22 May, 2010

Why God is still in the building

Here is an interesting response to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens who argue that God does not exist. I would be interested in your comments for it is an argument that I am unfamiliar with and, while I agree with the premise of the author that God does exist, there is something about the argument that leaves me 'unsatisfied'.

What do you think?

Fr. Tim

Why God is still in the building

6 comments:

  1. What leaves me unsatisfied with this argument is that it is typical of the one I have with my earthly Father. Both he and George Jonas say that God only exists because people feel a need to have a belief in Him. Rather than accept that God created us *with* that yearning desire to find & believe in Him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. People do NOT turn to religion because life's too short for science. They turn there because, after looking at all the other options, they, like St. Peter, have to ask where else they will go . We are made by God to live with Him for all eternity...He is incarnate in each us and for some the search is longer than others.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "incarnate in each us"

    The Bible teaches that God is omnipotent and there is no place we can hide to escape from God. While the Bible says man was created in the image of God, I am not sure He is in non-believers in the same sense as He dwells in christians. The problem that non-believers have is they are separated from God by their fallen corrupt nature and need to be born again by the Spirit.

    To be born again one must believe that Christ died for him personally. We cannot claim our own righteousness or anything we did as satisfaction for our sin. Only Christ's righteousness can satisfy for sin. (Romans ch4 and Hebrews) HE is the lamb of God.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "An atheist thinking of dethroning God must be prepared to take his place."

    That is so whacked out, I can't believe he actually wrote it!

    As I said before, Tim, this is apostate thinking. An atheist wouldn't waste his time trying to "replace" something that doesn't exist!

    If you believe in a god or gods, it or they will exist for you. If you don't, they won't.

    It's that simple.

    What makes it complicated is that, for every believer, that god or those gods is/are different from the ones that belong to every other believer. NO ONE believes in the same dieties as anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous23 May, 2010

    the reason it is unsatisfying is that it is the tired old "god of the gaps" argument. Inevitably, as the gaps get fewer and smaller, god faces unemployment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Northern Exposure23 May, 2010

    I have two objections to Jonas’ argument:
    -“God is an idea, like liberty.” Uh uh. Ideas are mind-dependent, whereas to be ‘real’ means, by definition, to exist independently of the mind. To put it another way, one sign of a bad argument for God’s existence is that if you replace ‘God’ with ‘Santa Claus’, the argument has equal effect. Whatever ‘existence’ might involve in God’s case (and we do not know what it involves), it does NOT mean being the product of human intelligence (or lack thereof).
    -Jonas argues that religion is a shortcut to where science is going. He is making a category mistake. When religion is doing its job well, it is not trying to do what science does. As a cardinal in Rome said many centuries ago, “Science tells us how the heavens go; religion tells us how to go to heaven.”

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics