experience with God.

Like I stated before, this is not empirical proof, but it is logical to accept the existence of a being because you experience them.

Error 6: Not when that experience defies explanation. This is tantamount to saying that David Berkowitz (The Son of Sam killer) was being logical when he believed his neighbor's dog was telling him to go out and kill people.

The problems specific to your experience is that (A) you have no tangible evidence that your experience was real and not a figment of your imagination, (B) we know that people are very prone to fooling themselves into believing something they really want to believe, and (C) there are numerous other people who have had experiences in which they claim to experience something non-tangible they interpret as God ... only their experiences are inconsistent. You experienced a Christian God. Muslims experience an Islamic God, Hindus experience Hindu Gods. And the messages these people get often contradict the messages others get.

This alone is more than enough doubt to doubt your subjective experience. You are in dire need of some type of tangible evidence.

That's how I accept that I have parents, siblings, friends, etc. Not because I can scientifically prove it, but because I have no reason to doubt my senses. I guess my brother could be nothing more than my imagination, but I have no logical reason to believe that.

Error 7: Except if the need occurred you COULD scientifically prove their existence. You could show photographs, letters, court records, birth certificates, fingerprints, DNA evidence. None of which you can do for God.

Of course you don't need to do that ... unless you are going to claim that your parents, siblings, friends, etc. exist outside of space and time and have God-like properties.

Unless you can provide actual, objective evidence that would suggest that the "god" you mention really exists, then this argument does not actually support your position.

No, it really works the other way. I have no logical reason to reject my senses unless I am absolutely convinced there is no God. As outlined in point one, not only do I not have a reason to reject God, but I have every scientific reason to accept that he exists.

Error 8: The original poster was correct. You are making a claim that God exists. With respect to our normal experience, that is an extraordinary claim. We do not need God to explain anything that happens on a daily basis. The onus is on YOU to present convincing evidence for his existence.

3) The Bible

Here I simply apply normal textual criticisms to the Bible. The Bible should be evaluated for accuracy in the same way any other book would be, right?

Error 9: Except you don't. There is no other book other than the bible that you give supernatural credence to.

I think its important to establish what these criticism are first.
What they're not is Absolute! Saying "this is a good source" or "This is a bad source" is over-simplifying textual criticism. You can say "source A is better than source B." I'm simply saying that the Bible is better than other Holy Books when you apply these normal standards:

a) The consistency of the piece. This is the internal test.

Error 10: The bible isn't consistent. Arguably the most important message the bible could possibly give us is what is required for us to get to heaven. The bible isn't even consistent on that point

b) The number of contributors. Why do we trust a journal article over a blog entry? Not necessarily because the blogger has less know-how, but because less people contributed to the editing process.

Error 11: The bible is subject to selective bias. The books of the bible were not the only early Christian writings. We know of a lot more. Each of these other books had their own adherents. The biggest reason that orthodox Christianity became orthodox Christianity is because it was the flavor of Christianity that was luck enough to be the dominant version near Constantinople when Constantine decided to declare Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This recognition gave it the ability to suppress the plethora of other Christianities that flourished in the region, some of them quite different from present day orthodoxy. Bart Ehrman has an excellent set of companion books that discuss this.

c) How much the authors know.

I don't find it amazing that so many people contributed and agreed.

Error ... but it isn't yours: You interlocuter here is wrong. While the bible is a collection of books in which a large number of people contributed to (more than you'll admit if I include the unknown scribes who made accidental errors such as including marginalia as text, and intentional errors such as adding pericopes), there are many disagreements between these authors.

That's better than other "holy books" where either it was written by only one person (Islam) or is not a specifically canonized belief (Hinduism). Again, textual criticism is not an absolute test.

Error 12: Canonicity is a rather arbitrary criterion and a rather dubious accusation to make against the Vedas, the Hindu scripture, parts of which were written before any part of the bible was. It too had numerous authors.

I find it suspect that so many bits weren't written until so many years after the event or by people who never even claimed to know Jesus.

Let's look at the Gospels:

- Matthew-one of Jesus' disciples. He was a tax-collector, and he knew what accurate accounting meant.

- Mark-A companion to Peter, it was good to get his opinion that was not biased by direct
experience.

- Luke-A doctor, it is believed. He was one of the most accurate historians of the time, after world-class archaeologist Sr. William Ramsay proved his account of Acts after originally setting out to disprove it.

Error 13: Contrary to extreme bible-believer assertions, Luke was not that good of an historian. For instance he claimed that Jesus was born during a census given by Quirinius, governor of Syria. While Quirinius was governor of Syria and he did administer a census, that census was given during 6 CE, nearly 10 years after the most common dating of Jesus' birth (4 BCE). Furthermore, he claims that Joseph had to leave Nazareth (in Galilee) and go to Bethlehem (in Judea) to register for that census. However, Galilee was under the auspices of Quirinius at the time, but Judea wasn't ... in 4 BCE it was under the auspices of Herod the Great, and in 6 CE it was under the auspices of Herod's son, Antipater. Neither of them ever called for a census. This is the equivalent of Texas giving a special census and having everybody go to their ancestral states to register for it. That makes no sense.

