Asking Questions

Philosophy Final

             Step 1

How are science and religion related?

• l Do science and religion contradict each other?
• l What is the ultimate purpose of science? What about religion?
• l How do the ultimate purposes of the two interact?
• l Can either one of the two exist without the other?

Step 2

• l Does science bring us closer to God or does it take us away from God?
• - The super-complex structure of our body
• - Evolution? Creation?
• - Before human, before earth, before our galaxy, before the universe, before the first particle, what was there?
• - What does it mean by “none”?
• l What is science?
• - Endeavor to discover about the world? or a Challenge to God?
• - Where is the limit of scientific knowledge?

- The world has seen seemingly endless development of science

     – Who in 10^th century would have imagined we could fly?

     – Who in 10^th century would have thought that we could see performances on a screen?

     – Will the people from 1000 years later say, “Haha those people from 21^st century! How could they ride a plane for 14 hours when we can just go anywhere we want in 5 seconds using this button right here?!”

• - Where is science going?

• l What is religion?
• - Can religious beliefs be proven scientifically?
• - Where is religion going?
• - How do we know which religion provides absolute truth? Is there absolute truth?

- Religion is faith! Come on, please. Is there any way I can see a concrete evidence for anything? I beg you.

             Step Three 

             I love science. I feel very accomplished when I am able to explain a natural phenomenon in scientific term; it makes me feel like I am understanding further about the world I am living in and every time I can explain something scientifically, I feel much closer to the world. How the world is bound by various scientific laws excite me and encourage me to learn more deeply about the world.

             However, as very inadequate in scientific knowledge as I am, I often get stuck on some phenomena which I cannot explain in any way. I can explain why we don’t hit the back of the car when we jump in it while it is running. I can explain why the earth does not stray away from its orbit around the sun. I can explain why a ball rolls, not slide, down a hill. However, there is no way I can explain how Noah separated the red sea. I can never, probably never even attempt to, explain how Jesus walked on the water. I don’t even get how three persons can be in one being. These unsolvable questions often hinder me from completely believing and submitting myself to God.

             Why is that? Behind the mystery hides a bold assumption: seeing is believing. Humans use empirical test and concrete evidence to pronounce something “true”. We can see human, so humans are true. We can see how the atoms work, so all matters are true (all matters are made of atoms). We, as humans, attempt to interpret the whole world only in human perspective most of the time, if not always. For instance, for humans, seeing is believing; for dogs, however, scenting is believing. When I sit next to my dog and look at a mountain at a same angle, we would have different analysis of what we sense; I would probably say, “ah, what a beautiful scene! Look at that perfect picture of white snow covering the mountain,” but my dog would say, or think in his own way, “ah, that bacon in the kitchen behind me smells so good. I want it!” I am not saying that we should attain a dog perspective, but that we should think outside the box labeled, “seeing is believing.”

             Maybe, faith is also a branch of science, but not in a human perspective. Thermochemistry deals with heat, and electrochemistry deals with electron transfers and electricity. Faith? Maybe it is a science of the non-science. Ironic, isn’t it? My idea is that, just because we can’t prove something, we should not reject that something. We cannot possibly know what was before the universe. Scientists know that; they just do not admit the fallibility of “human’s science.” To fill in the wholes, or the unknowns, we have been trying to forcefully, and awkwardly, fit in seperate evidences and just try to find an order within disorder. That does create a combination of possible theories, I admit. However, those theories, after all, are just as controversial as saying God exists. Just because the former is more in “scientific sense”, it does not mean it is more likely.

             Simply put, science is incomplete without religion. Science is the study of the testable matters, and faith is the study of the non-testable matters. Since not everything in the world is testable, science alone will not be able to pursue truth by itself; it needs help and should collaborate with religious faith to discover a unified chunk of evidence for truth.

Step four

             Albert Einstein

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Despite the high technology of science, if people do not examine the purpose of life, in which science is not interested, they will fail to walk a humane life. Without examining the purpose of life, humans are but robots living on set rules.

Now, say that we have perfectly identified the purpose of life. Ok, let’s get there! Wait, how? Yeah, that is where science comes in. Even if we find the absolute truth, without the nutrition of science, we just cannot get to the goal; it is like an appetizing apple in a painting. We simply cannot have it.

Timothy Keller

Summary of a chapter in the book, The Reason for God

A famous assumption is that people who believe in God cannot be an intellectual scientific thinker. Why is that? Because people tend to think that science has disproven the possibility of miracles or supernatural causes interfering with the natural phenomenon. Has it really? This assumption comes from people’s wrong notion that science is the only way to interpret natural phenomenon and because no miracles or supernatural causes can be proven by its methodology, it is normally believed that miracles are irrelevant in modern world. However, here is a little challenge to science. Can science prove that miracles do not exist? It can prove the reason for natural phenomenon, but can it prove something that is beyond its methodology? The fact is, science, by its nature, cannot discern or test for supernatural causes.

Sin Jae Sik (Korean Theology Professor)

17th century western Christians believed that God has given the humanity two books: the book of Bible and the book of Nature. They also believed that because the author is the same, there would not be anything conflicting between science and religion. Book the Bible would be relating to history, ethics, etc… and book of the Nature would relate to science. Thus science and religion have been an indispensable couple. However, as the technology developed, more people relied more on the visible things and went on to pursue the book of Nature. From that point, the role of science in this world started getting bigger. Although religious leaders tried to gain back its authority in the world, more people saw the effectiveness and immediateness of the science and abandoned religion. Science and religion, essentially are two different subjects incomparable to each other.

Nick Pollard

“What is life for? To die? To kill myself at once? No, I am afraid. To wait for death till it comes? I fear that even more. Then I must live. But what for?” -Leo Tolstoy-

Science has given us a great deal; however, science has its limits too. Science is a study of answering “how” question, but not “why” questions. When Newton was hit on the head by an apple fallen from the tree, he discovered how it fell, but not why. Even scientists now cannot answer why it fell. After all, science is a study of how the world God created works, but not why it works. Thus (in my opinion based on Pollard’s opinion) science is like a man locked inside a huge room with many stuff in it. It studies what is in that room and how everything in that room works, without knowing what the building itself is for. It simply cannot figure that out, since it is inside the room. Only by looking at the building from outside and seeing a sign board would it know why the room was there in the first place.

Richard Dawkins

Dawkins has a strong aversion to religion. In an article in which he talks about whether or not science is a religion and vice versa, he calls religion a bad science. His reasoning is as follows. Science craves for explanation and theories. Religion also provides theories and explanation of life and other stuff-just not as scientifically. Thus religion, in a sense, is also a science. However, religion lacks the reasoning and logic that science touts. Also, he goes further to state that the concept of faith itself is the principal vice of religion.

Step Five

             I especially liked Einstein’s quotation. It summarizes my idea into a sentence. I liked it because it well reconciled the relationship between science and religion. Also, I liked the idea of Nick Pollard who said that science answers the “how” questions but not “why” questions. I also have wondered, if this world is run by all the physical, chemical, and biological theories, who put that theory into work? What was behind all the theories? Who made those? Keller had a great idea too on the focus of science and people’s misconception that science is the way. In his book The Reason for God, he mentions that science is like a person, who lost a key, finding his key only under the light when the key is in the dark where it is hard to find. People, myself included, rely heavily on visible things and constantly miss what is hidden. Although the Korean professor’s answer was a piece of historical fact, not his own opinion, it was still very interesting to read how the science began to have so much authority and influence in people’s perspectives.

             One person I disagreed with was Dawkins, who expressively rejected the whole idea of religion. I understand and agree with some of his logics, but his way of asserting his idea was very repulsive. He uses strong words and is not willing to take other’s ideas into account. He is a very good writer and a thinker, I admit, but I especially do not agree with him when he says, “religion is a bad science.” First, he is trying to get rid of the idea of religion by making religion part of a science. Second, he further denounces religion by putting an adjective “bad” to describe it.

Step Six

             After my research, I was more certain about my answer that science and religion interact with each other to create a harmony, ultimately to find truth. I watched a DVD of a sermon by Louie Giglio. In his sermon, he speaks about the massive stars in the universe. If the earth were a golf ball, he illustrates, the biggest star we found so far would be the size of Mount Everest. The incredible size and natures of the universe, according to him, inevitably leads us to an intelligent creator of all universe. Also, what struck me in that movie was the information about a crucial protein that holds all other proteins together called laminin. Here is a scientific diagram and an actual microscopic picture of laminin:

What was more awestruck was a verse from Colossians:

             He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col. 1:17)

To think that hundreds of millions of microscopic crosses is now holding me together left me unsettled and slowly warmed up my heart.

             I have looked at this issue from a non-Christian perspective in my rough draft. Now, this is my idea from a Christian’s perspective, which is what I am. All the scientific evidences to disprove the existence of God ironically even further assured my belief. This research helped me know more about science, religion, and most importantly, my own belief.

Step Seven

Questions unsolved.

• 1. Why has God given us two separate ideas-faith and science-but not clues to reconcile them?
• 2. How can we break free from our narrow perspective that only visual things are the truth?
• 3. Science has proven may natural phenomenon using its methodology, but has it proven the statement, “Miracles do not exist.”? Can it ever put supernatural matters to test?
• 4. How do we answer “Why?” questions?

STEP 1.

1. Can good come from bad?

2. Can a blind person dream, if so, what do they dream about?

3. Are people here for a reason?

4. Can something come from nothing?

· Can good come from bad?

· Can good come from bad mistakes you’ve made?

· Can good come from bad mistakes others have made?

· Can good come from bad things that happened to you?

STEP 2:

Possible Answers:

· No, once you’ve made a mistake you can never get rid of the guilt. It will haunt you forever until you die. It was bad once, and will be forever.

e.g. A married man, cheats on his wife, and gets the other mystery woman pregnant. He can never take back what he did.

· Yes, God can always make good come from bad. No matter how big your mistake was, God can always turn it around for the good.

e.g. God can make it good because that man and woman brought a baby into the world. A new life has been brought to the world.

· Yes, if a person hurts another deeply, God can change that for the good. He can help the victim to deal with his pain, and then that person can help many other struggling with the same thing.

e.g. If the man leaves his wife, she will be dealing with a lot of pain of being left alone maybe with kids, having to support them all on her own. She may then be able to help hundreds of other woman dealing with the same thing.

STEP 3:

WHAT KIND OF SITUATIONS CAN GOD CHANGE TO GOOD???

1. Death- a loved one dies of disease, but God helps the family to deal with suffering by coming closer to him.

2. Death- a loved one is murdered, God helps change the heart of the family, help to be able to forgive.

3. Unfaithfulness- husband cheats on wife, other woman get pregnant a new life is brought to the world.

4. Fornication- young girl looses virginity to her high school sweetheart at 14. God can use her testimony to touch many young people’s lives.

5. Addiction- Drug addicts and alcoholics can use their testimony to change the lives of others.

STEP 4:

The first philosopher I personally asked, was my sister. She believes that it depends on the situation. If God allows a situation / event to occur than he can make good come from it. But if a man believes that he must do something bad for good to come out of it, then no. She says, that if something bad happens then man can’t make good come out of it. But God can. So she believes that if it was God’s plan then yes good comes out of it, and if it wasn’t then God can turn the situation around and make it good.

Next was an online philosopher. Hi/her name was unavailable but he/she believes, that the suffering can make you stronger and see the world and things a different way.. .. It can cause mental trauma, depression, etc… Without suffering, there can be no joy. So good comes out of it, because of the suffering you go through. You are weak at first and then at the end you come out strong.

Third was Rabbi Simmons. He says: That in Judaism the people believe that punishment exists because God is punishing us because of what we’ve done eg. something wrong and He wants us to change. And God hopes that we will learn from that mistake by him punishing us. He believes that God isn’t trying to take revenge on us, by making us suffer. But he is doing it for our (sinners) own good. “ This is why King David says in Psalms (23:4): “Your rod and your staff comfort me.” Even though I may get “hit” once in a while, I know it is ultimately for my own good.” So according to him, good comes out of bad (suffering. We sin, and suffer because God punishes us. But then the good comes, because we come out stronger, and we have learned a lesson.

