With all due respect, the argument here seems to have begun with the atheist charging in to tell those of faith how ignorant they are. The scientific principle begins by questioning what is accepted as a truth. Since the charge from the original post in this thread is opposed to the accepted "truth" the God does exist, I really see no fault in demanding, as a sort of verification of point, that he who raised the accusation reveal his reason for doing so.
And two common misconceptions, as I see it, is that there is little or no evidence of Jesus existing or being who he claimed to be; and that the scientific substitute that has been presented for us should be regarded as itself incredibly logical.
To the latter point first:
I want you to imagine a Honda factory with parts but no cars. Now imagine that an explosion engulfs the factory and that, after the smoke clears, we might kick out the rubble, and beneath it all, we find a perfectly formed Honda Civic. Every part - every piston, every snap and buckle, every screw - is positioned perfectly so that all we have to do is slide in a key and fire it up. Is that logical?
Yet the Big Bang Theory explains the inception of an incredibly more complex machine than a Honda Civic with a similar concept. Where there are thousands of variables that would have to be perfectly suited for a car to work, there are tens of thousands more that would have to be in compliance for a planet to host life. I'm not saying this didn't happen, but it is also hard to believe.
Not to mention that scientific evidence proves that the universe is constantly expanding outward from a central point. Outside of it, we know, there is a vacuum. This backs up the Big Bang Theory, because an explosion in space would continually expand outward in this fashion. The vacuum is handy, because it will not generate any opposing forces, we can measure this constant rate and even pinpoint estimates on when we think the universe came to be.
The only problem is - and it's a problem that can't be explained by some of the greatest scientific minds on Earth - is how a vacuum produced an explosion and how the universe came from it. This directly defies the axiomatic principle of cause and effect that something cannot come from nothing. A chemical reaction, a change in the variables, sure. But a vacuum is nothing, so where did the somethings that became so complex originate?
You may say then, "Well, then where does God come from?" But this is defining God by a scientific principle that he would have created. To assume that there are no other truths that haven't been revealed to us would be akin to characters of a novel assuming that their author didn't know any other words aside from those bound within the pages of the book they're living in. Beyond comprehension to them, yes. But to us outside of the book, we know that there are thousands of other words of which the author could have knowledge.
Also, the theory of evolution does not disprove God. Darwin himself never meant for it to be a substitute for God. That was connected and asserted later by people like Nietzsche, regardless of Darwin's beliefs on religion (which Christians and atheists dispute). The truth is that the fossil record is still incomplete, and many of the most notable experiments that support the theory have in hindsight often been recognized as flawed or corrupted. Once you explore it, evolution, one could say, takes a little faith as well.
There are other arguments in favor of Jesus being the son of God, as well.
For starters, there is more proof that Jesus existed than any other historical figure his age or older. In fact, I've heard it put that there is more evidence that Jesus existed than Napoleon.
If we can validate the age of some bones in the ground from a million years ago, writings are infinitely easier, because in addition to the record within the chemical makeup of the artifact, the artifact itself gives hints that, using deductive reasoning, can parallel it to those that were transpiring at the time of origin. Also, we can use slangs and trends unique to their timelines, which can be found within the very language on the pages. We can also parallel some events with the literature of other cultures to verify the historical accuracy. And remember, the Romans wrote about Him too. They had record of His existence, His "crimes," and putting him to death.
Quite frankly, a great many other things in history have been accepted as being scientifically true and credible on considerably less. And the writings of Paul as well as the four gospels all were penned within a range of 90 years or so from the actual events. This is important because they weren't handed down from generation to generation, and most historians consider this timeline to be more than enough for credible testimony.
If we can at least accept these as eyewitness accounts to an event, then we can examine the psychology of Jesus and his followers and see other evidence. He did believe He was the Son of Man - there have been Ivy League professors who have said as much based around his psychological behavior. And His followers followed Him to their deaths, some of them even though they could have been pardoned simply by admitting that He wasn't the Messiah.
That's particularly strange to me, because if Jesus was already dead, and He hadn't returned to reveal himself has he had promised, wouldn't these guys have thought something was amiss? Wouldn't you just run away or tell people, "Man, I guess I just got duped by a convincing con-artist?" Why die for a man who could never make an account of your loyalty? And yet they died to defend His claims.
In addition to that, there are over 300 prophecies of the coming Messiah scattered throughout the Old Testament. Namely, the most famous of them are the prophecies of Isaiah, written over 700 years before Christ. Google these. They are interesting.
I once read it put that in order for this many prophecies to be predicted and then come to fruition, the chances would be the same as that of filling the state of Texas with identical coins until they are two feet high, marking one of them, and then randomly dropping a blindfolded person into the pile to have him reach for one random coin - the one marked one.
I've rambled on now for some time, and this is a message board, not a magazine article. I'll leave you with this one thought:
C.S. Lewis said the basis for his enlightenment toward God was his realization of a rather logical premise. If we are hungry, it could be explained because it is the body's method of communicating to us a need. Without food, we would die. Hunger notifies us that we must fulfill this need. Same as pain, love, and even sex.
So why then has almost every single person in the history of a world that has held over 12 billion people throughout time contemplated so deeply the origin of man, the meaning of life, and the moral code? In fact, I challenge you to name another urge that has been given to so many that has no purpose - no bearing on fulfilling a need.
And what, might I ask, attracts you to boards like this one, vehemently objecting to something that gives so many people out there hope, goodness, kindness, and selflessness? Might this will to find the answer be guiding you in the same way it guided Lewis? Might it guide you the way it guided me when I was a skeptical college-aged kid who started to challenge what science had demanded me to accept as fact?
I hope it does.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3
reply
share