- John-was probably Jesus' half-brother. He was an eye-witness and one of Jesus' disciples.

Error 14: John, along with James amongst Jesus' original 12 disciples was one of the "sons of Zebedee". They were also refered to as the "Boranges" which means "sons of thunder". Interestingly, the Gospel of John never actually mentions John. It does mention a mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved", and since the other major disciples, Peter and James, are mentioned early church fathers thought that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" must be some obscure reference to John.

Error 15: None of the Gospels claim authorship as you attribute. The fact is that traditional authorship arises from people like Papias and Ireneaus, early church fathers, but writing well after the gospels were written. We also know that Papias (especially) and Irenaeus as well were wrong on many claims they made concerning early church history. If we discount their testimony and look at what the Gospels themselves tell us we see:

(1) Mark was written first.
(2) Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source.
(3) Matthew and Luke also have another source in common, a gospel that apparently included only sayings of Jesus
(4) John comes from a much later tradition than any of the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, or Luke)

Taking that into account and looking at the books we come to the following conclusions:

(1) Mark was unlikely to have been written by Mark, Peter's secretary --
Mark is written in the poorest Greek, Mark' portrayal of Peter is not particularly flattering.

(2) Matthew was unlikely to have been written by Matthew, the tax-collector disciple of Jesus. Why would a disciple who was an actual eyewitness to the events use other sources who weren't there as the basis for his gospel?

(3) Luke was unlikely to have been written by Luke, the physician friend of Paul. Whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts. There are numerous tidbits in Acts that do not quite square with the authentic Pauline epistles.

(A) Acts has Paul in Jersalem studying with Gamaliel a famous Jewish Rabbi. While Paul never claims this even when it would have been advantageous for him to do so. Furthermore, Paul was from Tarsus, a city that was known for its religious schools.

(B) Acts has Paul returning to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James after his conversion on the road Damascus. Paul says after he saw Jesus he spent 3 years in Arabia in the land of the Nabateans. He says specifically that he didn''t meet with the Jerusalem apostles until much later.

(C) Acts claims that Paul was a Roman citizen, but this is unlikely since Paul lists under the punishment he had received for his beliefs punishments that were not normally given to Roman citizens.

(4) John was unlikely to have been written by John the disciple that Jesus loved.

John's gospel is incompatible with the synoptics. Very many of the most important pericopes from the synoptics and ones which include the disciple John, do not appear in the gospel of John.

This is only a smattering of the evidence for these conclusions, to include all the evidence would be beyond the scope of this response. But in any case, critical scholars of the bible do not accept the traditional ascriptions of authorship that you claim to the Gospels. As a result NOTHING written of Jesus qualifies as an eyewitness account. NOTHING written of Jesus qualifies as even a second hand account ... Only John claims such an authority and the Gospel does not support his claim.

So, how does the Bible match up to the tests above?
a) No contradictions.

Error 16: The contradictions within the bible are too numerous to mention. Only a person who has never actually read the bible or a person unable to admit the bible contains errors no matter what the evidence would say otherwise.

b) Probably over 44 men over a period of 1,000 years contributed.

I wont count this as an error even though I highly suspect the number of authors is much higher than that, and the time scale a bit shorter than that.

c) The guys above were eye-witnesses or amazing historians.

Error 17: No, they weren't. They were like a lot of other people for their time ... writing with a purpose in mind and willing to change history to support that purpose.

I'll have already given you the example of Luke,

4) Jesus

Two points need to be addressed here: prophesies and The Resurrection.

Unfortunately, I haven't studies all the prophesies in the Bible in depth, (there are approximately 2,000) so I'll just refer you to a couple experts who have studied them in depth:

-Hugh Ross, Ph.D.: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

-Even more credible: Professor Peter W. Stoner: http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html#c9

Stoner's methods were been peer reviewed and approved by the American Scientific Affiliation. According to him, the chance of fulfilling just 8 prophesies is on in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^17). Let's put that into perspective:

"Suppose that we take 10 [to the power of] 17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far s he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom."

Error 18: I have been unable to find a single prophecy Jesus fulfilled. Extreme bible-believers have claimed that Daniel predicted Jesus. The Gospels also make numerous allusions to Daniel's "prophecies" and Jesus' supposed fulfillment. I have written a series of blogs that goes into detail presenting a ton of evidence that nothing in Daniel concerns Jesus. No "prophecy" in Daniel was fulfilled.

