So Um... Why Don't The "devout" Xians Stick It Out?

[rayskidude]

this can be accomplished only by an all-powerful & wise Being.

 

...you're an IDIOT, aren't you?

 

Wow; what did I do to offend you?

[rayskidude]

Here's what the article says:

"Confirming earlier inferences, the new work shows that D. audaxviator’s metabolic processes are decoupled from the Sun and the photosynthetic biosphere. This ecosystem uses the energy of naturally occurring radioactivity to split water into hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide. The hydrogen peroxide reacts with naturally occurring sulfide in the rocks to make sulfate. The microbes then reduce the sulfate back to sulfide using electrons provided by the hydrogen left over from the splitting of water. This is the only ecosystem known to exist on an energy source other than light or chemical energy derived from the planet itself.

 

I understand what the article is saying - what I am saying is; How is this different - in principle - from other chemo-autotrophs which exist in abundance the microbial world? Believe me, when I was in biochemistry grad school there were several instances of "new life form found!" reports Only to find out later, it was a variation of chemo-autotrophic life forms already thriving on Planet Earth (because they are weird to us oxygen breathers). Thus my hesitancy to see this bug as living apart from "chemical energy derived from the planet itself." Then where does it get the energy? The article states the microbe reduces sulfate to sulfide, all species use re-dox reactions to generate internal energy for life. Are they saying that the initial 'naturally' occurring radioactivity is not chemical energy? Then they're using a narrow definition of chemical energy, because all atoms are radioactive - just differing in degree. I assume they mean that nuclear doesn't equate to chemical - ergo the bugs live off nuclear energy.

 

Genomic analyses have revealed that the organism’s genes code for everything needed to sustain an independent existence and reproduce, including the ability to fix its own nitrogen, move freely, sense its environment, protect itself from viruses, and even sporulate during nutrient-poor periods. It cannot, however, survive oxic conditions, suggesting it hasn’t been exposed to oxygen for a very long time.

 

This is exactly what I'm getting at - "it hasn't been exposed to oxygen for a long time." Here they seem to be hedging - indicating the bug may have begun nearer the earth's surface, exposed to oxygen, and exposed to sunlight, but developed the ability to derive energy in the absence of light and oxygen. And now oxygen is toxic to the bug - not an uncommon feature in microbes. Often, these bugs are grown in labs using pure nitrogen gas to purge our any air containing oxygen.

 

Such a community could in principle live in the subsurface of any rocky planet, Mars for example. Radioactivity, sulfide minerals, water, N2 and carbon dioxide—the main things this community needs to survive—are almost certainly common in rocky planets everywhere."

 

Are you saying they are wrong or liars?

 

I'm saying I don't see how they can say that gases such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide 'are almost certainly in rocky planets everywhere." did they cite any studies that have shown this to be true? Sound like conjecture. The less gravity on a rocky planet, the more likely gases will escape from pores in the rock by Brownian motion and entropy and maybe even Boyle's Law(?). And again, N2 is fairly inert - I'm sure radioactivity could form some free radicals - but to say something is remotely possible, that doesn't mean it will occur, or has occurred.

 

The bacteria was said to come about in isolation from any sunlight. And that conditions existed down there apart from the sun.

 

No, they hedged on that - as noted above. Believe me, I think this life form is neat and unique, but I wouldn't say it came about as it exists today from complete absence of the sun in its history - and I don't think they are making that claim either.

[rayskidude]

There isn't a scrap of evidence that there was ever such a thing as a perfect environment. What are these vestiges of the previous creation?

Ray, do you ever doubt your salvation in the Day to come or is always anticipation?

 

The vestiges of Eden I was referring to are beauty, harmony, peace, art, working the land, music, love, relationships, inter-acting with the animal world, etc. I was not referring to any physical vestiges of Eden - I think those were destroyed long ago.

 

Most of my days are lived in anticipation of heaven - but doubts do rise up every now-and-then.

[rayskidude]

Its a big universe, Ray. How about the planet Gilese 581c?

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/070517_seti_planet.html

I think it is incredibly short sighted to think life has arisen only on this planet given the immensity of the universe, but I admit that so far life is only found here on earth. There is no "luck" involved. Life formed when the proper conditions occurred, whatever they might have been. That is my take on it.

 

Interesting article - but I do wonder about its proximity to the star. Though the star is a few percent as luminous as our sun, yet this planet is 5x closer then Mercury is to our sun. Radiation decreases exponentially as you move away form the source - if your twice as far away the radition is reduced four-fold. Same is true for being closer - so this planet absorbs 64x the radiation. So radaition is 50x less from source, but proximity yields 64x higher exposure = 14x greater radiation from star than Mercury gets(?). Is my math correct?

 

Can you imagine how much more radiation it gets then our good ole' Planet Earth? I think "lots & lots."

 

And with no rotation or revolving around an axis - wow, seems Gilese 581c is quite non-conducive to life. But I could be wrong.

[Deva]

Interesting article - but I do wonder about its proximity to the star. Though the star is a few percent as luminous as our sun, yet this planet is 5x closer then Mercury is to our sun. Radiation decreases exponentially as you move away form the source - if your twice as far away the radition is reduced four-fold. Same is true for being closer - so this planet absorbs 64x the radiation. So radaition is 50x less from source, but proximity yields 64x higher exposure = 14x greater radiation from star than Mercury gets(?). Is my math correct?

 

Can you imagine how much more radiation it gets then our good ole' Planet Earth? I think "lots & lots."

 

And with no rotation or revolving around an axis - wow, seems Gilese 581c is quite non-conducive to life. But I could be wrong.

 

Glad you thought the article was interesting. I just provided it as a possibility. There have been many planets found outside our solar system.. most of them are probably not suitable for life, but being so far away we don't know. We may even find some life in our own solar system, under the ice caps of Mars possibly or on Europa or Titan.

[Deva]

There isn't a scrap of evidence that there was ever such a thing as a perfect environment. What are these vestiges of the previous creation?

Ray, do you ever doubt your salvation in the Day to come or is always anticipation?

 

The vestiges of Eden I was referring to are beauty, harmony, peace, art, working the land, music, love, relationships, inter-acting with the animal world, etc. I was not referring to any physical vestiges of Eden - I think those were destroyed long ago.

 

Most of my days are lived in anticipation of heaven - but doubts do rise up every now-and-then.

 

I think the more plausible explanation is that these qualities of the ability to appreciate beauty, music, art, relationships, etc. which human beings developed happened over the course of evolution. In the struggle to survive humans were able to develop societies and relationships, fostered by the development of our complex language.

 

Of course there are no "physical vestiges of Eden" since it never existed.

 

I was wondering about your doubts. I don't honestly see how any Christian could be sure of their salvation.

[Antlerman]

There isn't a scrap of evidence that there was ever such a thing as a perfect environment. What are these vestiges of the previous creation?

Ray, do you ever doubt your salvation in the Day to come or is always anticipation?

 

The vestiges of Eden I was referring to are beauty, harmony, peace, art, working the land, music, love, relationships, inter-acting with the animal world, etc. I was not referring to any physical vestiges of Eden - I think those were destroyed long ago.

 

Most of my days are lived in anticipation of heaven - but doubts do rise up every now-and-then.

And you can't see in this how you just spoke of it that Eden is a symbol?? It's so right there in front of you.

[Ouroboros]

Most of my days are lived in anticipation of heaven - but doubts do rise up every now-and-then.

Sorry for butting in here, but I think it's a very honest and candid admission, and I respect when a Christian can admit they do have occasional doubt.

 

As a Christian, I had my doubts to, but I always tried to fight through it, pray, read the Bible, go to Church, even fast, or get engaged in Church, but that doubt kept on coming back. It was stressful, and caused a form of anxiety, because I didn't want this doubt, but it kept on nagging.

 

Today, as a non-believer, I must say I don't have this anxiety anymore. I don't doubt that way anymore--at least not the same way. I can question and doubt certain scientific ideas or certain events, historical records, or news, but overall, I'm not in the doubt of what I believer--or rather not believe--anymore. For once I can say, I feel whole as a person. You have to admit that it is strange that I feel the peace, strength in faith (or non-faith), and unity for everything/world/everyone, finally, now as a non-believer. Very strange, isn't it?

[Mriana]

Most of my days are lived in anticipation of heaven - but doubts do rise up every now-and-then.

 

I've heard of this theology. What it lead to was mental illness and suicide, which ended up attributed to God by the surviving believers. I'm always amazed how believers can twist such things.

[agnosticator]

Believe me, I think this life form is neat and unique, but I wouldn't say it came about as it exists today from complete absence of the sun in its history - and I don't think they are making that claim either.

 

I don't see where they say that. But who knows?

[Shyone]

 

 

Heh. Just think if we adopted the "rules" of the BibleChristian thinking into our law courts. Wouldn't that be grand ? "I know in my heart that you're guilty; even though we have no evidence..."

 

 

Of course, no BibleChristian would ever agree that such a thing would be a good idea. One wouldn't want their fate and judgement to depend on anything but strong, clear, evidence, logic, and objective reality.

 

Would they ?

Imagine how Abraham would try to explain tying Isaac to a woodpile and brandishing a knife in a threatening way. "God told me to!"

 

Sounds like the guy that went to his school to kill some students: “Now I know what I must do–another Columbine to save some children from sin. I will sacrifice some students then kill myself” he wrote. “The sacrifice will occur and those children will be free from evil.”

 

Hey, who are WE to argue with someone that knows the will of God?

 

I'd be willing to bet there was a fundy on the jury, and they convicted him.

 

The law acts as if there is no god, no spirits and no psychic visions. Thank God. Metaphorically, of course.

[Ouroboros]

Imagine how Abraham would try to explain tying Isaac to a woodpile and brandishing a knife in a threatening way. "God told me to!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqC73omSk4o

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude' date='20 August 2009 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1250830156' post='478067']

Most of my days are lived in anticipation of heaven - but doubts do rise up every now-and-then.

 

Sorry for butting in here, but I think it's a very honest and candid admission, and I respect when a Christian can admit they do have occasional doubt. As a Christian, I had my doubts to, but I always tried to fight through it, pray, read the Bible, go to Church, even fast, or get engaged in Church, but that doubt kept on coming back. It was stressful, and caused a form of anxiety, because I didn't want this doubt, but it kept on nagging.

 

Guys - I think any Christian would admit there are occasions (though they may be rare) of doubt.

 

Certainly, there are Scripture passages that cause me consternation at times, there are prayers that receive "No' as an answer, or they are not answered in what I consider the appropriate timing; there are sufferings that I see good people encountering and I sometimes wonder, "Why? To what end? How does/could this glorify God and be to their good?" There are injustices that occur all too much on this planet; there's my own lack of love to others, my own continuing struggle against temptations that are met with inconsistent obedience to God - even after so many years of knowing Him as LORD and Savior; there's conflicts amongst God's people that brings reproach on Christ and generates anger, hard feelings, unforgiveness, etc in the church; and yet...

 

I am reminded of the many answers to prayer which were outstanding, and came in a timing that stretched my faith to a stronger place, the changes I've seen in my own life and the lives of so many others who have come to saving faith in Christ; the completely inexplicable existence of all there is in terms of an evolutionary, mechanistic worldview; and the exhileration & beauty of knowing God - seeing Him work in my own life & family & church & in missions - and so I am then strengthened in my faith and in my trust in God.

 

But not without losing sight of the fact that this is indeed and world that is stained by sin - which makes me long all the more for the New Heavens & Earth. And which also causes me to persevere in my pursuit of God by preaching His Gospel and engaging in whatever good works He has called me to do. I think it's just an honest approach to God and all reality.

[Ouroboros]

Guys - I think any Christian would admit there are occasions (though they may be rare) of doubt.

Well, then reflect on how you "believe" in that you exists. Do you ever doubt that you exist? Do you ever doubt that when you are watching a flower that you actually are watching a flower?

 

In other words, how can you doubt something that is obvious? If your belief in God/Jesus/Bible is obvious and irrefutable, then why do you have any doubts at all, ever?

 

Certainly, there are Scripture passages that cause me consternation at times, there are prayers that receive "No' as an answer, or they are not answered in what I consider the appropriate timing; there are sufferings that I see good people encountering and I sometimes wonder, "Why? To what end? How does/could this glorify God and be to their good?" There are injustices that occur all too much on this planet; there's my own lack of love to others, my own continuing struggle against temptations that are met with inconsistent obedience to God - even after so many years of knowing Him as LORD and Savior; there's conflicts amongst God's people that brings reproach on Christ and generates anger, hard feelings, unforgiveness, etc in the church; and yet...

Again. You're gaining points in my book.

 

I am reminded of the many answers to prayer which were outstanding, and came in a timing that stretched my faith to a stronger place, the changes I've seen in my own life and the lives of so many others who have come to saving faith in Christ; the completely inexplicable existence of all there is in terms of an evolutionary, mechanistic worldview; and the exhileration & beauty of knowing God - seeing Him work in my own life & family & church & in missions - and so I am then strengthened in my faith and in my trust in God.

