<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ignore Probability &amp; Logic, Just Take It On Faith!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/08/05/ignore-probability-logic-just-take-it-on-faith/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/08/05/ignore-probability-logic-just-take-it-on-faith/</link>
	<description>Promoting rational thought above dogma.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:42:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cleve</title>
		<link>http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/2009/08/05/ignore-probability-logic-just-take-it-on-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-558</link>
		<dc:creator>Cleve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rationalitynow.com/blog/?p=909#comment-558</guid>
		<description>It is a good question as to why God has not just &quot;plainly&quot; revealed himself to all men in some manner that is so clear that all objections are silenced.  However, I think that the Bible suggests that there is much less of a problem with how much evidence we have and a much greater problem with how determined we are to interpret the evidence in a manner that points to anything but God.  I know that you are not prepared to accept the Bible as true, but you should at least know that it purports to give an answer.  For example, one day a voice from heaven said something to the effect of &quot;This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.  Listen to him.&quot;  If true, pretty powerful evidence.  Yet the Bible says that many that were there said &quot;It thundered&quot;.  I believe that the real problem that all men have is not that there is a lack of sufficient evidence, but that men have answers that they will permit and ones they won&#039;t.  The existence of a holy Creator deserving of our worship and obedience is one that most men will not permit. Therefore, the problem is with the bias of the audience, not the absence of sufficient revelation.  In my mind,the main reason that men don&#039;t look for God is that they are afraid they might find him.  

It is a little bit like saying the problem in the O.J. trial was the lack of sufficient evidence, rather than the predisposition of the jury to acquit him.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is a good question as to why God has not just &#8220;plainly&#8221; revealed himself to all men in some manner that is so clear that all objections are silenced.  However, I think that the Bible suggests that there is much less of a problem with how much evidence we have and a much greater problem with how determined we are to interpret the evidence in a manner that points to anything but God.  I know that you are not prepared to accept the Bible as true, but you should at least know that it purports to give an answer.  For example, one day a voice from heaven said something to the effect of &#8220;This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.  Listen to him.&#8221;  If true, pretty powerful evidence.  Yet the Bible says that many that were there said &#8220;It thundered&#8221;.  I believe that the real problem that all men have is not that there is a lack of sufficient evidence, but that men have answers that they will permit and ones they won&#8217;t.  The existence of a holy Creator deserving of our worship and obedience is one that most men will not permit. Therefore, the problem is with the bias of the audience, not the absence of sufficient revelation.  In my mind,the main reason that men don&#8217;t look for God is that they are afraid they might find him.  </p>
<p>It is a little bit like saying the problem in the O.J. trial was the lack of sufficient evidence, rather than the predisposition of the jury to acquit him.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