Another person is Ouspensky. “I have already said before that , sacrifice is necessary, without sacrifice nothing can be attained” He believes that you have to suffer. When you sacrifice something, such as your favorite toy. Then you feel a little good, because you did something for the good of others. But then you still feel a little sad (suffering) because you just gave away your favorite toy! Without bad (sacrificing the toy), then you will never feel the goodness afterwards. God will bless in you a million ways.

Last person was Dave Hallam. On his site he has the title set as “Made any Good Mistakes Lately?” I think that’s really cool how he put it. He obviously believes that there can be good mistakes. Good mistakes do exist. Many mistakes people make turn to something good. He believes that you can take anything bad and make it good.

STEP 5:

I do not really agree with the first philosopher, my sister. I think that both God and man make good come out of it. God does the biggest step. But man does the first step. They are the ones who have to let everything go, and ask God to make good come out of it. Then God does his part, but man has to be able to accept it. God will not force it upon you, he will only go it if you want it and accept it from him. Like the quote that says “Expect great things from God, and accept great things from God.”

I agree more with the second online philosopher, He/she says that the bad things can lead to you getting stronger, and seeing the world from a different angle. He/she says that there can be no joy without suffering. And I really do agree with that. I do not think people would know what joy is while they have it, if they have never experienced suffering.

Rabbi Simmons has a weird way of thinking, and I guess it’s probably because he is Jewish. But anyhow, I do not agree with him either. I don’t think that God punished us for what we do. We just think that everything bad that happened to us, is him punishing us. But God is a good God, not a bad God who wants to get us for the sin we’ve done.

I agree with most of what Ouspensky believes. Sacrifice is needed to attain things, but if sin wouldn’t have come into the world. We wouldn’t need to sacrifice other things.

I completely agree with Dave, the last philosopher. In his title he is completely right about having good mistakes. When the word mistakes is mentioned people instantly think of bad choices. But what about the mistakes which were changed into good? We never think about that. And I think that it’s time to. A friend I knew did something at a very young age which changed her life forever. She couldn’t tell her parents because she was scared that they wouldn’t think of her as their baby girl anymore. Once she told her parents, she knew she would be able to use that good mistake, and use it as her testimony to share with many other people.

STEP 6:

What I Think:

I believe that any good can come from all mistakes we make. No matter how big the mistake is, God can always turn in around and make good come out of it. There are no good or bad mistakes, there are only mistakes. We may feel like we’ve screwed up, and it will never be the same again. That what we did was so bad, that God will never forgive us. But we’re wrong, God has mercy on us everyday. Mercy we can’t even imagine! Before we even asked for forgiveness He forgave. Now all we have to do is forgive ourselves. Then, just imagine what good can come out of it! Our lives are changed forever, and our mistakes can lead to amazing things. It will change out testimony forever, and we can use that to honor him, and touch the hearts of many people.

STEP 7:

I really enjoyed reading what everyone had to say about my question. Many people had the same or similar answer. However, I wish that I would have found someone who did not agree with me. Someone who thought that good can’t come from bad. It would have been cool because then I could have seen the view point of other people. And maybe it would have changed the way I look at it. I am a person with a very strong mentality, and usually people can’t change my mind. If I have an opinion it won’t change unless you have good reasons to what you think. And I think it would have been cool to have someone challenge me with their thoughts.

(Step 1)

What is Death?

1. Why were we made in the first place?
2. Why did God create everything in the universe in the first place when it was all going to be destroyed?
3. Why does he love us so, when all we do is hurt Him?
4. How could God love us when we killed His only Son?

(Step 2)

       Is Death an actual being?

·        The Bible states it like it’s true.

·        Everyone dies, so does something/someone come pick them up to take them elsewhere? Is it Death?

·        Why is “Death” capitalized in the Bible?

·        Is Death the name or title?

·        Who or what is Death?

·        What does Death look like?

What is it like to die?

·        What is death?

·        Does death stop existence?

·        Death is the end to living but beginning of life. (at least for humans)

·        Do we go right up to heaven when we die or does something else happen before?

·        Is death actually a good thing?

(Step 3)

I think yes. Death is an actual being. In being a Christian, I believe the Bible; therefore I believe that Death was personified for a reason, the reason being that Death is an actual being. Also, the Bible states it like Death is an actual being because in Revelations, it states that Death show up riding a riding a horse with Hades behind him. I believe that Death is the name and that is why it is capitalized. I think that Death could also be an angel; maybe an angel that brings death to people when God wants, and brings them to heaven. At first I thought an angel with a name like Death was quite not necessary, but with an angel of destruction, I think that it might actually be possible. He would look a lot like what other angels look like. “Do not fear”. I believe Death and Hades have to be good, because Jesus says that he died and is alive “forevermore” and he had “the keys of Death and Hades.”

       Death is end of living but the beginning of life for humans. That is what I believe. Death does not stop the existence of the person who died because there is life after death. I believe that death is what gives us life. I believe that because of death we have life. I keep thinking that life before death, or life on earth, is just so that we could have experience for something God prepared for us in our future.

(Step 4)

1.        “Death is certain, since it is inevitable, but also uncertain, since its diagnosis is sometimes fallible”

Jacques-Benigne Winslow, Danish Anatomist: Morte incertae signa, 1740

Which means that death will happen, and fall on anybody because it cannot be avoided, (unless of course God takes you without you facing death), but death can still be feigned.

2.        “To fear death, my friends, is only to think ourselves wise, without being wise: for it is to think that we know what we do not know. For anything that men can tell, death may be the greatest good that can happen to them: but they fear it as if they knew quite well that it was the greatest of evils. And what is this but that shameful ignorance of thinking that we know what we do not know?”

Socrates (BC 469-BC 399) Greek philosopher of Athens

       Fearing death is thinking that we are wise for thinking that we know something we don’t. (kind of like Sophists)Some people can logically say death is good, but they fear it as if it is bad. It is shameful not knowing what we think we know, but we actually don’t.

3.        “All that live must die, passing through nature to eternity.”

