My last post was five months ago. You know, the one that I called “Part 1” and promised a “Part 2” follow-up post?
So, Seth, what gives?
Well… ever feel like you’ve bitten off more than you can chew? Or that you have so much to say about something, but don’t want to publish a novel on your blog since no one would probably read it? Yeah, I know the feeling.
So, check this out: I make a promise to my readers to compile and discuss (in a single post, mind you) all the evidences that I believe exist for the Christian faith. Yeah yeah, I hear you skeptics chuckling out there — I can hear you thinking, “Well, that should be a short article!” Go ahead, have your moment… I’ll give you a minute or two to enjoy your cleverness…. (more…)
Throughout my recent leave of absence from blogging to pursue theatrical interests, I continued to read the dozens of comments that continued to trickle in (thanks for those!). This practice led, somewhat unexpectedly, to a greater sense of clarity of my purpose of starting this blog in the first place.
You see, I tend to be detail-oriented when it comes to answering objections and counter-points, and this can sometimes make me myopic concerning the bigger picture — now, having been able to take in the body of such objections and counter-points as a whole rather than immediately taking the time to comb through each response one-by-one, it’s shown me some things that I’m not sure I would have been able to see otherwise, some patterns in the types of points people tend to make that reveal somewhat more clearly the essence of the disagreement that lies between myself and others of our race whose conclusions about the divine are contrary. There are, in fact, three such patterns I would like to address in this post — my apologies for its length, but I felt this was important 🙂 (more…)
I’m in the middle of a discussion with hero4thought on his blog (go check it out, he has some good observations, and he seems like a really nice guy) where we are talking about the veracity of equating religion with relationship. I recommend reading his post (and the subsequent discussions that follow) in full, but the nutshell argument seems to be: Since we can’t really verify that God really exists, then any alleged “interactions” with Him wouldn’t really qualify as a relationship in the traditional sense — for relationships, as we are wont to think of them, don’t usually involve ambiguous or elusive parties. We know precisely who the parties are in most relationships, and there’s no question to a third-party observer that such a relationship, in fact, exists. This lack of corroboration when it comes to God, Hero says, makes the relationship claim dubious at best.
I can appreciate his reasoning, and I actually mostly agree — but I disagree that the difficulties presented by the situation are insurmountable or fatally flawed such that we should feel justified in shutting down the God-relationship hypothesis out of hand. In any case, we have just gotten to the point on our discussion where we’re unpacking the question of whether or not a relationship is predicated upon both parties in the relationship existing in the material sphere. I would argue not, and my argument is based on the logical necessity that God be immaterial — and so following is my response to Hero: (more…)
Apologies for not updating in the last few days — writer’s block! To tell you the truth, this Meaning of Life series has become more arduous than I anticipated going into it, and when I sit down to write more about it I invariably get fed up and go do something else. Also, I guess my perfectionism is catching up to me; I have two decent drafts almost, almost ready to go, and as of now I just can’t find it in myself either to be satisfied with them or to make them satisfactory.
So, if you don’t mind, I’ll table that topic for now and come back to it later, with a fresh set of eyes.
Now, for today, I would like to discuss a topic that I had never really thought about before. The question was posed by John (both in a comment on my blog and in a post of his own) about whether it’s possible to believe in both God and artificial intelligence. To quote him:
… god-belief doesn’t seem compatible with the idea that we humans can build a living, conscious machine.
Isn’t that a fascinating concept?? I love this kind of stuff! (more…)
Now, in spite of Arkenaten’s slight misgivings that my answer may involve too much metaphysics and philosophical ramblings, my answer is actually much less technical than that — for it’s a question that’s best answered, I think, by telling my story rather than giving a litany of intellectual reasons. (Also, since among the aforementioned misgivings was also one that involved my tendency toward prolixity… I will try to be brief.) (more…)
Why, if god is self evident as most believers think it is, does it need apologists?
It’s a valid question. And since makagutu has gotten on my case in the past for being too loquacious, I’ll try to keep my answer brief 😉
For one thing, though I can’t speak for others, I for one would not categorize God’s existence as something that is self-evident. makagutu is right: If such a thing were self-evident, there would be no need for argumentation, and reasonable people would be expected to believe without needing to be convinced. I don’t think that is the case, though — though I believe there are good arguments for theism, they are still arguments nonetheless — it takes some effort to get there.
So, that’s the quick answer (so makagutu, you can stop reading at this point if you’d like 😉 ) — but I think there’s more to the issue. I may be making a jump here, but I think the heart of the question is: If the case for God is compelling, then why are there reasonable people who don’t believe in Him?(more…)