Seek What Truth?
We live in a world of relatives and self-perceived truths.
"I am free to think and do as I please. What are you going to do about it?"
"Don't talk to me about doing what's right. I've been a way better person than he is, and look where that's gotten me."
There is so much thought pollution in this world, how can we begin to determine what is truly good and bad?
The fact is, if there is no absolute truth, then "good" and "bad" is just a matter of opinion.
So, the first question we should ask is, "Is there an absolute truth in this world?"
What do I mean by "absolute truth"?
That is such a dangerous question, because many philosophers have attempted to address this issue and have gotten very lost. I'm not a philosopher, and I do not want to start a philosophical debate. Let's stay grounded and talk about things that we can see, touch, and, basically, experience.
Absolute truth means a fact that exists regardless of what people believe. For example, walk into a room with a table. The statement, "There is a table in the room" is true no matter what I believe. People may get caught up with what kind of a table it is, but the bottom line is, there is an object in the room. I can call it a table, you can call it a desk, and if at the end of the day, we decide to call it an over-sized bench, THERE IS STILL AN OBJECT IN THE ROOM. We cannot change that inherent fact. We can change the name we give it, we can even change its function, but we cannot deny the fact that it exists. That is the nature of an absolute truth.
Now, for a harder question. Does God exist? Or, Is there a God?
Let's make that even harder. In regards to the statement, "There is a God," is that an absolute truth?
Think about the implications of that answer.
If that statement is an absolute truth, then everything that has been documented about God is now beyond a belief system. For example, the Christian Bible speaks about God releasing His wrath upon His enemies. If that is an absolute truth, this is going to happen no matter what we believe. We can choose to believe there is no table in the room. But if there is a table in the room, THERE IS A FREAKING TABLE IN THE ROOM!
The Christian Bible also speaks about a God that so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that all who believe in him will not perish but receive eternal life. And if that is an absolute truth, that is going to happen as well, no matter what we choose to believe.
Alternatively, if the idea of God is a relative truth, then there is no right or wrong. You can make up anything you want about a God that suits you best, and I can make up anything I want about a God that would fulfill all my needs. It basically boils down to, "You have your truth; I have my truth." There is no way of proving whether you are right or I am right, because it's all relative. It's all based on, "This is the way I see it, and who are you to tell me otherwise." And if the idea of God is a relative truth, then all pertaining discussion is nothing but an exercise of the mind. It would just be another philosophical debate. As a friend of mine graphically phrased it, "It's basically mental masturbation."
If you are the type of person who is willing to believe in anything that gives you the fuzzy warm feelings, then this quest to investigate the existence and validity of absolute truths is not for you.
If, however, you are the type of person who prefer to base your decisions on solid facts, then this has to be one of the most important question you ask in this lifetime: "Is the existence of God an absolute truth?" Because no other question affects your life after death. NO OTHER QUESTION AFFECTS YOUR LIFE AFTER DEATH!
How do we even begin to address this question?
RESEARCH.
I'm a scientist by training, and the field of science has established a well-developed system to test hypotheses and determine what is a fact and what isn't.
For something to be an absolute truth, to be a standalone fact, it has to have TANGIBLE proof.
Some may jump in right now and say, "A-ha! So, show me that God exists!"
Let's first examine this from a scientific perspective.
Evolutionary biologists believe the origin of all organisms on Earth is based on chance. They believe this because they have shown that they can recapitulate the formation of a few amino acids in an environment that reflects that of early Earth.
Couple flaws with this conclusion:
1) The recapitulation of the early Earth environment was based on an assumption. There is no real way to determine exactly what the early Earth environment is. This is pretty much a dead end for both sides of the argument. So, let's be lenient, and just say this assumption is spot on perfect.
