A person can know that God exists by studying nature.

[Questatement]

However, the older I get, the more understanding I gain and therefore, what was done by faith yesterday may well be done with understanding tomorrow.

I have detailed this once before on this site but this is the very reason that faith is required as a prerequisite to anything good that God offers, be it salvation or better health. We do not have the understanding that God does and until we do, that which God offers can only be acquired by faith due to 1) our lack of understanding and 2) our natural inclinations to (often) seek our good through opposing means.

[BlackSheep]

I have detailed this once before on this site but this is the very reason that faith is required as a prerequisite to anything good that God offers, be it salvation or better health. We do not have the understanding that God does and until we do, that which God offers can only be acquired by faith due to 1) our lack of understanding and 2) our natural inclinations to (often) seek the our good through opposing means.

This is where I get lost. We need to have faith in something we have no reason t believe in to gain that which we need to believe in it? How do we pick the correct thing to begin with then?

[Questatement]

This is where I get lost. We need to have faith in something we have no reason t believe in to gain that which we need to believe in it? How do we pick the correct thing to begin with then?

I'm sorry but "no reason" is beyond any logical representation of the evidence.

Care to rephrase your question?

[Peter]

Don't pick up an old book, and the post which you are referring to doesn't include any such suggestion. The title of the thread is that "a person can know that God exists by studying nature", and that was the point I was trying to make, but you are putting words into my mouth. I'm just saying keep all books aside for a moment, and read my post again.

Apologies, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to make a point of my own about how differently a theist and a scientist approach nature.

Back when humans were ignorant, frightened and superstitious it was a great comfort to imagine a personal god that created the universe for our enjoyment and watches over each of us as if we were his children. Even today, many people will prefer to believe a conspiracy theory before they'll admit to not knowing. The religion business has known this from the beginning and are still quite sensitive to competing conspiracy theories. Remember how the vatican freaked out about the DaVinci Code? Here was a completely fictional story but it was such a good story that the catholic church was concerned it would divert some of the belief it's own 2000 year old fiction enjoyed. Crazy right? The catholic church concerned about a story. Do they maybe realize that their foundations are just stories too?

Religion is passe today because we have a tool with which we can understand nature. Science has systematically and relentlessly pushed the hand of god away from nature. At this point the theist intellectuals(very small club) have given so much ground to science that the only place left to stand and argue for the hand of god is the big bang. Some day, science will pull this ground from beneath their feet too.

When that happens I hope we'll be able to face reality and stop squabbling over who's holy book is the one written by the true god and get down to the business of universal human well being. I'm certain that if we all worked together we could make this world a virtual heaven for the entire human race.

Sorry for the long post.

[notthecheatr]

We do not have the understanding that God does

I thought the whole point of eating from the tree was that we would know about good and evil. Are humans not capable of knowing about good and evil?

and until we do

If God were omniscient, would we ever know what he knows?

that which God offers can only be acquired by faith

Isn't God intelligent enough to find a way of saving us without requiring us to blindly believe something for which we have not even a single shred of evidence?

[notthecheatr]

Human nature doesn't change. What deterred people from committing crimes is the same thing that deters us today - harsh, bitter punishments.

Really? You think I refrain from killing people out of the fear of punishment? You don't think I'm clever enough not to go around killing people otherwise? Besides, if we really needed harsh and bitter punishments, we'd still be using the same ones we used 3,000 years ago. We don't stone people to death any more because we have better ways of doing it.

Again, there is no change when it comes to the spirit of a law intended to bring good to a society or individual, only the letter of the laws themselves.

Then why do so many Christians want to take the Bible word-for-word literally, and follow every law to the letter? Why, for example, are people hated for being homosexual?

For instance, if the reason God restricted certain foods for the Jews was tied to their universal blood type and the way certain foods interacted with that blood type and God, knowing this science, wanted the best for their health, it's good to obey.

There is no "Jewish blood type." The same things which affected the Jews' health would have affected everyone else's health. Any idea why God chose only to give them these rules?

Also, we have different technology. That's why it's safe for us to eat things the Jews (and other people) could not safely eat at one point. Humans haven't changed very much physically in the last 100,000 years. It's our technology which makes our health better and our lives safer. There's a reason our life expectancy is so much longer now, and it has nothing to do with divine revelation.

Governments do the exact same thing today for their people by making sure the food supply is as healthy as possible.