William Shakespeare (1564-1616) British poet and playwright.

       God promised us that if we only follow him and love him only then he would give us eternal life, and to live with him in heaven forever. All who live in this earth must die, and pass through from the state of nature (having a body) to a state of eternity (in a form of a spirit).

4.        “The hour of departure has arrived and we go our ways; I to die, and you to live. Which is better? Only God knows.”

Socrates (BC 469-BC 399) Greek philosopher of Athens

When death comes, and I die, you will live. Only God knows whether it is better to die than live.

5.        “Know one knows whether death, which people fear to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good.”

Plato (BC 427-BC 347) Greek philosopher

       Death is what people think as the worst thing that could happen, but no one knows for sure that it’s the best thing either.

6.        “After your death you will be what you were before your birth.”

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) German philosopher

       When you die, you will become what you were before you were born, but I believe that before birth, people are non- existent, and after death they still are existent.

(Step 5)

1．I’m not too sure if I do agree with Jacques-Benigne Winslow. Although in some ways deaths can be faked, but sometimes deaths cannot be because when somebody fakes his or her death, they haven’t actually died.

2．I somewhat disagree with Socrates, but kind of agree with him as well. I don’t think that life on earth is the worst thing that could happen to us, but death could be a very good thing since we go to heaven (if you believe in God). Death on earth would mean that we had lived fully for God and He wanted us home.

3．I find that what Shakespeare said is reasonable. When we die our spirits are still there and will live on, but our physical bodies will rot away and turn to death. Death is what “frees” our spirits.

4．I agree with what Socrates said here. Only God knows whether death is better than life or not.

5．I don’t exactly know what Plato means by this, but I think it basically means that although people fear death as if it was worst thing that could happen, nobody will be sure if it may be the best thing either. I agree to what I think he means because we will never be sure of it. People might claim to, but that would be a lie.

6．I admit that I quite disagreed with Arthur Schopenhauer. He said when you die, you will become what you were before you were born, but I believe that before birth, people are non- existent, and after death they still are existent because of their spirit.

(Step 6)

       Death is what we cannot predict, and only God knows what death would be for sure. Only God will know what death can do to us. My ideas really haven’t changed. Death is the beginning of actual life for humans. That is what I believe. Death does not stop the existence of the person who died because I believe that is when we start to live. I believe that death is what gives us life, and because of death we have life. I think life on earth, is just so that we could have experience for our future that God prepared for us.

(Step 7)

l        If our spirits last forever after death, where do they come from in the first place before our births?

l        “Know one knows whether death, which people fear to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good.” Plato (BC 427-BC 347) Greek philosopher

l        Why did God create everything in the universe in the first place when it was all going to be destroyed?

l        Do we go right up to heaven when we die or does something else happen before?

Why Does God Give Suffering?

Sean Bae

My understanding

Well, my question is kind of hard because I don’t even know whether suffering comes from God or Satan. God can control Satan, but then why does he allowed Satan to give us suffering? There is typical example, which is Job from Old Testament. I was very impressed by one of my pastor’s sermon about his story.

It was very interesting and amazing for me. Let me talk little bit about Job.

First of all, he was a very wealthy person. According to the chapter one of Job, his “possessions also were 70000 sheep, 30000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, and very many servants; and that man was the greatest of all the men of the east.”  As you can see, God blessed Job very much, because he was blameless and get away from evil. Later God tested Job, just like what he did to Abraham to give Isaac for sacrifice. God takes away Job’s property, his children, and give disease to him “And smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.” (JOB 2:7) but Job did not sinned and blamed God. “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?”

In this entire process Job did not sin with his lips.” (JOB 2:10)   So after I read this I was kind of not understood. Why did God allow Satan to give suffering to Job?  I have possible answer for that. Even though this came from my pastor, it persuaded me perfectly. So I am sure of it confidently. The answer for this question is God is testing us to strengthen and to mature us.

My Thoughts on the Research

Research #1: I agree with the thinking of philosopher #1 because his main focus is that God is always watching over us from heaven. Although he allows us to suffer, he is not abandoning us. Instead he is giving us strength. So he is our comforter and supporter.

Research #2: I found one interesting things from this paper. It answered one of my brainstorming questions from above. My question was “If he allows sin why then did God create us?”  Unbelievers often ask this question, but he talked about “God’s Three Wills.” One of them was “God’s will is not always accomplished” We can see in the Bible that it is sometimes impossible for God’s will to be accomplished. For example, one of Bible verse says, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him” (Luke 7:30) I think this is innovative thinking, because although God is sovereign, his will can sometimes not be accomplished. I agree with this argument. According to the Bible verse above, he planned something, but his will is not always accomplished.

Research #3: I really like this paper, this answered me a lot of my curiosities. It talked about what is purpose on suffering. What benefits can we get from suffering? I agree with his opinion about every man has their own suffering. But different amounts of suffering because every man has different level of faith. I like this statement very much!

Research #4: this paper is kind of similar content with Research #1 but it added little bit more information, about to resist Satan. I noticed one issues in this paper. God said he is giving us suffering that we could bear. But I don’t know what limitation of bearing of suffering. So this paper is quite not understandable for me.

Research #5: I mostly agree with this thinker. He gave an example of Isaiah and the Israelites. We can see Israelites complained God and blamed him. But Isaiah said He is not shortened, that it cannot save, but our sins separated us from our God. I’m really touched with this verse. It makes me sense and understanding.

Heuristic Conclusion:

From this research, I learned many valuable things. I chose this topic because I also had a lot of suffering. When I suffered I also kind of complained God like why let me get this terrible suffering, what I did wrong?! But now I know the reason why he did that.  God is giving us suffering not because of dislike us, but let us to be mature and be strong and brave. He is giving us suffering because he loves us, just like what our parent does. They love their children so they discipline and give them kind of punishment. To let them become stronger and mature. One more thing I had learned is let us don’t try to know God’s ultimate will.  Because he is the mightiest one sometimes we could not understand his word and means.  I recognized that we are sinful and shady. I thought God doesn’t care about humans but it was not. The sin separates us from God. So if we stay away from sin. We will be closer to God. Don’t be frustrated by your suffering. God loves us that’s why giving us the suffering. I know suffering is hard and intolerable. That’s why there is many people who commits suicide. That’s the wrong way you must overcome the suffering. That’s the only way to survive in this world and life after death.

