Yes, I believe in God

I agree! Especially with the part about the Bible.. only God could pull all of that information together to form such an amazing book! Thank you for standing up for what you believe in!

I love progressiveu and respects all the members views. although I do have to admit that sometimes i get sick of everyone saying how dumb religion is or why ipeople should not believe in God.
It is just nice to hear someone who does believe and can back it up.
Liv Life Your Way

While I believe all that is true, the basic truth is that it isn't scientific. Science, by definition, is something that is observable. Since the creation of the world was not observed by a human, it can never be scientific. No theory about the beginning of time can.

Have you ever seen laminin? Google that and tell me that God isn't in science.. :)

Well, I guess I'll be the black sheep in this conversation.

"1) The logical and scientific necessity of the supernatural.
Three of the most basic scientific law point to the fact that creation could not be created naturally:
-Law of mass conservation
-First Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Energy Conservation)
-Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy)
Because there has to be some kind of cause for the effect that we now see of the universe, there must be some supernatural force."
I'm not a scientist. I can't really talk science intelligently. I take too many sentences to say one thing. What I will do is point you in the direction of Stephen Hawkings (not sure if that's his name. The guy in the wheelchair) theories, which are fairly interesting.

"2) My experience of the supernatural.
Through my walk with the Lord, I’ve felt his hand in my life and I’ve experienced his inspiration. One an existentialist told me that he believed that there is nothing beyond your senses, and he couldn’t believe in something that he couldn’t feel with his senses. Well, my senses have informed me of a God who wants my life."
While that's all nice and great, that can hardly be used as evidence in a logical debate.

"3) The truth of the Bible.
If there is a God, it would make little sense that he doesn’t care about us at all, so he must have sent some kind of message. All other claimed “messages” from God either are not specifically canonized, (meaning that it’s based upon the kinetic tradition rather than the steadfast word) or are just written by one guy (aka: they’re unverifiable). The Bible, on the other hand, was written by over 40 guys, over a period of more than a thousand years, and on multiple continents, yet it is completely consistent with itself. This makes it the most trustworthy revelation of deity that I know of."
The bible, all holy books in fact, fall into the problem of circular logic. In order to have to be taken as true, what they are saying has to be accepted as truth. I have seen no evidence outside of any holy book that suggests that the supernatural aspects of that history are correct.
Further more, there is a lot of very circumspect stuff in the bible outside of the realm of the supernatural.

"4) The deity of Christ.
Christ’s resurrection and his fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies make him the God that I can put my faith on. (see 1 Cor. 15)"
The prophecies in the Old Testament don't really point to Christ. A) There's nothing about the messiah being the Son of God. B) The line of David thing is iffy. C) The Jews were not restored to a dominant position in the world.

"To make me reject the existence of God, atheists would have to convince me that science can contradict itself. To make me reject Christianity, they’d have to disprove the validity of the Bible, and specifically Christ’s resurrection."
You can believe whatever you want. As for science, it's not contradicting itself. I'm sorry I can't explain it better (and I don't know of any good links). We do, in fact, have a scientist on the site, who is very good at explaining this sort of thing.

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

Your first argument seems like an illogical jump. Observing the nature of physical systems and explicating them does not point to the existence of god. This is tantamount to saying 'what goes up must come down, therefore god exists'. Likewise, the lack of a clear scientific explanation for the origin of the universe does not signal that a higher deity exists. The sheer enormity of the universe and our relatively minute occupation within it makes it impossible to conduct macro-studies of the system as a whole, something any scientist will tell you is necessary to formulate a theory about the origin of the system. Seizing upon the absence of an explanation due to logistical realities and filling the gap with God is not valid in a logical argument. By this thinking, ancient peoples could have decided: 'These mountains are very tall and we cannot know how they got here, therefore there must be a God to put them there.' While it conveniently explains away the issue, this is a logical fallacy.

I'm sorry, but your arguments really aren't very "logical" at all...

1) The logical and scientific necessity of the supernatural.

The argument from necessity is a logical fallacy. Just because you cannot conceive of an method by which certain natural laws came into being does not mean that the only possible explanation is that some "god" created them.

2) My experience of the supernatural.

This is an existential logical fallacy. Your comment subtly assumes that what you "felt" in your life was actually "god" rather than some other source (such as your imagination). 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.

3) The truth of the Bible.

This is the fallacy known as begging the question. You premise (that the bible is true) is only correct if your conclusion (that "god" exists) is also true. Before you can logically assert "the truth of the bible," you must first establish conclusively that "god" actually exists.

4) The deity of Christ.

This is begging the question (again). Can you prove conclusively that "christ" is a deity? That "he" acutally died and rose from the dead? If not, then you cannot logically present this in support of your beliefs.

To make me reject Christianity, they’d have to disprove the validity of the Bible, and specifically Christ’s resurrection.

This is also a logical fallacy. The negative-proof fallacy attempts to shift the logical burden of proof from the positive claim to the negative. Stated more simply, this is the argument that "because something has not been proved false, it must be true."

You certainly have a right to believe in whatever you wish, but you are mistaken if you think the beliefs that you have described are in ANY way "logical."

percivale

-------------------------

Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

percivale, sltfaf35, and Jsaj, I appreciate your comments. I'm posting because I don't have much time right now and will get back to you ASAP.

In the meantime, please look over your arguments again, because some of your statements had nothing to do with the particular arguments I presented. e.g.: I never stated that the reason the Bible is viable is because it says so. This is a clearly illogical statement that some well-meaning Christians fall into.

><>Brian

Thank you for your patience. Sorry it took a while to respond. I have posted the long response here: http://www.progressiveu.org/174610-logic-speaks-god

And one thing I didn't address (because its somewhat of a sidetrack):

This is also a logical fallacy. The negative-proof fallacy attempts to shift the logical burden of proof from the positive claim to the negative. Stated more simply, this is the argument that "because something has not been proved false, it must be true."

Sorry I didn't make this clear. This statement did not regard the burden of proof, it simply addressed which parts of the points I had made were the pillars of my faith. Point one (science) and the point about the resurection are my top reasons.

><>Brian