- Oct 31, 2012
- 53,727
- 52,557
- 3,605
It is a good read. One of the topics of discussion are the reasons belief in God is more rational than atheism.
He has a book on Exodus and Genesis so far, more to come
Here is a taste.
"Given the supreme importance of Genesis 1:1--that is, of God's existence--to life, to meaning, and to morality; and given the Bible rests on this verse and its promise of God's existence, a brief review of the rational arguments for God's existence is necessary.
The most compelling rational argument is, as noted, the question "Why is there anything?" Science and atheism have no answer to this question. Nor will either have an answer. It is outside the purview of science. Science explains what is. But I cannot explain why what is came about--why something, rather than nothing, exists. Only a Creator of that something can explain why there is something rather than nothing.
It is true that the existence of a Creator cannot be scientifically proved. Given that a Creator is outside of nature and that science can prove only that which is within nature, the fact that science cannot prove God's existence is not meaningful.
Moreover, a Creator remains the only rational explanation for existence. And if only one thing can explain something, it is overwhelmingly likely that one this is the explanation. The only alternatives are a) creation created itself from nothing or b) creation always existed. But each of these propositions is considerably less rational than a Creator, and neither can ever be proved.
Nor can science explain the emergence of life on earth. It is mystified by the emergence of life from non-life as it is by the emergence of non-life from nothing. Again, only a Creator can explain that.
And science cannot explain consciousness. Why are human beings (and perhaps, to a much lesser degree, some animals) self-aware? To the best of our knowledge, nothing else in all the universe is self aware. How did creatures emerge in a universe of non-awareness?
To be an atheist is to believe the unverse came about by itself, life came from non-life by itself, and consciousness came about by itself.
On purely rational grounds--the grounds on which I believe in God--the argument for a God who created the world is far more intellectually compelling than atheism.
It is not belief in the existence of a Creator God that most troubles intellectually honest people; it is the existence of unjust suffering--both natural (diseases, earthquakes) and non-made (murder, torture). In other words, the intellectually honest atheist should acknowledge that the existence of the universe, of life, and of consciousness argue for God; and the intellectually honest believer should acknowledge that the amount of unjust suffering challenges faith in a good God.
However, I have never met a believer in God who has not acknowledged this challenge, whereas atheists, by definition, do not acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for a Creator. If they did, they would not longer be atheists; they would be believers or agnostics. To paraphrase the American rabbi and theologian Milton Steinberg, the believer has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else--for the world, life, consciousness, beauty, love, art, music. It would seem that the believer has the upper hand."
He has a book on Exodus and Genesis so far, more to come
Here is a taste.
"Given the supreme importance of Genesis 1:1--that is, of God's existence--to life, to meaning, and to morality; and given the Bible rests on this verse and its promise of God's existence, a brief review of the rational arguments for God's existence is necessary.
The most compelling rational argument is, as noted, the question "Why is there anything?" Science and atheism have no answer to this question. Nor will either have an answer. It is outside the purview of science. Science explains what is. But I cannot explain why what is came about--why something, rather than nothing, exists. Only a Creator of that something can explain why there is something rather than nothing.
It is true that the existence of a Creator cannot be scientifically proved. Given that a Creator is outside of nature and that science can prove only that which is within nature, the fact that science cannot prove God's existence is not meaningful.
Moreover, a Creator remains the only rational explanation for existence. And if only one thing can explain something, it is overwhelmingly likely that one this is the explanation. The only alternatives are a) creation created itself from nothing or b) creation always existed. But each of these propositions is considerably less rational than a Creator, and neither can ever be proved.
Nor can science explain the emergence of life on earth. It is mystified by the emergence of life from non-life as it is by the emergence of non-life from nothing. Again, only a Creator can explain that.
And science cannot explain consciousness. Why are human beings (and perhaps, to a much lesser degree, some animals) self-aware? To the best of our knowledge, nothing else in all the universe is self aware. How did creatures emerge in a universe of non-awareness?
To be an atheist is to believe the unverse came about by itself, life came from non-life by itself, and consciousness came about by itself.
On purely rational grounds--the grounds on which I believe in God--the argument for a God who created the world is far more intellectually compelling than atheism.
It is not belief in the existence of a Creator God that most troubles intellectually honest people; it is the existence of unjust suffering--both natural (diseases, earthquakes) and non-made (murder, torture). In other words, the intellectually honest atheist should acknowledge that the existence of the universe, of life, and of consciousness argue for God; and the intellectually honest believer should acknowledge that the amount of unjust suffering challenges faith in a good God.
However, I have never met a believer in God who has not acknowledged this challenge, whereas atheists, by definition, do not acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for a Creator. If they did, they would not longer be atheists; they would be believers or agnostics. To paraphrase the American rabbi and theologian Milton Steinberg, the believer has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else--for the world, life, consciousness, beauty, love, art, music. It would seem that the believer has the upper hand."