Final Conclusion:

I’m pretty sure about my answer, the researches confirmed my beliefs. Many people argued about my topic, and there is still unanswered doubtful point. Because God is most mysterious one and untouchably holy one in the whole World. We never know his final purpose on human we can predict but no one assure it.  According to Bible of Job I thought by myself “What if I was in Job’s situation?” I think I will blame God and give up my belief, because it was so hard suffering for human. But Job didn’t blamed God and later Job blessed more than before. That’s what wants to do for us. He wants to give us everything because he created us and we are all belongs to him.

I want end up with my one of favorite verse Matthew 7:9-11 “Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,   how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!”

Let’s just took our faith to carry us through the suffering. That’s the way to please God and for our lives and life after death. Thank you for reading.

Step 3: My answer

Christianity and Philosophy usually don’t go together because since God is personal it makes thing hard on the philosophers to think, but some philosophers are Christian and used their minds to try and put philosophy together with Christianity by using faith, and wisdom. Philosophers love wisdom, adore it, and thirst for it; Jesus’ twelve disciples (and later apostles) wondered Jesus’ word and continues to think about what Jesus have taught to them through parables and his teachings. This starts the first twelve Christians somewhat philosophers who thought about Jesus’ teachings. Later the Apostle Paul was also one as well when he taught the gentiles about Jesus and his teachings. Augustine was a Christian philosopher made his own philosophy by combining Plato’s ideas with Neo-Platonic Ideas; Augustine was probably some of the first Philosophers to create a Christian philosophy. If Christianity didn’t exist then philosophy wouldn’t progress very well and many people wouldn’t have thought about God nor his kingdom, however if philosophy didn’t exist then people like Augustine or Paul wouldn’t have thought very much about God and his kingdom nor his Gospel and leave things unanswered, however, both Christianity and philosophy exist for philosophers for delve into Christianity and Christian is to understand and to have faith about the word that God left us. We have so much to say to God like Jesus’ disciples before they were able to see and understand God and his kingdom.

Step 4: The research

Apostle Paul: http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

Paul was a philosopher as well a Christian of God and Jesus, Paul one time met two groups of philosophers: the Stoics and the Epicureans. The Stoic believed that things are the way they are and can’t be changed. To find true happiness, they believed one should understand the course of nature through reason and simply accept things the way they are. However Paul said that God is personal and he is not part of this universe. He also told them that soon judgment will come and the world is not in one huge cycle. To the Epicureans they believed that the way to happiness was through maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain and that they believed the universe was formed from atoms falling through space which occasionally bumped into each other accidentally, eventually forming the stars and planets and us. When we die, we simply become dissolved into atoms again. Paul disagree them saying that God is involved in the affairs of His creation and created us specifically to search for Him.

Augustine of Hippo: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Augustine/augustine.html

Augustine disagreed with Manichaean because he thought that “would free us from all error, and bring us to God by pure reason alone,” until he was converted to Christianity. “Understand so that you may believe, believe so that you may understand.” [On the Gospel of John, 29.6; Sermon CXVII.I]

Augustine believed that if you identify yourself as Christian, then familiarity with his thought is crucial to knowing the sources of your beliefs; if you recognize Christianity as an important factor in Western culture and world history, then knowing about him is vital to understanding how it came to be.

Etienne Gilson: http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/xianphil.html

“This effort of truth believed to transform itself into truth known, is truly the life of Christian wisdom, and the body of rational truths resulting from the effort is Christian philosophy itself. Thus the content of Christian philosophy is that body of rational truths discovered, explored or simply safeguarded, thanks to the help reason receives from revelation.”(p. 35 of The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy)

Etienne Gilson believed that notion of Christian philosophy requires that there be an intrinsic relationship between Christian revelation and the philosophical knowledge which results. It is when the Christian philosophizes upon what he holds by faith that he becomes a Christian philosopher.

Cornelius Van Til: http://homepage.mac.com/macfhionn/FREUMH/Cubaid/NMF/BEURLA/Caochla/Faith&Reason.html

“Philosophy, as usually defined, deals with a theory of reality, with a theory of knowledge, and with a theory of ethics. That is to say philosophies usually undertake to present a life and world view. They deal not only with that which man can directly experience by means of his senses but also, and of times especially, with the presuppositions of experience.” (“Apologetics,” p. 23).

Cornelius takes in a different philosophy by you need more than your senses; you also need experience in both religion points of view and reality view. In short, Cornelius tried to explain that they deal with that which Christian theology speaks of as God. On the other hand Christian theology deals not only with God; it deals also with the world.

Søren Kierkegaard: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/

Kierkegaard says that knowledge is useful in coming to a moral decision, but it is the “inward action” of an individual which “means everything.” This inward action should focus not on human understanding, not on human pleasure, not on human knowledge, but on the Kingdom of Heaven.” Kierkegaard expresses his ideas that knowledge is useful in some ways but if we learn ourselves in our hearts then we will gain true knowledge. Kierkegaard’s three stages of life (Aesthetic, Ethical, and Religious) show the difference between these ways of living are internal, not external, and thus there are no external signs one can point to determine at what level a person is living.

Step 5: My answer with the philosophers

If I could combine with Paul’s, Augustine’s and Kierkegaard’s ideas then I would agree with them because Paul’s, Augustine’s and Kierkegaard’s Ideas have one thing in common: wisdom. Philosophers wanted wisdom more than anything and Paul said that we need to search for God and find the answers in him and Augustine said that “if you recognize Christianity as an important factor in Western culture and world history, then knowing about him is vital to understanding how it came to be.” Augustine also said somewhat similar to Paul’s and Kierkegaard’s idea. Kierkegaard’s idea is that we need to know knowledge, not human knowledge but the knowledge of the kingdom of God. Kierkegaard expresses his ideas that knowledge is useful in some ways but if we learn ourselves in our hearts then we will gain true knowledge.

