The best way to approach Truth is science. With great respect CarolinaGuitarman, I submit to you that Science is nothing more than a study to try and figure out what God did, and how He did it. So is Mathematics's. We brake our arms patting ourselves on the back for discerning what Almighty God has the power to do. But, that is the problem with mankind all the way back to the Garden of Eden--we wish to be our own gods. Hillary Clinton is a good example--and so is every liberal.
On the subject of truth, I must say the bible passage that invokes the greatest thought in me is the conversation between Pilate and Christ. Pilate cynically asked Christ "what is truth?" and then walked away? The reality was he crucified Truth itself.
Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." "What is truth?" Pilate asked.
John 18: 33-38
I once heard a conversation a brilliant Christian apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, had with a student at Harvard University who was arguing the premise of A-Theism (or atheism). He related a story he had about a conversation with an atheist at the University of the Philippines. Ravi said that without a moral law giver, there is no morality. Life is meaningless if there is no God. The student stood up at shouted at the top of his lungs:
"Then everything is meaningless!"
Ravi said he didn't mean that, the man insisted he did, and they went back and forth. Dr. Zacharias then said:
ZACHARIAS: "Is what you just said meaningful?"
STUDENT: "Huh?"
ZACHARIAS: "You heard me. Is what you just said meaningful, or meaningless?"
STUDENT: "Uhh....."
I am not the smartest person in the world, far from it. But I'll tell you this: accepting who God is is your choice. Don't believe for one millisecond that your are smarter than Him, or more superior. Your ultimate fate is not determined by your intellect, but by your submission.
So is mine.
http://www.rzim.org/
Take care.
"With great respect CarolinaGuitarman, I submit to you that Science is nothing more than a study to try and figure out what God did, and how He did it."
I won't disagree with you that the study of nature can be a spiritual endeavor. My religious beliefs would place me as a atheist, in that I don't believe in any concept of God that I have heard of. Technically I am agnostic, in that I don't believe we can know if a God exists or doesn't; practically I am an atheist.
I do however feel that there was probably SOMETHING behind the creation of universe, that there may very well have been an intelligence that in some way had a hand in the universe's existence. In the same way that Einstein spoke of the universe, I too find awe and wonder in the laws of nature.
What that means practically though is not much. The world is what it is; there is no way to prove my *feelings* or to even test them.
Science is a way of trying to understand the knowable universe. It is not perfect nor is it always right, but it is the best we have. There is no way to test or observe non-material causes. That is simply a fact. While it may be interesting to wonder about such things, there is no way to even approach an answer to such questions. We delude ourselves when we think that what we can imagine must be what is possible. It isn't; there are constraints on reality that have nothing to do with our wishes or desires.
I say this to let you know I am not unfeeling towards the belief that the world is more than just the result of natural causes and matter in motion. It simply I see no way to investigate the many and varied opinions concerning what else could be going on. Citing a sacred text is not scientific evidence. There are innumerable *sacred* texts extant. None has anything more than *faith* to recommend them over the others.
Concerning your Christian apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, the anecdote falls flat because it assumes only one conclusion: Life is meaningless if there is no God. There are not just two choices: there is a God and life has meaning or there is no God and life has no meaning. It ignores a third position; there is no God and life has meaning. Simply asserting that life without a God is meaningless does not make it true. A fourth choice also exists; there is a God and life has no meaning. Without citing a sacred text, how does one choose which is correct?
"Your ultimate fate is not determined by your intellect, but by your submission."
I know you meant this to be an intellectual knockout punch, but it is the weakest point you made in the whole post. It is a call for obedience to authority over reason. Submission is the English translation for *Islam*.
Thanks for a respectful response.