Pascal himself addressed the issue of people using the wager to opt for God. As he explained the wager does not guarantee salvation. It only gives someone a reason to try to approach God on God's terms. According to scripture, however, people will have no desire to believe unless God calls them to belief. Some people He calls and some He does not. Only He knows the criteria that He uses. From our perspective the choices seem random because no was was given grace because they merited salvation. Their are two calls the general and the specific. The general call is how most people encounter Christianity. Evangelism, witnessing, etc all play a part. God makes the specific call and it is an irrestible called. One will not resist it. I did not resist it. I a little over two years ago I was basically a Taoist and my beliefs were as far from Christianity as they could be. I had not the concept of God that I do now and to me Jesus was just a really moral guy with a lot of good insight. God changed that. I became a believer literally over night. Why did He call me? I have no idea. It wasn't that I did anything to deserve it. To be honest I was not a very good person. He just said "Hey you, come here" and I did. I put down the philosophy books and picked up the Bible. Don't get me wrong I still read philosophy and science and history but I also read a lot of apologetics and theology books. My conversion both focused me and broadened my horizons when it came to gathering information. That is what God asks of me. To learn as much as I can about His word and about the world that He created and about the people in. Even though my faith is as solid as a rock, He has challenged my intellect to discover Him through His presence in the world and when I have doubts to find answers to my questions. So far I have found nothing to make me doubt His existence. It is interesting that two people can review the same information and come to two completely different conclusions but that is the way God created us.
Oh you mean the ones based on the presupposition that the rate of decay has always been constant and that the world has been around for billions of years anyway so that it couldn't possibly be young so any evidence to the contrary is already thrown out? Those bones?
Of course, if you're going to claim that the Earth is thousands of years old, not billions of years old, then you've got to do more than show that the decay rate of Carbon 14 has not always been constant. You also have to show that the speed of light has not always been constant because that would be the only way to explain how the light from most of the stars in the sky has reached Earth. Good luck.
Last edited by The Night Owl; 06-21-2008 at 03:49 PM.
For the record the speed of light is not always a constant. In a vacuum it has a constant rate of speed but with in a thick atmosphere such as earth or Jupiter it does slow down. Also as light escapes a black hole it slows down. Eventually it will reach the point where the energy of it's forward motion matches the energy of the gravity pulling on it and will actually come to a stop and reverse it's direction. This is know as the event horizon.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|