I agree with both Etienne Gilson’s and Cornelius’ ideas that we need faith as a Christian and the knowledge as a philosopher to become a Christian philosopher Gilson stated: “It is when the Christian philosophizes upon what he holds by faith that he becomes a Christian philosopher.” If a Christian lacks knowledge then he doesn’t have the requirement to become a Christian philosopher, same goes to a philosopher that doesn’t have faith as a Christian. Cornelius said something similar, we need both religious points of view as well reality view. Both philosophers said that we both need a requirement for both religious (Christianity) and the world (Knowledge) to become a Christian philosopher.

Step 6: My answer (revise)

Over the five philosophers that I have looked over during my research, some of them used faith and knowledge in order to become a Christian philosopher, others used wisdom. As my final conclusion to all this in order to become a Christian philosopher you need both of these: knowledge, and faith. A Christian needs to know knowledge, but a philosopher need faith.  If a philosopher has no faith and doesn’t know God or his kingdom then he can’t be a Christian philosopher because he lacks the requirement. (Similar to both Gilson’s and Cornelius’ ideas) If a Christian, with faith, lacks knowledge, wisdom or both of them then that Christian can’t be a Christian philosopher. If philosophy were to disappear then we would lack knowledge, we wouldn’t think “outside of the box” very well. If Christianity were to disappear then not many people would think about God or his heavenly kingdom. In Jesus’ time, Jesus’ disciples loved Jesus and his wisdom and knowledge, and then eventually they have faith in Jesus. They were somewhat the first twelve Christian philosophers because they have knowledge, faith and wisdom. They were able to fulfill the requirement to become a Christian philosopher. When we see a person with knowledge we see them as a “philosopher” but if we see them with faith we would see them as a “helper of God.”

Step 7: unsure questions

During my time of thought and my time of research, I found out that people have other opinions other than me, there are some people who thought that to become a Christian philosopher you need something more than knowledge and faith. Some say that Jesus’ twelve disciples aren’t the first Christian philosophers. I am not saying that you guy are wrong because I’m no different to you guys, we all have different ideas. Here are some of the questions that I have encountered during my time of thought and research:

“Why philosophy and Christianity don’t go well together?”

“What purpose does philosophy serve to Christianity?”

“Is knowledge and faith the really only thing that will make you a Christian philosopher?”

“Will a Christian philosopher be able to see what John the apostle was able to see in the book of Revelation?”

“Are Jesus’ first twelve disciples really the first twelve philosophers?”

“Did we choose to have both philosophy and Christianity or did it happen by somewhat by a force?”

“If both philosophy and Christianity didn’t exist then will we really care if someone asks a Christian question?”

How is Biblical predestination defined?

My Opinion on the question …

 I believe there is such a thing as predestination, because the Bible mentions it in several places (Romans 8: 28-30, 33; Ephesians 1: 5, 11). However, whether or not I believe in it depends on how people define it. I believe predestination is not that God chose certain people for heaven or hell before time, but the He knew who would choose to receive and love Him and who would choose to reject Him.

My reasoning for this is that if God predestined certain people to go to heaven, and not others, it gives no hope for those who aren’t predestined. Having no hope logically follows because no matter what they do, they can’t change God’s will and become called, elected, or predestined.

This idea of predestination would also make the elected lose their passion and point of sharing the gospel, because those predestined for heaven will go no matter what, and those who aren’t elect shouldn’t need to hear the gospel, because hearing it won’t change God’s will. Therefore, the elect do not need to share the gospel, which is a main part of being a Christian- something the Jesus called each of His disciples to share the gospel in Matthew 28: 19- 21.  

When predestination is defined as God choosing those who would go to Heaven ahead of the time of the world, God is limited, because then it would be impossible for God to save those who weren’t predestined.  

This reasoning is only valid if God’s predestining is unchanging as He is- if His will is unchanging as He is- if His Word is unchanging as He is. I believe that His Word is unchanging which would make His predestining unchanging, which leads me to believe what I just wrote.

Or is the idea of predestination simply when we’re saved, we become predestined?

What I found from researching …

 I found that John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius have almost opposite views. They are the founding fathers of two different denominations. I find myself disagreeing with most of what John Calvin said on this subject. However, I’m sure if I looked deeper; I would have found something that I could agree with him on.

I like how Jacobus Arminius sets up his answer. You can tell he has thought a lot about predestination as before he stated his views, he looked at other views and said why he doesn’t agree with them (on the site I researched). He said that most people who agree with Calvin’s views consider their view of predestination essential to salvation, and that he disagrees with their view on it, but with his views, predestination is essential and the foundation of salvation among other things. I found that most people who feel strongly about predestination do believe that it is essential for salvation. However, I don’t feel this way, and I disagree with both Arminius and Calvin in this area. For, I do not think predestination is a big enough issue to split the church over, for we are supposed to be one body of Christ.

I like Augustine’s definition of predestination: preparation for grace. This to me, is a reminder of how God is working on us, we’re not doing anything to earn salvation. However, as of now, I’m not sure what I think about his opinion that predestination is the promising of what God will do, not what men do. I agree with him that predestination includes God foreknowing what He will do, but I think there’s more to it than that.

John Wesley’s views are very similar to Arminius’. The type of predestination he agrees with is ‘conditional predestination’ though, which is God’s decision on who would be saved or damned based on His foreknowledge. Again, I agree that God foreknows who will receive and believe him, and who will not, but I think there’s more included than that. I also find myself agreeing with how he finds it hard to accept that there are certain people who, because they aren’t predestined, have no hope of being saved or living with Jesus.

I like the way John Piper makes a distinction between election and predestination. I actually really like and agree with what he says about how predestination is based upon God’s good will and that the reason we are predestined is to glorify God. I am so eager to agree with this statement, because I believe that all humans were made to glorify our Creator- the Almighty God.

My New and Improved Answer …

I still believe there is such a thing as predestination. I would like to define it as Saint Augustine does: preparation for grace. I still believe it includes God’s foreknowing who will receive Him and who will not. I think those who are saved are predestined. I do not believe that God chose people to go to heaven and people to go to hell. Like I said in my earlier answer, it would give those predestined for hell no hope or reason to live, which is not true, for all creation is made to glorify God. It would also give believers no reason to share, because you wouldn’t need to share with those who are predestined for hell.