Yes, but nobody gets stoned for eating the wrong kind of fish

If what I say of biblical food restrictions is true, can we call the latter good and the former quackery? In fact, if modern science bears testimony to the same food list being unhealthy for type B blood types and the Jews can be shown to have had this universally 3,400 years ago, it should point to divine inspiration instead of mockery.

Not necessarily. A more likely explanation is that the Jews noticed certain foods led to better health than others, and codified these dietary restrictions into law. If someone else with a different "blood type" had different health needs, they codified other things into law. This is a kind of blind science, played by trial and error and without much knowledge of what's actually going on (i.e. blood type). Just because you happen to notice that certain foods are bad for you doesn't mean you got this knowledge from an invisible magic man in the sky.

The biblical restriction for killing is identical to 1st degree murder.

Not even close. We have far more distinctions today than they ever did. We also have a concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which simply did not exist in that time - and for good reason. When it's every man for himself and you don't have the knowledge and technology of this age, you need a fast way to settle your problems. That doesn't mean it's the best way, but it is the most practical way in some circumstances.

The cities of refuge were intended to shelter a person who desired to plead innocence (whether they lived there or not - e.g. strategically placed) so that they could have their innocence tried before a judge (Levite).

Exactly. It could have been a total accident, or you might not have done it at all, but as long as two people were willing to testify that you had (and how hard is it to pay two people to lie?) the family of the deceased had the right to kill you in cold blood on sight.

If the one who killed another did not flee to such a city, their guilt was presumed.

Guilty until proven innocent. And "proof" can be accomplished by nothing more than two paid liars.

Now, what better closure for the family of the victim than to enact justice on top of the deterrent factor than enacting the prescribed punishment themselves over the impersonal state?

Revenge may feel good to the person getting the revenge, but it doesn't really provide closure, nor is it good justice. Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing the killer of your brother won't bring him back. And when you can't even verify that he really is the killer for sure, you could be killing an innocent man. Incidentally, there was no such thing as an "impersonal state" in Biblical times. The "government" of the Bible was something between a theocracy and a dictatorship, depending on which time period you're looking at.

We see a similar concept of "revenge justice" at work today in modern Palestine/Israel. Your brother gets killed? You go kill someone else's brother. Never mind if he actually did it or not. And they're going to come and kill you. An endless cycle of killing without reason.

Perhaps you're going to say I'm being unfair, I'm characterizing the Jews as bloody monsters. Actually I'm not, except to the extent that everyone was during that time period. My point is that what we have today is better. More just, more rational, more practical, safer. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly better.

Actually, I follow what is directed toward me to the best of my ability because I believe that it comes from a God who has my best interests in mind whether or not I have come to understand the full intent and future implications upon my life. However, the older I get, the more understanding I gain and therefore, what was done by faith yesterday may well be done with understanding tomorrow.

You get your moral compass from your understanding of God and society. I get mine from my instincts and my understanding of society. Could it be that God is actually your instincts, anthropomorphized?

[Questatement]

I thought the whole point of eating from the tree was that we would know about good and evil. Are humans not capable of knowing about good and evil?

Jumping tracks again? What does knowing x about evil have to do with matching God's full knowledge?

If God were omniscient, would we ever know what he knows?

Ask me again at the end of eternity.

Isn't God intelligent enough to find a way of saving us without requiring us to blindly believe something for which we have not even a single shred of evidence?

Define evidence please.

[notthecheatr]

Jumping tracks again? What does knowing x about evil have to do with matching God's full knowledge?

The reason I'm asking is to underscore the fact that there are different kinds of knowledge, and you haven't really specified what kind of knowledge we need in order to not be taking God's existence on faith alone.

Ask me again at the end of eternity.

I might want to know now? If it's really important to my salvation to know about God now, then there must be some way of knowing now. Why should I accept belief in something I will never be able to know for sure?

Define evidence please.

That depends on how you define God. I can't define what the evidence for a vague, ethereal concept would be, can I? To even be rationally justified in believing in the God of Christianity, we would need:
-Evidence for a worldwide flood (and evidence for how it happened).
-Evidence that the world was only a few thousand years old.
-Evidence that some of the miracles had occurred. I'm not sure how these things could possibly be evidenced, but as it is Christians who are claiming they happened, I'm sure they ought to be able to give us some sort of evidence other than an ancient book written by superstitious and ignorant people.
-Evidence that the person Jesus Christ actually existed, and that the story of hi life (i.e. travelling around preaching, supposedly healing people, and dying on a cross) could at least be plausibly true.

