Can someone scrutinize this theological analisys?

Question

It seems we have reached a paradox to which the answer will remain hidden for a very long time.

The fact that God is capable of anything and everything means that science finds him unfalsifiable. The fact God cannot be falsified and thus unprovable actually improves the argument for his existence from the Christian perspective while simultaneously improving the argument for the atheist side as well. This is because the bible splits the 2 sides apart. The philosophical and moral lessons of Jesus show us that there is more to life that meets the eye. The bible introduced the concept of faith first proof later. Meaning that if you have faith now, proof will come to you. This idea creates quite a conundrum when science and faith face off. Now I'll go through my analysis.

A. I make the observation that faith is required in order to later find proof of God.
B. Using the scientific method I then have to test the observation that faith is required to later find proof of God.
C. In order to test the observation I have to come to a conclusion first and then use inductive reasoning.

The results of said tests have been positive for me, and this is because the inductive reasoning, though volatile as to its reasoning is cogent. Meaning that there are universal truths and values that must be in play that the reasoning must be in touch with. An opposing observation must be made with the premise that truth is relative. If truth is relative then no truth can be certain, and if no truth can be certain than no argument can be sound, but both may be valid. So based on these things I can make two deductive statements.

1. If truth is relative there is no truth and God cannot exist, because no universal truth means no universal being.

2. If truth is not relative than God must exist, for universal truths and the values that must follow will have to come outside of humanity. In other words universal truths/values cannot be created by the humanity in which they will be placed as it infringes on inalienable rights and freedoms of others. Inalienable rights and freedoms would be a basic universal truth, and for another human to create universal truths it could or would infringe upon other inalienable rights.

(side note) In the second point the list of reasons why universal truths cannot be created by humanity is not exhaustive. The reason given is just an example.

Answer 1

Many people use the universal truth or universal morals as an argument for the existence of God. There are some morals that are in fact universal and do extend beyond any cultural bounds.

I believe it does take faith to have PROOF that God exists but I do not believe you have to have faith in order to see the evidence that God exists.

Answer 2

"You truly have a dizzying intellect!"

Anyway, you have not described the way one obtains faith
in the way I have seen it done (in my life too).

It actually goes like this:

Is there a God? I do not know.
Could there be a God? Yes.
Someone teaches me that there is a God.
Is there?
God, are You out there?
I don't want to believe in mere limited humanity
and science - I see how limited it is - there must
be something more pure!
So, I sit still -- I can feel the Love of God - I see
creation actually "priasing" God in it's own way.
God, are you real?
What is Your identity?
Is Jesus real?
You then hear in your heart:
"Yes, find rest in Me"

It is like meeting someone - so you know
they exist - not necisarily having blind faith
first, then proving.
The proving part is only confirmation
and confidence - as well as learning
the things God wants us to learn.

What I mean is that we don't just have eyes, ears, nose,
mouth, logic, etc. We have a spirit that can
experience who God is - when awakened!
We CAN know - but it's not via intelligence, per se.
It would not be fair to children or to those of
less mental capacity if it depended upon that!
It is about knowing there IS more to life - it's
about Love - love is not just chemicals.

Knowledge=power (and pride)
Wisdom=perspective (better)
Love=purpose (best)

The Bible even talks about how love
surpasses knowledge.
It is true!
Perfect love casts out fear.
Knowledge is only a sort of bandaid
against fear (it gives a certain type of
limited confidence and understanding,
yet love gives an even better confidence
and understanding)
We WERE created to obtain knowledge,
but that is not our only purpose in life,
and that is a good thing!
It's about love!

About universal truth:
It is found in God's love
Truth sets free and there is no
freedom without love.
Love = freedom b/c it is about purpose and
fulfilling relationship with God who knows all
anc loves perfectly.

Answer 3

Wow, you're smart.

God exists. Very very very smart.
You're so enlightened and wise, teach me.

Oopps...I thought I was in class and nodded off for a moment. Pardon, you were saying?

I mean...wise and smart people always need so much babble to find a relative sentiment that comes from well...just looking! or hearing, or breathing, or touching, or smelling. My scrutiny is this, the world in itself exists and we are the highest elevated being upon it, so there is some great joke and conundrum right there! God has one wild sense of humor. No amount of scrutiny can define humor, or laughter, or common grace and understanding all of which flow with natural course in society. So, the paradox is one of the many unnumbered questions we ask when we become one with the light.

Answer 4

I don't quite see it that. Rather I would say that many issues of proof with regards to God and the validity of the Bible are outside of the realm of science and are rather in the realm of history, philosophy and what can be inferred from such.

But much of the decisions and judgements we make in life are not based upon science. If you judge someone in a court of law based upon the testimony of others, that's not "scientific".

For more see http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/sciences.html

Answer 5

Certainly quite an issue to unpack. You must be a philosophy major? Religion major? RU taking logic? I make this assumption (probably commiting a fallacy of some sort) based on the lingo in your post. It sounds vaguely familiar...students majoring in religion and/or philosophy (such as myself) are often in the midst of a perplexing argument in need of scrutinizing.

Having said that, I'll take your three days and see what I come up with!

Answer 6

i'm answering this without gazing the present solutions, so I ask for forgiveness if I repeat something all of us else has pronounced. ok. i've got observed that numerous your solutions to my questions rather ring of the comparable philosophy: only be your self. Now, we the two understand we deeply have faith in this, yet i will guess that we the two word that to our intellects, no longer our bodies. someway, women persons, extremely American women persons, have reached this component the place we usually do no longer see our bodies as a factor of our selves. Being a feminist, I certainly have a tendency to think of this is due ordinarily to exterior pressures. we are consistently reminded that our bodies are up for scrutinizing via all human beings consisting persons. I recommend . . . how dare all of us call Britney Spears fat? Mentally unwell, particular. yet she's no longer fat. If she grow to be my weight of 250 pounds, she'd be fat. (I very own that i'm fat. i do no longer evaluate it an insult. only a certainty.) So, i'm of the perception that because of the fact others scrutinize our bodies plenty, we are ultimately conditioned into believing that we ought to besides. there is no reason different than social rigidity that elegance surgical treatment is so widely used among women persons. nicely, social rigidity and coffee self-nicely worth. yet women persons who're nice as they're scrutinize even their smallest valuable properties, after which fix them because of the fact somebody made a remark or maybe if it rather is. i'm no longer one to blame society for man or woman ills, yet in this situation, I do pin numerous it on society. even however, how we handle society's scrutiny is somebody project. If somebody does not like my stance on unlawful immigration, it rather is their subject, no longer mine. yet while somebody does not like the scale of my rear end, i will handle that one in each and every of two techniques: i will enable it get to me, or i will enable it bypass. because of the fact i'm insecure approximately my physique as I certainly have made my mind the precedence, I take it in my opinion. So, to summarize a very long answer, evaluate who you have been chatting with, who you appreciate and appreciate, what t.v. shows you watch, etc. the respond, i think of, will initiate there, and it will ultimately hint back to the type you prioritize your self: possibly techniques comes first, physique comes 2nd. the nice and comfortable button is to stability techniques AND physique. and because you and that i the two have this project with undesirable ingesting conduct and no workout, i think we the two ought to planned to start there, huh?

Answer 7

Your premise A is false - that faith is required in order to later find proof of God.
Faith is the proof that God exists.

Answer 8

i don't believe truth is universal, i think it is relative and anything to do with faith is based on assumption.
science can only make observations based on our limited understanding but at least it these observations are consistent.