However, I do not believe predestined is not a big enough issue to split churches. Yes, people can disagree, but I do not believe predestination is an essential part of being saved. We know we are predestined when we are saved. And we know we are saved when we confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts that Jesus is Lord and gave the greatest sacrifice of all- himself for the cleansing of our sins so we might go to live with Him someday.

I still do not have all the answers I would like for this question. Therefore, I will continue seeking it out. But for now, I believe, if we’re saved, we need to live like it- glorify God.

Identifying Unanswered Questions …

There are several questions from my brainstorming step that are unanswered, simply because I didn’t look that deep into those questions, as I focused more on how it is defined. I would still like to know how you can be sure, or how you can prove your belief on predestination. I learned that there are two types of predestinations: conditional and double. I would still like to talk with someone who believes strongly on their view of predestination so I could see how they would, if they could, answer those questions on predestination. However, I don’t want to talk with just anymore, but someone who’s willing to not press there ideas on me, but be willing to share what they think and how they back it up. So some of the questions I still have are:

 If you take it too far, doesn’t the idea of predestination limit God?

 How can we know for sure what predestination is when the Bible doesn’t clearly define it? I know that Scripture backs up Scripture, but which Scripture?

A new question that came up is: What is the difference between foreknowing and predestining?

Before research:

God uses people as tools; he uses us to do whatever he needs done. God has been using people since the beginning of time. Instead of just making something happen, he uses us, humans, to do his work. I believe that it is for the same reason that he did not just make humans like robots. He wanted to have a relationship with us, when he uses us it is like he makes us feel involved in his job. This way we feel a lot better of ourselves, and we feel like we are doing something for him, not just waiting for him to do whatever needs to be done. It’s like an activity that fathers and sons do together, playing computer games, swimming, bowling, all these activates draw father and son closer together. God wants to get closer to us, so he tries different things to bring us closer to him.  Maybe another reason that God uses us is that it would be too easy for him if he just made stuff happen. I think God does not just want to make things happen, or he would not have made the world so evil. If God just wanted everything to be perfect he could do it easily, but for some reason he does not want every thing to be perfect. It is said in the Bible that we humans can never fully understand God, maybe this is one of those things.

Research:

Chris Roberts, a Pastor with a Master of Divinity, wrote about what he thought of “why an omnipotent God uses humans” on http://www.seektheholy.com/tag/evangelism/.

Chris Roberts first says that it does not matter if we know Gods reasons for asking us to do things; our job is just to listen and obey. However he does give a few reasons, one of these is that it is good for those who have received his saving grace to demonstrate it to others who have not received it yet. God uses us because he is pleased to do so and because by our proclamation he is glorified. Some see evangelism as a burden, but it is really one of our best gifts, this is one of the few parts of life that have any meaning at all in the end.

Glenn Morton, a writer who has struggled with this problem, also wrote his answer online at http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0119.html. Maybe God just wants to show that he can even use us to help him. It is like asking if God uses humans born with genetic problems. It is the same way with us, God could be doing it himself, and it would be a lot easier for him, but instead he wants to show that he can use even us, lowly as we are, to help him. He can even use our mistakes to help him, so really nothing can go wrong, even if God uses humans everything still goes according to plan.

The site http://www.christianitytoday.com has a story about the life of William Carey, one of the most successful missionaries in history who encouraged thousands of others to join him. When William Carey was still a young, inexperienced minister he stood to argue for the value of overseas missions. He was abruptly interrupted by an older minister who said, “Young man, sit down! You are an enthusiast. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he’ll do it without consulting you or me.” William Carey must have had an answer to the older minister’s argument, though we don’t know his exact answer, we can see that it did not affect him at all, he still went and did what he thought God wanted him to do. In the end he had translated the Bible into many different languages, and led hundreds of people to Christ.

After research:

After looking at the answers of the philosophers I found, I believe that I should make a few changes to my original idea. After reading about what Chris Roberts thought of my question, I have realised that I should not be asking this question in the first place. We humans should not be questioning why God does what he does; instead we should just do it. However, since I have done all the work already, I should answer the question anyway. I am still sticking with my answer that God wants to spend time with us. He enjoys doing things with us, and wants to strengthen his relationship with us. I also believe that getting us to help him also glorifies him. It is amazing that he can use weak humans like us to do his great jobs. I think that he wants to make us feel special as well, if we do something for him, we know that we have done something useful in this life, and that it was not completely pointless. It also encourages other humans to know that we are not completely useless, that even the creator of the universe uses us. I believe that it should not matter if we know why God wants to use us, we should just follow blindly, remembering that he knows best and that he is much greater than us.

Step 2:

I breathe

Because I want to live

Because not breathing for a long time is painful

Because something smells good

I go to the bathroom

Because I want to pee

Because I want to wash my hands

Because I am in a class

Although it smells funny

Although Mr. Johnson is in there

I go to school

Because I want to study

Because I sometimes want to see Ms. LaPorte

Because going school is sometimes fun

Although I have to get up in the morning

Although the school is really far away

Louisa is cheating

Because cheating can make her grade a little bit higher

Because it is sometimes exciting

Because it is her habit

Although it is sinful

I like girls

Because I am a boy

Because it is my basic instinct

Although they don’t like me (not true but just for example)

Although it makes them envy each other

I don’t like dogs

Because they make poo-poo and pee-pee everywhere

Because they transfer virus

Because they are noisy

Because they bite me

Although girls like them

Step 3:

After listing some basic and common behaviors and the purpose of the behaviors in step two, I think that things that lead people to do, act, and behave in certain ways are: their basic instinct, removing pain, sensual pleasure, passion, love, habit, and personal identity.

One little survey:

What leads us to do our homework?

Possible answers: responsibility, guilt, outer force, personal passion for high GPA…etc.