You know, I do feel those things about beauty and awe for nature in the sense that I am part of Nature, in larger scale. I am part of all this, and connected to it all. I feel like that is my spiritual experience, and it keeps me awestruck quite a lot. I see "Nature" as a whole, Universe, multiverse, whathaveyou, as the "God" in my life. I have a responsibility to myself, and to my existence, and to Nature from where I came, to act according to the laws of life, meaning, respecting life, supporting equality, and make fairness a goal.

 

But not without losing sight of the fact that this is indeed and world that is stained by sin - which makes me long all the more for the New Heavens & Earth. And which also causes me to persevere in my pursuit of God by preaching His Gospel and engaging in whatever good works He has called me to do. I think it's just an honest approach to God and all reality.

As you know, I consider "sin" to be an invented term, and not founded in any real or tangible concept.

[Mriana]

Rayskidude, what about those who find healing in not being religious though? Those who find they are better off without religion and their health gets better in many ways? They find beauty in the earth/nature and saving faith or whatever has nothing to do with anything?

 

Sorry, Hansolo, but he's not gaining any points with me.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, Hansolo, but he's not gaining any points with me.

He's winning points with me because of his admission of doubt, and expressing in other ways too. I remember when I was Christian, I tried to hide this little tidbit of information from other people, Christian and non-Christian alike. I know it's not easy to tell people, and definitely not non-Christians.

[NotBlinded]

Hans, I wish you all the best with ray. I admit I backed out when he stated that Christianity changed hearts for the good and I asked him if he really did think that was the only way for people to have a change of heart and he stated something like, if it's a permanent change for the better - YES. I am paraphrasing here because I'm lazy, but that's the gist of it. I'll keep reading him though, and hope.

[Shyone]

Hans, I wish you all the best with ray. I admit I backed out when he stated that Christianity changed hearts for the good and I asked him if he really did think that was the only way for people to have a change of heart and he stated something like, if it's a permanent change for the better - YES. I am paraphrasing here because I'm lazy, but that's the gist of it. I'll keep reading him though, and hope.

It would seem that reality refutes his position.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, I wish you all the best with ray. I admit I backed out when he stated that Christianity changed hearts for the good and I asked him if he really did think that was the only way for people to have a change of heart and he stated something like, if it's a permanent change for the better - YES. I am paraphrasing here because I'm lazy, but that's the gist of it. I'll keep reading him though, and hope.

Thanks. My attempts are quite halfhearted nowadays. I've realized it doesn't work. You can't argue with faith.

 

 

It would seem that reality refutes his position.

Of course it does. But how do you get them to see reality when they're living in their own dreamworld?

[NotBlinded]

Hans, I wish you all the best with ray. I admit I backed out when he stated that Christianity changed hearts for the good and I asked him if he really did think that was the only way for people to have a change of heart and he stated something like, if it's a permanent change for the better - YES. I am paraphrasing here because I'm lazy, but that's the gist of it. I'll keep reading him though, and hope.

Thanks. My attempts are quite halfhearted nowadays. I've realized it doesn't work. You can't argue with faith.

 

 

It would seem that reality refutes his position.

Of course it does. But how do you get them to see reality when they're living in their own dreamworld?

I think the reason I backed out was because in ray, I actually saw something, or thought I did, that made me think he had the potential to embrace other's feelings geniunely. A little disappointed I quess.

 

LNC? I know there is no expectation of that happening so there is no chance of being disappointed. It's full steam ahead.

[Mriana]

Sorry, Hansolo, but he's not gaining any points with me.

He's winning points with me because of his admission of doubt, and expressing in other ways too. I remember when I was Christian, I tried to hide this little tidbit of information from other people, Christian and non-Christian alike. I know it's not easy to tell people, and definitely not non-Christians.

 

Ah, I see. I don't think I was ever afraid to rant about what I didn't like, but I don't think I would have admitted doubt either. However, I think my rants revealed what I actually thought about religion long before I ever left it.

[chefranden]

Certainly, there are Scripture passages that cause me consternation at times, there are prayers that receive "No' as an answer, or they are not answered in what I consider the appropriate timing; there are sufferings that I see good people encountering and I sometimes wonder, "Why? To what end? How does/could this glorify God and be to their good?" There are injustices that occur all too much on this planet; there's my own lack of love to others, my own continuing struggle against temptations that are met with inconsistent obedience to God - even after so many years of knowing Him as LORD and Savior; there's conflicts amongst God's people that brings reproach on Christ and generates anger, hard feelings, unforgiveness, etc in the church; and yet...