While these things would certainly not prove Christianity, they would certainly give it a good deal more credibility than their absence do.

[Questatement]

Really? You think I refrain from killing people out of the fear of punishment? You don't think I'm clever enough not to go around killing people otherwise? Besides, if we really needed harsh and bitter punishments, we'd still be using the same ones we used 3,000 years ago. We don't stone people to death any more because we have better ways of doing it.

You may not kill for reasons which require no threat of punishment but others may not be so inclined. I believe the laws regarding murder are for the latter group anyway?

Then why do so many Christians want to take the Bible word-for-word literally, and follow every law to the letter? Why, for example, are people hated for being homosexual?

A literal translation is required unless the context demands otherwise (symbolism, poetry, etc.). However, laws given to Israel under Moses were for that nation only and only for the term that they possessed the land before exile.

Yes, but nobody gets stoned for eating the wrong kind of fish

This isn't Sharia law. Capitol punishment for OT Israel is reserved for those things which would inherently thwart God's purpose for that nation/enterprise.

Not necessarily. A more likely explanation is that the Jews noticed certain foods led to better health than others, and codified these dietary restrictions into law. If someone else with a different "blood type" had different health needs, they codified other things into law. This is a kind of blind science, played by trial and error and without much knowledge of what's actually going on (i.e. blood type). Just because you happen to notice that certain foods are bad for you doesn't mean you got this knowledge from an invisible magic man in the sky.

I didn't ask you if it was true. I asked you what if it was true? There is no point in me presenting evidence for divine inspiration in dietary restrictions if your final conclusion were coincidence or some other natural explanation that makes little sense in light of dietary knowledge 3400 years ago.

Not even close. We have far more distinctions today than they ever did. We also have a concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which simply did not exist in that time - and for good reason. When it's every man for himself and you don't have the knowledge and technology of this age, you need a fast way to settle your problems. That doesn't mean it's the best way, but it is the most practical way in some circumstances.

If you kill someone and do not flee to a city of refuge in order to be classified as "innocent until proven guilty" then you are guilty until proven innocent. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Exactly. It could have been a total accident, or you might not have done it at all, but as long as two people were willing to testify that you had (and how hard is it to pay two people to lie?) the family of the deceased had the right to kill you in cold blood on sight. Guilty until proven innocent. And "proof" can be accomplished by nothing more than two paid liars.

And how does false witness differ from today in a capitol murder case?

Revenge may feel good to the person getting the revenge, but it doesn't really provide closure, nor is it good justice.

I think my opinion is more of a common sense one. Evidence for yours?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Then what is the purpose of criminal punishment?

Killing the killer of your brother won't bring him back.

Really? And all this time I believed...

Incidentally, there was no such thing as an "impersonal state" in Biblical times. The "government" of the Bible was something between a theocracy and a dictatorship, depending on which time period you're looking at.

Other than exacting punishment for the murder of a loved one, all other punishments were over seen by judges and if stoning was to be the sentence, a segment of the the community would carry it out. Okay, so you may know a few of them throwing stones at you.

We see a similar concept of "revenge justice" at work today in modern Palestine/Israel. Your brother gets killed? You go kill someone else's brother. Never mind if he actually did it or not. And they're going to come and kill you. An endless cycle of killing without reason.

The law codifies no further killing beyond that for 1st degree murder. How can you justify an endless Hatfield's and McCoy's from the OT?

Perhaps you're going to say I'm being unfair, I'm characterizing the Jews as bloody monsters. Actually I'm not, except to the extent that everyone was during that time period. My point is that what we have today is better. More just, more rational, more practical, safer. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly better.

One man's opinion anyway.

You get your moral compass from your understanding of God and society. I get mine from my instincts and my understanding of society. Could it be that God is actually your instincts, anthropomorphized?

God can theoretically be just about anything but mine not only makes perfect sense to me, but lives within my being... a rather hearty testimony for me individually.

[Questatement]

The reason I'm asking is to underscore the fact that there are different kinds of knowledge, and you haven't really specified what kind of knowledge we need in order to not be taking God's existence on faith alone.

Any and all knowledge whereby you lack a full understanding requires faith to bring about the end result of a given recommendation/command (speaking spirit of the law over letter). This always requires a mix of knowledge based evidence and faith... just in different proportions depending.

