Proof of God For Science Types

[SetFree]

Fair enough. I've read the opening post. I detect nothing circular about it.
I can see how someone could turn it into that, but what someone can read into it and what the author intended aren't the same thing. Perhaps SetFree could have done a better job of making the point but I, for one, understood it immediately.

It seems the whole accusation of circularity is based on a false definition of "faith". Hebrews 11 is not saying that God exists because the Bible says so and that the Bible is true because God says so. That would indeed be circular. That just is not what is happening here and that isn't what SetFree is saying in his post either.

Hebrews 11 does not present faith as a blind leap or an empty assertion. It begins by defining faith as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. The Greek words used here are important. The word for “substance” refers to something underlying and foundational. The word for “evidence” means proof, even legal proof. In other words, biblical faith is not belief without evidence, it is belief because of evidence in something that may not be visible, but is nonetheless real and rational.

Verse 3 then flows directly from that definition. It says that through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. That is not a circular claim. It is an entirely valid inference. The idea is that the created order points beyond itself. It consists of things that are seen, but those things came from that which is not seen. This is in line with what we now know scientifically; that matter is not self-originating, and that it is neither eternal nor self-explanatory.

So the reasoning is not, “I believe God exists because the Bible says so.” It is more like, “I recognize that creation points to something beyond itself. My faith is rooted in that recognition. It is the rational conviction that the seen world came from an unseen Source.”
This is not circular. It is consistent with the logic of the cosmological argument and affirms that faith, far from being irrational, is in fact a response to evidence that leads us to recognize the Author of it all.

Now, perhaps I'm being too generous and what I've just laid out isn't what SetFree intended to argue. I do suspect, however, that this is what his intended message was, whether he succeeded in communicating it well or not is beside the point.

You're pretty well right on.

I tried to show the profoundness of that Hebrews 11:3 based on its own merits, that things seen did not create itself, which aligns with physic's laws of thermodynamics.

And by The Word of God everything was created, which is one of the major Messages in John 1 associated with Jesus Christ, which Hebrews 1 happens to note also, because it says all things were created through Christ. So if that sounds a bit circular, so be it, because it's not from me, but from the actual Bible Scriptures.

I realize some have a hard time understanding beyond this material world, and struggle with that Hebrews 11:3 revealing about God having created the material universe from that dimension of Spirit. But that idea doesn't only appear there in Hebrews 11; that idea is the basis of the Genesis 1 creation by God, and of many other Bible Scriptures that mention when God made His creation, showing that this material world did not exist first.

 

[SetFree]

Psalms 22 is not a prophecy - at least not in the sense most people mean it when they say such a thing.

....

I definitely could never agree to that above statement.

When David was given to speak of events of Christ's crucifixion in Psalms 22, roughly a thousand years before it actually happened, that IS BIBLE PROPHECY, plain and simple. You shouldn't try to make more of it than it actually is.

When Jesus quoted that prophecy from Psalms 22:1 while upon His cross, He was actually 'teaching'. He was letting those present know that prophecy David was given to write down was being fulfilled right before their eyes, showing that He is The Christ.

But your words appear to try and associate Jesus with some charlatan that only knew about the Psalms 22 prophecy of the crucifixion, and just decided to USE it for His own purposes. What a nasty... un-Biblical thought.

 

[Can't think of a name]

Hello. Do you have any reasons for thinking there are some people here that are atheists pretending to be Christians? I haven't been here long but I have seen that kind of behaviour on the internet before where atheists do indeed masquerade as Christians. For example, no Christian will bring up the Allah, Buddh, Krishna are God argument as being the same as the God of the Bible. Only atheists do that. On the other hand, there could be people that believe in Christianity due to being brought up that way since childhood who have imbibed the secular mindset and way of thinking, especially in this Internet age, and so they aren't even Christians in the true sense of the word which means you have been spiritually born again.

 

[Frankj]

For example, no Christian will bring up the Allah, Buddh, Krishna are God argument as being the same as the God of the Bible. Only atheists do that.

Well the last Pope came dangerously close to actually doing that without outright coming out and directly saying it. I find him to have been leaning a direction that was more Unitarian than true Christian.

I've seen many pastors of today's churches do similar, some even to the point of not teaching some parts of the Bible to avoid offending people and keeping them away from attendance while going to the extent of letting Muslims or other religions give sermons in their churches.

But for those who defend this I have to ask, did Jesus ever do this?

This is my present view, subject to change if the Lord leads me that way, I'm sure others (probably most) will think differently.