 

Just in case you didn't see the article posted by Shyone: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/32890-a-crime-in-florida/

 

The Pederson Trilemma.

 

What would you think of a person like a neighbor or a policeman ignoring this woman's pleas/prayer? You would be absolutely disgusted, I hope. Now why shouldn't God be held to the same standard? After all he is the most moral being right? Matthew 25: 31-46 says to me if you don't do what you can to help you go to hell. Therefore to me God is either the evilest SOB in the valley, or helpless, or God does not exist. If God is any of these there is no reason for me to pay attention to him/it.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='28 August 2009 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1251479095' post='480187']

Guys - I think any Christian would admit there are occasions (though they may be rare) of doubt.

 

Well, then reflect on how you "believe" in that you exists. Do you ever doubt that you exist? Do you ever doubt that when you are watching a flower that you actually are watching a flower? In other words, how can you doubt something that is obvious? If your belief in God/Jesus/Bible is obvious and irrefutable, then why do you have any doubts at all, ever?

 

I certainly do not doubt my own existence or that of any physical phenomenon which I can see, smell, touch, etc. However, I think that these are 2 different types of being 'sure' of something. We can know reality through our senses - or we can reason through and know reality by a combination of data and inductive reasoning (such that we can predict the existence of 'dark matter' because of all the circumstantial scientific evidence; so though though we cannot see or dertect it yet, we certainly believe in its existence. And we believe by faith that one day we'll develop the technology to detect and define dark matter.)

 

Solid faith in God's existence and character and purposes are more like the circumstantial type of assurance. There is a certain level of faith that we are "seeing Him who is invisible" by seeing the indirect evidence of His impact. And the strength of faith is somewhat related to the strength of the circumstantial evidence. So as I reason through the existence of the universe, humanity, beauty, harmony, balance, love, interdependence in symbiotic relationships, excellence in art & literature & music, complexity, intricacy, etc I am left with the conclusion that there is a God who matches the Biblical description.

 

And as I examine my own life with God - or as we say, 'our walk with God' - I sense the characteristics of a personal realtionship - with all the commensurate joys, disappointments, interactions, seeking to please, thankfulness, forgiveness, discouragements that are characteristic of personal relationships. These cannot be quantified, but they can be of comparative strength (I loved my wife & kids more today - based on my actions and words toward them - than I did yesterday, because I had reminded myself of how important they are and I reminded myself that my love for them is paramount for both the benefit they derive and I receive. Tomorrow I may love them even more, or maybe less (because I have allowed myself to be selfish). So relationships are 'managed' with a different set of rules, so to speak.

 

In addition to being a different kind of assuredness - belief in God is opposed by various things in the world. My character, my realtionships, my significance - these are not challenged by the flower. But my faith in God is challenged by my own flesh, which wants to pursue its own selfish interests - despite what God or others would encourage me to pursue. Also, there are 'pleasures' in the world that tempt and distract me from faithfulness to God - $$, education, position, power, illicit sex, prestige, athletic achievement, possessions, etc. As one author has said, we live in a world where we 'would rather be envied than admired.' We all sense that temptation. And finally - yes, there is a devil. Satan goes about as a roaring seeking whom he may devour. Seeking to destroy the faith of believers by bringing about situations which could cause them to doubt God's love. Obviously - this would be a 'whole 'nother discussion.'

 

So there are things in this life which fight against faith in God, while there is nothing fighting against my belief in the existence in the flower. Our relationship with God has all the earmarks of any personal relationship. A faith challenged is a faith strengthened. A faith streched is a faith solidified. A close walk with God is a life of meaning, joy, and significance - lived with an eternal perpective - lived for the Glory of God.

[Ouroboros]

I certainly do not doubt my own existence or that of any physical phenomenon which I can see, smell, touch, etc. However, I think that these are 2 different types of being 'sure' of something. We can know reality through our senses - or we can reason through and know reality by a combination of data and inductive reasoning (such that we can predict the existence of 'dark matter' because of all the circumstantial scientific evidence; so though though we cannot see or dertect it yet, we certainly believe in its existence. And we believe by faith that one day we'll develop the technology to detect and define dark matter.)

Agree. At least I think I agree. I'm a bit tired, so perhaps I'm agreeing to something I shouldn't!