I might want to know now? If it's really important to my salvation to know about God now, then there must be some way of knowing now. Why should I accept belief in something I will never be able to know for sure?

God asks you to put him to the test but not to expect results unless you are sincere. If you are convinced that you have done this with no results, it can only mean there is no God or you were insincere. The choice between those two will be yours alone.

That depends on how you define God. I can't define what the evidence for a vague, ethereal concept would be, can I? To even be rationally justified in believing in the God of Christianity, we would need:
-Evidence for a worldwide flood (and evidence for how it happened).
-Evidence that the world was only a few thousand years old.
-Evidence that some of the miracles had occurred. I'm not sure how these things could possibly be evidenced, but as it is Christians who are claiming they happened, I'm sure they ought to be able to give us some sort of evidence other than an ancient book written by superstitious and ignorant people.
-Evidence that the person Jesus Christ actually existed, and that the story of hi life (i.e. travelling around preaching, supposedly healing people, and dying on a cross) could at least be plausibly true.

Those are forms of evidence. How do you define evidence itself?

[notthecheatr]

A literal translation is required unless the context demands otherwise (symbolism, poetry, etc.). However, laws given to Israel under Moses were for that nation only and only for the term that they possessed the land before exile.

What reason do you have for concluding that these laws, which were supposed to have been given by an eternal and unchanging God, were only meant to apply to a specific group of people? Never does Moses claim that the rules will one day no longer apply. This doctrine was given only long after the fact. Who's to say Paul was correct in throwing the rules out? Maybe they do apply, after all.

This isn't Sharia law. Capitol punishment for OT Israel is reserved for those things which would inherently thwart God's purpose for that nation/enterprise.

Like being gay or a witch?

I didn't ask you if it was true. I asked you what if it was true? There is no point in me presenting evidence for divine inspiration in dietary restrictions if your final conclusion were coincidence or some other natural explanation that makes little sense in light of dietary knowledge 3400 years ago.

My final conclusion was not coincidence. My final conclusion was that human intelligence is more likely to be responsible for such laws than divine revelation.

If you kill someone and do not flee to a city of refuge in order to be classified as "innocent until proven guilty" then you are guilty until proven innocent. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Why does an innocent man have to give up his freedom in order to be considered innocent? And what about people who are not physically capable of travelling? Why should "innocent until proven guilty" be conditional?

And how does false witness differ from today in a capitol murder case?

Two words: forensic science. We don't convict on someone's say-so, and if we do, we shouldn't. I'm not saying today's justice system is perfect, or even what it should be, but it's still better. We have the ability to make blood, fiber, and DNA analysis. No longer is it based on one person's say-so. And again, presuming innocence from the get-go makes it a lot harder for innocent people to be convicted, much less sentenced to death.

I think my opinion is more of a common sense one. Evidence for yours?

Define "common sense" and explain why "common sense" is necessarily rationally correct.

Then what is the purpose of criminal punishment?

It has two purposes: the practical purpose of preventing the criminal from striking again, and even though it shouldn't be this way, it does still serve to provide some sense of "revenge" for the victims.

Other than exacting punishment for the murder of a loved one, all other punishments were over seen by judges and if stoning was to be the sentence, a segment of the the community would carry it out. Okay, so you may know a few of them throwing stones at you.

As I understand it, if you are believed to be a killer, you could be killed any time, by anyone, so long as you are not in the cities of refuge. Perhaps my understanding is mistaken, though.

The law codifies no further killing beyond that for 1st degree murder. How can you justify an endless Hatfield's and McCoy's from the OT?

I said it's similar, I didn't say it's the same. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth makes the whole world blind and toothless.

God can theoretically be just about anything but mine not only makes perfect sense to me, but lives within my being... a rather hearty testimony for me individually.

One man's opinion, anyway.

[Questatement]

We're getting a bit long on single posts so I'll break it up a bit if that's okay.

As I understand it, if you are believed to be a killer, you could be killed any time, by anyone, so long as you are not in the cities of refuge. Perhaps my understanding is mistaken, though.

"The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send the accused back to the city of refuge to which they fled. The accused must stay there until the death of the high priest... "

So the accused was tried in their own city and, if found innocent, lived in the nearest city of refuge until the high preist dies which could be anywhere between a day and 30-40? years.

Still, how often does accidental death occur at the hands of another? I would imagine for every such death, 99/100 were intentional.