2) Even if the assumption of early Earth environment is spot on perfect, we still have the problem of how organisms formed. Scientists have had to manipulate the temperature, the gases, the starting materials, etc. to finally create a few amino acids. Just a few amino acids! Amino acids are building blocks for proteins. The amount of amino acids made in the experiment wasn't even enough to form a functional protein! And then, there's still the question of how DNA molecules came about, which really is where all the "programming" of an organism is. In sum, the formation of a handful of amino acids is far from it being an actual organism. Even the simplest organism on Earth requires a good number of proteins to make it viable. The probability of that happening by chance is so small that scientists would define it as statistically insignificant. The layman term is "impossible". Scientists disregard findings that are statistically insignificant. Drugs are pulled from clinical trials that are statistically insignificant.
Since the probability of organisms forming by chance is essentially impossible, the only other possibility then is by force. Atheists believe the source of that force is aliens or chance. Theists believe the source is a creator. Very similar to the table problem I proposed above, isn't it? The force exists whether we believe it or not. Does it matter what we call it? Chance? Aliens? Force? The point is, the above experiment strongly suggests that the formation of life on Earth was not due to mere chance. Something or Someone made it happen. Does it matter what we call "it"? The Christian God has said many times that the point isn't what He is called but that He is.
Going on a tangent here, the word "God" is a translation of the Hebrew word YHWH, a term that has no specified way to saying it. Hebrew is one of the two original languages used in the Old Testament. And in Hebrew, vowels are left out because words can be determined based on context. The fact that Hebrew scholars still cannot determine which vowels fit into YHWH suggests that we still have yet to comprehend God in His fullness. We have not received enough to fully understand God! This topic is a scholarly study on its own, and I bring it up here not to get side-tracked but to illustrate the idea that "naming" the force is not nearly as important as understanding it.
As mentioned above, scholars of all backgrounds have a hypothesis of what that source is. Some believe it's evolution (aka, chance), some believe it's aliens, some believe it's a god.
The idea of seeking the truth is therefore to determine just which one of these hypotheses, if any, is ABSOLUTELY true.
I have done my research. I have examined the major arguments out there, and I have found the Christian Bible to be a sound doctrine. The historical events documented throughout the Bible have been shown to be accurate by archaeological finds and scientific experimentation. Most astounding is the perfect fulfillment of prophecies. This is not something chance can achieve.
Hence, from historical documentation, archaeological findings, scientific validations, I KNOW God exists. That is an absolute truth that I hope everyone will eventually come to learn.
To the skeptics out there, I think a healthy dose of doubt is good. I encourage you to take that doubt and seek answers. Investigate those claims yourself instead of just taking other people's word for it. I was a skeptic once, and I took on this challenge to determine once and for all whether this is just all a bunch of none sense.
When I started on this journey, I expected to find holes in the Christian Bible. I didn't. And as I continued to study the Bible, I am continuously amazed at how perfect everything in the Bible fits together. This is no easy feat. This collection of 66 books was written by 40 authors throughout different periods of time. To say that they achieved perfect unity in especially the prophecies that they have documented was based on chance is being blindly naive. This is the beginning of the proof that God exists. ONLY THE BEGINNING. Keep studying, and the proof becomes overwhelming. Just overwhelming.
But don't take my word for it. Seek the Absolute Truth yourself. Your life depends on it.
As you begin, I'd like to offer two resources that I found to be immensely compelling that argues Jesus Christ is THE Absolute Truth:
1. The Case for Christ (Book by Lee Strobel)
2. Pastor Mark Driscoll's Sunday sermon on Luke 23:50-56, 24:1-12 in regards to Jesus' burial and resurrection:
http://marshill.com/media/luke/jesus-burial-and-resurrection
Normally, I post my notes on Driscoll's inspirational sermons, but this one is so powerful, it really needs to be WATCHED and not read in bullet points. I do want to emphasize one point that really hit home with me. Driscoll challenged that the burden of proof is on the unbelievers' shoulders. Even if the doubters are right, and the reason why Jesus' body was not found in His tomb was because His body was stolen, then these nay-sayers still have to explain WHY THE BODY WAS ALIVE!
And lastly, a point brought up by Strobel in his book also hit home with me: To the people who explain away Jesus' resurrection as Jesus simply did not die, Strobel offers this perspective: If Jesus actually survived the torturous beatings and crucifixion, His body was said to be so disfigured that even His own mother wouldn't recognize Him. If Jesus appeared to His disciples under these circumstances, His disciples would not have uttered in deep reverence, "My God!" and would have, instead, taken such pity on the battered man and taken Him immediately to a hospital to heal His wounds.