Here are links to that series of blogs:

Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapters 10-12
Conclusion

I have read both Ross and Stoner. I am aware of their claims but I find none of them credible. Neither source is reliable. Both are astronomers, neither is a theologian. Both suffer from a cardinal sin in science, looking only at what you want to believe. The American Scientific Affiliation refers to itself as "a fellowship of Christians in Science". Their commitment to evangelical religion overwhems their scientific credence, as shown by their refusal to take a stand concerning evolution.

It is way beyond the scope of this response to do authorative refutations of all supposed messianic prophecies, but I will offer this compromise to you. You read up and present us with the ONE MESSIANIC PROPHECY that Jesus most irrefutably fulfills and I will respond with my evidence that either Jesus didn't fulfill it, it was not an actual prophecy, or the fulfillment was an intentional act that could have been performed by anyone.

Yet, that's just eight prophesies. The reality is that, "More than three hundred prophecies from the Old Testament which deal with the first advent of Christ have been listed. Every one of them was completely fulfilled by Jesus Christ."

Error 19: That is not a reality.

He concludes:

"Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a fact proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world."

Error 20: Considering Stoner's undue credulity, lax standards for fulfillment, and apparent lack of historical context concerning those "prophecies" his assertions as to the strength of his "proof" is meaningless.

Now, my basis for the logical viability of The Resurrection comes from Paul's letter to a bunch of resurrection critics:

Error 21: Paul's letter 1 Corinthians was not to a "bunch of resurrection critics". It was to the church in Corinth. There were divisions within the church with evidently conflicting messages being preached by among others ... Cephas (aka Peter).

According to the apostle Paul,

"...He [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren
at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep..." (1 Corinthians 15: 6, NASB)

Error 22: Which is more likely, Paul was mistaken or a dead person came back to life? We have never seen a dead person come back to life, everybody has been mistaken about something.

Who were these 500? Why is there no mention of them in the Gospels or anywhere else for that matter? Paul in that same pericope also claims that Jesus appeared to him. But if we believe the account in Acts, that appearance was a vision, not a bodily appearance. So was this appearance before "the 500" also vison?

Alternatively, we don't even have to assume that Paul made an error. Perhaps that line was a later addition by copyist trying to up the credibility of the account. Of Paul's 13 letters included in the New Testament Canon the opinion of critical scholars is that almost half, 6 were most likely NOT written by Paul. So people didn't seem to have a problem using Paul in order to have their ideas taken more seriously.

Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio:

"What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." (qtd: McDowell).

Error 23: You quote Josh McDowell quoting someone else?? You didn't check the original source?? That is poor technique. Especially where Josh McDowell is concerned. However, it is not fatal for you in this case... Yamauchi does believe that. Which brings us to ...

Error 24: .. the argument from authority. The strength of an argument does not rest on the credentials of the person making the argument. It rests on the evidence. Yamauchi's evidence is ... that line from Paul. And IF Paul actually included that line in his original epistle, and IF it were clear that Paul means a "bodily appearance", and if we had any inkling who those "500" actually were, and IF the members of the Church of Corinth could actually go the hundreds of miles to check out his claim THEN Yamauchi would have a point. Unfortunately, with all those IF's and the fact that we have NEVER seen any person actually die and come back to life, then the evidence falls on the other side of the line.

I know what I believe, and I know that it's logical. I'm looking forward to your responses, but I apologize if I take a while to respond. Schoolwork load is growing. :-)

Error 25: Your belief is not rational. Your evidence does not withstand scrutiny. Your scientific evidence is non-sequitur and based on a misunderstanding of the scientific principles involved. Your evidence from personal revelation fails to address rather straight-forward questions concerning reliability of your own subjective feelings. Your evidence from the bible is perhaps the most disturbing since the real evidence is 180 degrees opposite of that which you claim. Your evidence of Jesus' resurrection is based on a single phrase from a Pauline epistle in which you failed to consider any other option other than total credence. This may be permissible when the claim is of little importance and does not fly in the face of everyday experience. But you are claiming that this evidence is strong enough to warrent a belief that that there is an unseen and unseeable realm in which a being exists that is capable of interfering with the laws of nature to perfom miracles. Yet, you give us no verifiable evidence that such a realm actually exists, or that any miracles defying the laws of nature have ever happened.

I fail to see much difference in this and any other delusion experienced by people.

But hey, Good luck on the school work.

Cheers,

DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France

I love this blog! You've managed to put a lot more logic and all into explaining why you believe than I've been able to. I applaud your effort, and your matter-of-fact tone in the writing. You were presenting what you believe and why, and inviting others to agree without shoving it in their faces and shouting "THIS IS RIGHT!!!!"

ANd judging by some of the comments, I think I interpreted something you said differently than some of the others...

When you say that it takes more faith to believe the universe was created for no reason, I took that as without purpose... Is that what you meant? Because everyone else seems to have taken it as without any natural phenomenon. (Or something more along those lines.)

Once again, thank you for an excellent blog!

And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
The Story of Myself