A Practical Guide to the Logic, Philosophy and Thoughts of Christianity

Section 1 - Article 6

Believers are often mocked that their faith is blind. But does not the belief in the reality of the Queen also require faith since they cannot put the Queen into a test tube and prove her existence as a Queen? Let's assume human experimentation is possible, would one not find the Queen to be a normal human woman? If we can bring Jesus and experiment on Him, would all tests, DNA and otherwise, show Him to be a perfectly normal human man? Scripture says quite clearly, He was fully a human albeit born of a virgin.

So what makes Him God? What makes the Queen a Queen? Authority! Jesus said in the scriptures - All authority under Heaven has been given to me. So all authority over all creation is in the hands of Jesus, which He proved by performing miracles! Well, if you don't believe in miracles, then that is precisely what makes a miracle a miracle! A miracle is something that does not naturally happen every day or at all. The unbelief of resurrection, virgin birth, 10 plagues of Egypt with the parting of the sea, are miracles, defined through the definition of disbelief in miracles! He is God as He broke the requirement of blind faith by walking and appearing among us. Historical records, including some outside the Bible, prove His existence. And such proofs are all that can be reasonably expected of from the past. Similar, when people pass on, all that would remain will be video footages, eye-witnesses accounts, and paperwork with signatures or seals. If I do not want to believe in something, then perhaps I can also use the atheistic arguments against God for the absence of a living breathing person.

Regarding historical events and persons, one has to accept discourse research on personal accounts, eye-witness testimonies, and other fragments of evidences. This is akin to the court of law. Surely one need not recommit the crime on the same victims(s) before the judges and prosecutors to prove the factual occurrence of a crime? Can I therefore say that law and such accounts are not scientific and therefore prove nothing?

Many people take the current world situation as a proof that God does not exist. "Oh, how can there be a god if there is so much sorrow and unhappiness in the world?", "How can there be a god if there is poverty"...etc.

The answer to this lies in the very first five chapters of Genesis - the very first book of the Bible. The first man Adam, and first woman Eve, disobeyed God, and their punishment is the sorrow, pain and all unpleasant things in the world. In other words, man brought onto himself all the problems by opening Pandora's Box.

"But it is Adam and Eve's fault, not mine, why should I go have to pay for their mistakes?"

Well, in the modern day, if one's parents are rich, one would naturally have a nice home, nice house, nice car, and education in private or more expensive schools with home tutors. Similarly, if one's parents are poor, the niceties would be scarce. Most children are dependent on their parents or guardians. So if Adam and Eve are the first man and woman, and we are their descendants, it is expected for certain things to pass on.

"But sin is not my personal responsibility! So why am I not exempt from it? It's not fair?"

One can hardly claim to be perfect before God. Any Christian/Jew who read the 10 commandments and claim complete compliance has already lied. And this is just the 10 commandments. The laws of God amount to more than 10. Even if the 10 commandments were followed down to the letter, it is doubtful that anyone has obeyed the other hundreds for their whole life. If humans are unable to obey all the laws on a personal level, how can one expect a just God to turn a blind eye and ensure that we still live in Utopia with no pain, no sorrow? If I were to pour hot boiling water on myself, can I therefore blame God for letting me get burnt? If God turns a blind eye, then He will not be a God of Justice.

One gets upset in the working world at their bosses when they award the same rewards to less achieving colleagues. Simply put, it is not fair. And if our sense of justice, and fairness protested, would not a fair and just God remove paradise from man who has failed to obey Him, but also ignore and blame Him for our mistakes? Would it be fair to blame God if we are disobedient?

Can one blame his/her parents for not landing on an IT job if one has disobeyed his/her parents' advice to study computers? Everyone should take responsibility for their own decisions. The first blame game was what the fall of Man was about. Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the snake.

The account of Adam and Eve is not a mere story. Similarly, those of Jesus Christ and of God are not mere stories. Like the account of the Queen, discourse analysis is and has to be acceptable even if they are not test tube science. John Wesley suggested using introspection as empirical evidence. He has used his emotions of guilt, joy, and seeking of things that are not of this world as his empirical evidence. One cannot put emotions in a test tube, nor can one scientifically quantify their emotions. Scientists may be able to test the chemical messengers such as serotonin, but are these really the feelings? Most biopsychologists argue on the causative nature of chemical messengers, and it is not clear if these messengers caused the emotions, or if the emotions caused the change in levels of these chemical messengers. If one were to accept indicators, then it is a "leap of faith".

Any biomedical scientist who runs sufficient DNA gels can testify that on certain occasions they find a DNA band of the right molecular weight on a gel, yet when they sequence the DNA of interest, it turns out to be a different unexpected sequence. Whilst indications may not be accurate, any self-respecting scientist must acknowledge "false positives".

Therefore this article ends with a question - Is there a God? In the real scientific approach, one cannot be an atheist or a believer, but historically, one has to be swayed towards accepting the existence of a personal God. Then perhaps the question turns into whether one should choose to be historical or otherwise. Agnostism is reasonable place to start, but atheism is a position of arrogance and "blind faith".