Don't let your mind be tainted by what other people say or be polluted with preconceived notions. Carefully evaluate the evidence and choose correctly. And remember, not making a choice is still making a choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
6 comments:
You write well. However, I see that you confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the origins of life. Evolution is how life forms evolved over time. Also, evolution does not equal chance. Watching simple videos and reading books by scientists such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss demonstrates logically that life on earth, indeed our planet and the universe itself, could have possibly derived from a natural source.
I further see that you are uninformed--or misinformed--regarding YHWH and vowels in the Hebrew language. The topic is very well researched and understood, both how to read and how to pronounce the ancient Hebrew language.
Vilifying science while studying it does not credit your intelligence outside evangelical Christianity. Also, it discredits your further statement that scientific experimentation proves God's existence. It is logically inconsistent to vilify science on one hand and on the other to claim that scientific experimentation proves your own point.
You write: Since the probability of organisms forming by chance is essentially impossible, the only other possibility then is by force. Atheists believe the source of that force is aliens or chance.
That is incorrect. Not all atheist believe that. See both Tyson and Krauss above.
I think it matters what we call the "force." So long as we worship an invisible imperceptible "something/Someone" we are sure to commit horrendous deeds unworthy of our humanity. If we think we are responsible first and foremost to ourselves and others, we will respect human life and the needs thereof. We will not kill people or reject them from our social group (such as church or Communion) simply for perceiving reality differently from ourselves, i.e. for not believing in God or Vishnu, etc.
You missed--or dismissed--the books that refute your research on the historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence. Also, there is no evidence to prove that the prophecies were not written AFTER the events. I read your conviction elsewhere that the Bible is true and that it is your job to figure it out. That being the case, you have closed your mind to alternative possibilities. That would also explain why you misrepresent scholarship. Truth, however, will stand no matter how evangelical Christianity misrepresents or lies about it.
You write: To the skeptics out there… I encourage you to … seek answers. Investigate those claims yourself instead of just taking other people's word for it.
This is why I’m reading your post—to see what evidence I might have missed. Unfortunately, you merely spout what thousands before you have spouted. As for not taking the word of others. Never fear, I won’t. I don’t think you ever were an atheist just because you say so.
You write: This collection of 66 books was written by 40 authors throughout different periods of time. To say that they achieved perfect unity in especially the prophecies that they have documented was based on chance is being blindly naive. This is the beginning of the proof that God exists.
So long as I just accepted the word of others, I believed this.
You write: these nay-sayers still have to explain WHY THE BODY WAS ALIVE!
My question to you: What is the evidence that there ever was a body?
You write: His body was said to be so disfigured that even His own mother wouldn't recognize Him.
Two points. 1. That is not in the Bible. 2. Until we know that there was a body, discussions about virgin births, miracles, and resurrections are moot.
You write: Carefully evaluate the evidence
Done. Please provide the missing information. Make sure it stands the light of day and logic.
You write: And remember, not making a choice is still making a choice.
For your information, I do my own thinking. If you provide me with evidence for God that I have not yet evaluated, I will evaluate it. As you instruct, I don’t just take you word for any of this.
Thank you, RSM, for taking the time to share your thoughts and pointing out the flaws in my logic.
Re-reading what I have written, I agree that there are many illogical arguments.
Although I'm sure you're more interested in me providing the proof that I speak so highly of, I would like to clarify a few things:
1. I do not vilify science. I think there are a lot of scientists who approach questions with a bias, and that is dangerous when it comes to objectively presenting data. I also think many scientists think science is the only method to discovering answers -- putting too much "faith" into it. This is also dangerous because such faith often disregard caveats in scientific models. I believe science has great value and has done and will continue to do amazing things for the human race. However, science does not have all the answers -- and we, especially scientists, need to acknowledge this in order to maintain objectivity.
