Christian Paradox

[Watson]

I do understand, and also, I never said that Sherlock Holmes' methods proved the existance of God. What I was saying is that he had to believe in the indivdual he was tracking down, and then look for evidence of their existance.

He used deductive reasoning, coupled with his own experience to re-create what happened at the crime scene. He didn't take any leaps of faith. He used tangible and verifiable evidence to solve cases.

Yes, he did use deductive reasoning, a fact I am very well aware of. But by the time his clients had presented their cases and left his apartment, he had already formulated an idea of who or what he was searching for, in most cases. Then, upon arriving at the scene he was expected to carry the case from, he watched for evidence as to the indivduality of the profile he had already formulated before-hand.

Not only this, what you are saying is that many of you were initially believers, but that you examined the 'evidence' and found none for proof of God. What I am saying is that you do not understand God, and you are looking for the wrong individual evidence of him. You are looking for scientific evidence where there is none to be had.

So it's like Sherlock Holmes, except with no evidence of anything. Who's chasing ghosts here? [/quote]
How about this? Think of the client coming to Sherlock as a believer telling you about God, and think of the evidence for individuality being the traits which you discerned from the client talking about God.

Saying "You don't understand God" is a cop out, because your definition of God varies greatly with many other Christians. If the only experience and truth God has is subjective, then guess what, anything anyone says about God would automatically be valid. I can say God is crazy and he talks to me every night. It wouldn't make it any less valid than what you're saying, and I can attest to knowing God on a much more personal level than you ever can. See how it works?

Of course mine differs greatly from many other people's defintiions of God, but that does not make mine any more or less valid. I have sound logical reasons for believing what I do, based also upon the knowledge and study of the Bible which I have conducted and applied into real life.

If you don't have objectively verifiable evidence, especially for someone who is apparently everywhere, in everything, intervenes in our lives, and grants us gifts on a daily basis, there should be at least SOME proof, don't you think? Considering my eternal soul is on the line here, I would think God would make his existence a bit more apparent.

But if God were to show you some 'scientific proof' for His existence, it would still be disputed and interpreted and skewed constantly. Such is human nature and our ability to think for ourselves through free will.

Not only this, if God did something verifiable that every shmuck with a degree in biology or some shit could repeat, it would put the free will, the decision of whether or not to believe in God out of the question, and you would have no choice but to accept His existance. That sounds to me like a tyrant god.

When Sherlock Holmes looked for evidence of a wooden legged man in the Sign of the Four, for instance, he knew he was looking for a wooden-legged man because of his clients claim that their father had shot a wooden legged man out of fear, and then been killed later. Sherlock then found evidence of this man in the form of footprints where one 'foot' was just a circle; the print of a wooden stump.

This is called deductive reasoning. He gets clues, forms a hypothesis, and tests the hypothesis and eventually catches the bad guy. I don't see any faith involved here.

Read what I wrote above, then.

You must understand the individual you are looking for evidence of first, then look for evidence which proves their individuality and existance.

I find it comical that most religious people won't even admit that it's a possibility that the concept of God exists purely in their mind.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

Your point? God does exist within the mind, and proves His own existance through our perception ofHim in things which are without the mind.

I don't consider evidence of God being events in my life that I don't understand right away. I don't consider evidence of God being things that I could have felt from being in a highly excited, suggestive state or the placebo effect. This is the creator of the UNIVERSE we're talking about. We have trillions of things he could have put his mark on, or left for us to find, since I'm assuming he knew that this would be an issue in many parts of the world. Yet there is no scientific evidence for his existence. The only thing left is to simply believe, and rationalize things to fit that belief system.

Of course there is only to believe. That's all there is for anything. What 'highly excited, suggestive state' are we talking about here, by the way? Self-transcendant moments? That's an oxymoron in itself, anyway, if you don't believe in God.

I hold myself to a higher standard than blind faith. I'm not a sheep, I don't need a shepherd. I have a brain, and I can think for myself. If God exists like you assert he does, he's reading this right now and can do something about it. If it is important to him for people to believe, he should do something about it. It's the 21st century, we don't sacrifice goats and burn witches. Blind faith is for chickens in the slaughterhouse, not for thinking and capable human beings.

So do I. My faith is not blind and it is certainly much more of a clear view of the world than is simply trying to jam a round peg in a square hole(God into science.) You misinterpret what a good shephard is supposed to be, then, if you don't think there is any need to be humble or listen carefully to those who love you. It is important to Him for people to believe, but as I said above, if He actualyl came forth with some "I am God" proof, it would leave belief in the dust.