 

Solid faith in God's existence and character and purposes are more like the circumstantial type of assurance. There is a certain level of faith that we are "seeing Him who is invisible" by seeing the indirect evidence of His impact. And the strength of faith is somewhat related to the strength of the circumstantial evidence. So as I reason through the existence of the universe, humanity, beauty, harmony, balance, love, interdependence in symbiotic relationships, excellence in art & literature & music, complexity, intricacy, etc I am left with the conclusion that there is a God who matches the Biblical description.

I understand. Even though I don't agree with the conclusion.

 

And as I examine my own life with God - or as we say, 'our walk with God' - I sense the characteristics of a personal realtionship - with all the commensurate joys, disappointments, interactions, seeking to please, thankfulness, forgiveness, discouragements that are characteristic of personal relationships. These cannot be quantified, but they can be of comparative strength (I loved my wife & kids more today - based on my actions and words toward them - than I did yesterday, because I had reminded myself of how important they are and I reminded myself that my love for them is paramount for both the benefit they derive and I receive. Tomorrow I may love them even more, or maybe less (because I have allowed myself to be selfish). So relationships are 'managed' with a different set of rules, so to speak.

I have and can get the same feeling, but I attribute it to us, me, you, humans, being in unity with the Universe or Nature. Not necessarily a separate entity which we would name God.

 

In addition to being a different kind of assuredness - belief in God is opposed by various things in the world. My character, my realtionships, my significance - these are not challenged by the flower. But my faith in God is challenged by my own flesh, which wants to pursue its own selfish interests - despite what God or others would encourage me to pursue. Also, there are 'pleasures' in the world that tempt and distract me from faithfulness to God - $$, education, position, power, illicit sex, prestige, athletic achievement, possessions, etc. As one author has said, we live in a world where we 'would rather be envied than admired.' We all sense that temptation. And finally - yes, there is a devil. Satan goes about as a roaring seeking whom he may devour. Seeking to destroy the faith of believers by bringing about situations which could cause them to doubt God's love. Obviously - this would be a 'whole 'nother discussion.'

Well, if there is a God, I can't say I know what God is encouraging me to pursue. It seems like you have a closer connection with God than I do. I tried. I wanted. I asked. But no change.

 

I think God and Devil and all these different words and names are just symbols to represent actual things in life, but not that they are those things religion say. I think that words like sin, evil, goodness, etc, are just human definitions on things we have a hard time pin-pointing. Basically, they represent functions in reality, but not beings or supernatural things. I'm not sure if you know what I mean, but that's the only way I can figure out how to explain it at the moment.

 

Perhaps if I put it this way, we have a certain level of understanding, a cultural kind, of what good is, and religion creates a word to represent what good, love, empathy etc is, they call it God. It doesn't mean in my opinion that God as a separate entity exist, but rather that God is a word which collects all those human things (abstractions) in to just one symbol.

 

So there are things in this life which fight against faith in God, while there is nothing fighting against my belief in the existence in the flower. Our relationship with God has all the earmarks of any personal relationship. A faith challenged is a faith strengthened. A faith streched is a faith solidified. A close walk with God is a life of meaning, joy, and significance - lived with an eternal perpective - lived for the Glory of God.

For me, a relationship entails direct and immediate communication. Nature talks to me. If I jump from a cliff, Nature will tell me I'm dead. If I eat too much, Nature will tell me I'm stuffed. But there's no verbal communication, and it's only Nature, IMO.

[agnosticator]

We can know reality through our senses - or we can reason through and know reality by a combination of data and inductive reasoning (such that we can predict the existence of 'dark matter' because of all the circumstantial scientific evidence; so though though we cannot see or dertect it yet, we certainly believe in its existence. And we believe by faith that one day we'll develop the technology to detect and define dark matter.)

 

Solid faith in God's existence and character and purposes are more like the circumstantial type of assurance. There is a certain level of faith that we are "seeing Him who is invisible" by seeing the indirect evidence of His impact. And the strength of faith is somewhat related to the strength of the circumstantial evidence. So as I reason through the existence of the universe, humanity, beauty, harmony, balance, love, interdependence in symbiotic relationships, excellence in art & literature & music, complexity, intricacy, etc I am left with the conclusion that there is a God who matches the Biblical description.

 

 

How can you infer that the christian god exists, and the bible is true, from data and relationships you experience in reality? Inductive reasoning begins with observation of facts. You would have to take the leap of faith in spite of the facts. It's like saying,"since I have a father, god must be like a father in heaven that cares for me". Rather than admitting "I don't know if the christian god really exists", you are inferring analogies from real relationships and connecting them to the supernatural. That's a leap of faith, not reasoning. The things in this world that really fight against your faith are facts.