2. I am a work in progress. Blogging about my learning progress and thought process exposes my vulnerability, as I make it transparent my past naivete and ignorance. However, I delete nothing and welcome all critiques because I believe this is how we grow. I only ask that readers don't judge and allow me the room to fall and get back up. Even more importantly, I hope readers know that I make mistakes but am completely open to correction and improvement.
Your critique of my comments on evolution is right on. It was a sloppily put together argument and contains way too many logical holes. It is a complicated discussion topic that cannot be simply presented in a number of paragraphs. Thus, my purpose was not to be exhaustive in my argument but to stir up curiosity and thoughts that would encourage readers to seek further understanding.
In a similar manner, I can spot illogical reasoning in your responses -- not suggesting that your thoughts are illogical but simply that given the limited space and time, there is no way to completely present your views. And because of how this blogging system works, there is also no adequate way to allow you or me to clarify ambiguous statements.
I would love to continue this discussion with you if you are willing. I suggest email would be a more appropriate medium.
What is the best way to reach each other (without revealing email addresses publicly)?
Many thanks again, RSM, for taking the time to initiate this conversation. I very much look forward to continuing this with you!
I am not interested in further discussion for the following reasons:
1) I see no logical continuation of thought in your response with what either you or I had previously written.
2) You changed the topic of discussion from factual accuracy versus factual inaccuracy to intellectual logic versus intellectual illogic.
3) You consciously declined to provide the required information to substantiate your claims. If you think you are wrong, you could have admitted error. If you are confused re my meaning, you could have asked for clarification. You do none of these.
I am unable to participate in that kind of conversation behavior. Sorry for interrupting your life.
PS I'm obliged to sign in differently this time because I'm using a different computer and forgot my Google password, etc.
For those who are intrigued by this conversation, I'm more than happy to continue it. I just need to find a medium to do this without getting a lot of spam. If you know of a way, let me know, and let's chat!
Along the same line, I've started a evidence-based investigation of the Bible. Any notes on the subject will be posted under the tags, "Seek What Truth" and "Evidence For God."
I wasn't going to respond again but since you keep asking for a discussion medium...
There's ExChristian.net at http://www.ex-christian.net. Just so you get off on the right foot you might want to first read the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions and Topics), esp. the thread "What is an ExChristian?" at the top of the page. As former Christians, we have studied Christianity, the Bible, the history of Christianity and of the Bible, gone to church, walked the walk and talked the talk--some of us for thirty or forty years--and finally found it wanting. Some of us are now in other religions, others are atheists, agnostics, deists, etc. A few members have never been Christians but deal with overbearing religion in their everyday lives just by living in a "Christian" nation.
ExChristian forums has several areas where Christians are allowed to post for discussion with nonChristians. I'd have to look at the rules but I think in the Lion's Den you're allowed to do low-key evangelism. Other kinds of discussion can be had in other sections. A few areas are reserved for exChristians only. Read the rules.
My friends at exC know you might be coming over. They've seen this blog--at least those did who followed the link I posted.
I must warn you that at exC you may see feelings and thoughts expressed that you have never seen before because we are not allowed to say and ask these things in front of Christian friends and family. You might not feel comfortable.
Whether or not you choose this medium for discussion is up to you but it's the best answer I have for your pressing question. I hope it helps.
Hey RSM, thanks again for taking the time. I didn't mean to drag you back into the conversation. I totally understand the communicating method I had suggested didn't fit your needs, so I was merely throwing the question out to other readers who would be interested in continuing the conversation.
Sure, I'll check the site out, but I don't think I'll be able to devote much time to it.
Many thanks to your encouragement, and also because a few friends' interest, I have started a new Bible study that will be investigating evidence-based facts about the Bible. Notes from these studies will also be posted on this blog as I move along.
I am not at all against providing the proof you have asked for. It's going to take a lot more space and time than replying to messages, such as what I am doing now. Instead, I will make sure I do my research thoroughly before posting, and post my responses as a complete body of work. If you're willing to stick around, I certainly would enjoy your feedback to these future posts. If this isn't your cup of tea, no hard feelings. I'm just glad you gave me the push I needed to start this new Bible study.
Post a Comment