Replies

Philosophy must deal with what can be known about man and nature based only on what one can be directly conscious of, so must include in it's realm only what is directly perceived, that it, material existense, all internal conscious experience, and all that can be deduced from these.

Then why wouldn't Philosophy include Theology? I maintain that my beliefs in scripture are the result of things that I have directly perceived, whether answered prayer, the sensation of God's presence, fulfilled prophecy, testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, etc. All are evidences in support of the existence of God and in the inspiration of scripture.

I will admit, however, that it being my experience is difficult to prove or reproduce for peer review. I once read Hans Kung's 750 page book on "Does God Exist?". Argument after argument was thrown out in God's favor, only to see him produce a counter argument. Not any that disproved the existence of God, but merely a competing theory or a logic flaw in the original argument. Kung's conclusion after 750 pages, was that you could not prove that God existed. Only God himself could prove to you that he existed.

And I think that is probably by design. There is an argument that says if God manifested Himself in all his glory, would you really have any choice but to worship Him? I do not know fully what motivates God to reveal Himself, obedience and seeking Him with an open heart, seem to be the keys. However, I think He tries to convict all of their need for Him. Jesus's comment that the man in Hell's brothers wouldn't believe even if the man came back from the dead, seems to indicate that everything that can be done has been done.

I think the evidences are there for one willing to see, but one must look at the totality of evidences with an open and unbiased mind. There is not a simple proof that allows me to say "look here is God", that will convince a sceptic.

Instinct is a pre-programmed pattern of behavior that determines all a creatures behavior,

If I understand your position correctly, you view all animals as having either instinct or reason but not both. I think that is a rather dogmatic view. Several animals, (chimps, dolphins, orangutans, dogs, etc.) have been shown to have some reasoning ability. And if instinctual animals possess some reason, might it be possible that reasoning animals might possess some instinct? I don't think I can prove that man has a conscience, but neither can you disprove it.

When I speak of the fallen nature of man, I do not mean "Original Sin" as in the Catholic doctrine.

The difference is that until a child reaches the age of accountability he is considered "innocent". God clearly said in the Old Testament that He would hold us each accountable for our own sin, not our father's.

But I do mean a tendancy toward sin. That tendancy is not something that we have to give into, otherwise we could not be held accountable for sin, but unfortunately we all have given in at one time or another.

Jesus was fully man, but he didn't inherit that rebellious nature. That is why the virgin birth was so important. Jesus was the son of Mary and had prostitutes and canaanites in his earthly ancestry. He was flesh and bone the same as every man, capable of being tempted, mortal. Yet, He was also the Son of God, inheriting the very spirit of God which would not sin.

Adam and Eve did not have a rebellious nature until they ate of the tree, but they did have free will from the beginning.

Luke1:35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Anyway, I will agree with you the important point is that we choose to sin, whether or not there is something fallen about our nature.

And perhaps the most important point of the whole post, is that Jesus's death did not indicate that Jesus had sinned. Rather, it was that our sin was imputed to Jesus. He was made sin for us. His death was substituted for ours.

I have given some thought to your question because I can see it is quite sincere and I want to be sure I make it as clear as possible what I meant. You asked:

My immediate answer would be that these are all evidence to you, because you already believe in God, prayer, and the validity of God's Word. For those who do not believe in any of these, the events you undrstand are an answers to prayer they would see as a perfectly natural events, which they would be (unless ithey were genuine miracles). As for the testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, they would be no more convinced by those than the testimony of those who have been abducted by UFOs. I admit that fulfilled prophecy ought to give even the most hardened skeptic pause, but, from their point of view, since both the prophecies and the fullfillments, for the most part, are recorded in the same Book, which they do not regard has having any more authority than any other book, the fullfillments are not very convincing.

Now this is just what we ought to expect, if the Scriptures are true. It plainly says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14) We should not expect the unregenerate to see evidence of God or the supernatural (eternal) in natural events.

(I will get back to one other point you alluded to about feeling God's presence in a moment.)

First, I want to make clear what I mean about my view on the separation of Philosophy and Theology. I regard philosophy a genuine intellectual discipline, like any of the sciences, or history. The subject matter of philosophy can be very well defined (as I believe the original article in this post accomplished), and the pursuit of genuine knowledge in all those areas must be purely objective, just as it must in the sciences.

Now this is the most important point I have to make. There can be no disagreement between a correct philosophy and a correct theology, just as there can be no disagreement between a correct chemistry and a correct theology, or a correct astronomy and a correct theology. There can be no dissagreements in truth, no contradictions, and no paradoxes.

Philosophy deals with the "natural" perceived world, Theology deals with that which philosophy cannot deal with, that is the "revealed" world of the supernatural. Now there is a natural interface between philosophy and theology at both ends of philosophy, that is, at the metaphysical end, in ontology, which ultimately must describe existense in terms of the most simple or essential of qualities. The question is, what do the simplest or most essential qualities qualify? Philosophy cannot answer that question.

At the other end is human rational/volitional consciousness, which, while conscious of material existense, cannot itself be material existense, and, being rational/volitional, is not constrained by any of the qualities which describe natural (spatial/temporal/determinate) material existense.

(Interestingly, the atheistic philosopher/writer, Ayn Rand, was aware of both these problems and frankly stated, not as a wish, but to point out the nature of the problem, she could almost wish there were a God, because that would solve the problems. The exact statement is recorded, but is not in any of her regularly published works.)

Now, I have written too much but want to mention this idea of "feeling" God. I do not want to discourage you, and first want to assure you there are genuine feelings we ought to experience in our relationships with God. But, I must point out that God is not palpable, and the whole idea of basing anything on our feelings (which are always and only reactions or responses, and never cognitive or revelatory) can be very dangerous.

If God could be "felt" everyone would be able to feel Him, as Luke points out (recording Paul's address at Mar's hill):

Ac 17:26-28 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being....

...because He is not closer to us than anyone else, because we all "live, and move, and have our being," in Him.

The problem with relying on feeling for any view, choice, or conviction, is in themselves, feelings provide no information, such as, about their cause, or even their significance or importance. There is no way from feelings along to determine whether they are being cause by indigestion, the devil, or by our spiritual relatioship with God.

Enough!

Hank