Daniel T. and Joseph Cha: Removing guilt and gaining knowledge

Jamie Allen: Teacher’s punishment (Outer force)

Doing-homework pain < Not-doing-homework pain (Removing bigger pain)

Tim James: Not-doing-homework pleasure < Removing fear of “academic repercussion”

(Removing fear)

Step 4:

Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham, in his book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, claims that “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do” (Bentham 1789).

Pleasure will here be understood broadly, to include all pleasant feeling or experience, such as elation, ecstasy, delight, joy, and enjoyment. Pain will be taken to include all unpleasant feeling or experience: aches, throbs, irritations, anxiety, anguish, chagrin, discomfort, despair, grief, depression, guilt and remorse. Ordinary language must be stretched to accommodate these broad usages. Pleasure and pain themselves might be states, states of affairs, things, events or properties. Below, ‘pleasurableness’ and ‘painfulness’ will be used when talk of properties is intended; and ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ will do duty for all the other options. The intention is to avoid commitment as to which category pleasure and pain fit into. Further economy will often be secured by making ‘pleasure’ do duty for ‘pleasure or pleasurableness’.

Apostle Paul

Apostle Paul’s opinion was absolutely opposite to Jeremy Bentham’s. Apostle Paul claimed that people’s faith leads them to do, act, behave in certain ways. People follow what they believe no matter it is pleasurable or painful.

“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God… And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, and they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated of whom the world was not worthy-wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.”

Plato

Plato claimed that what moves people to do something is the three parts of their soul: passions, spirit, and reason.

1. The passion: the black winged horse – the desire for sensual pleasures. It exemplifies the part of the soul that seeks pleasure in food, sex, and other bodily desires.

2. The spirit: the white winged horse – the desire for fame and success. It exemplifies anger, resentment, and the desire to excel.

3. The reason: the charioteer – seeks truth and knowledge. The reason is the seat of human immortality.

Aristotle

Aristotle, an apprentice of Plato, was another, early, most influential philosopher, who argued that ethical knowledge is not certain knowledge (like metaphysics and epistemology), but is general knowledge. Because it is not a theoretical discipline, a person had to study and practice in order to become ‘good’, thus if the person were to become virtuous, he could not simply study what virtue is, he had to be virtuous, via virtuous activities. To do this, Aristotle established what is virtuous:

Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly, every action and choice of action, is thought to have some good as its object. This is why the good has rightly been defined as the object of all endeavors…

Everything is done with a goal, and that goal is “good”.

-Nicomachean Ethics 1.1

Yet, if action A is done towards achieving goal B, then goal B also would have a goal, goal C, and goal C also would have a goal, and so would continue this pattern, until something stopped its infinite regression. Aristotle’s solution is the Highest Good, which is desirable for its own sake; it is its own goal. The Highest Good is not desirable for the sake of achieving some other good, and all other ‘goods’ desirable for its sake. This involves achieving eudemonia, usually translated as “happiness”, “well-being”, “flourishing”, and “excellence.”

What is the highest good in all matters of action? To the name, there is almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated alike call it happiness, and make happiness identical with the good life and successful living.

-Nicomachean Ethics 1.4

Epicurus

To Epicurus, the greatest good is in seeking modest pleasures, to attain tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) via knowledge, friendship, and virtuous, temperate living; bodily pain (aponia) is absent through one’s knowledge of the workings of the world and of the limits of one’s desires. Combined, freedom from pain and freedom from fear are happiness in its highest form. Epicurus’ lauded enjoyment of simple pleasures is quasi-ascetic abstention from sex and the appetites:

When we say . . . that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do, by some, through ignorance, prejudice or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish, and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.

Step 5:

Interacting with Jeremy Bentham’s Idea

Jeremy Bentham, who represents the philosophers believing in hedonism, claims that pleasure and pain decide people’s actions and behaviors. As a Christian, I tend to oppose his opinion. According to the Bible, there were a lot of prophets and apostles suffered from other authorities, and even Jesus himself experienced the biggest pain. However, none of them try to remove their pains and sufferings. Instead, they enjoyed the pain, because they longed for better lives after they die. Hedonism can be enough to answer my question if suffering for what they believe can also be a kind of pleasure, but even if so, we have to face another question: “What decides people’s standard of pleasure?” (My answer is “their belief”) Therefore, hedonism is not enough to answer my question, although it is not wrong.

Interacting with Apostle Paul’s Idea

As a Christian, I believe in what Paul and the Bible says. I also believe that faith is one of the most powerful things that lead a person’s action and behavior. Furthermore, it can also create purpose and meaningfulness of a person’s life. However, on the other hand, I also think that there are some situations that people don’t act according to what they believe. For example, I believe that everyone has right to know the truth, but I don’t go to everyone and tell that I am smart. You might say that it is because I believe that telling everyone that I am smart is not a good way to get along with people. Nevertheless, there is no difference, because I don’t still tell everyone that I am smart, although I also believe that everyone has right to know the truth. I am not saying that Paul’s opinion is wrong (then I am saying that the Bible is wrong). It is just not enough to fully answer my question.

Interacting with Plato’s Idea

I really agree with Plato’s Idea. Being different than the two other philosopher’s opinion, his idea is really specific, and the picture of the three-part human soul is very persuasive. However, there are some questions that make me not satisfied. Where are the horses and the charioteer going? Do they always go toward the same destination? If yes, what or where is the destination? If not, what separates them? While each Bentham and Paul claims about one or two ultimate goals of human action and is not specific enough, Plato, being more specific, doesn’t explain about the ultimate goal.

Interacting with Aristotle’s Idea

Aristotle is another philosopher who claims another ultimate goal of human action – the Good, which is happiness and well-being. This opinion is not wrong, but still doesn’t satisfy me, because everyone’s standard of happiness and well-being is different, and people sometimes give up their happiness or well-being to follow after other things.

Interacting with Epicurus’s Idea

Epicurus’s opinion seems very specific. He lists modest pleasures such as attaining friendship, knowledge, and virtuous. However, in fact, these things can be collected in one category, which is happiness. His idea is not enough to answer my question in the same way that Aristotle’s idea is not enough.

Step 6:

My Answer:

Jeremy Bentham, Apostle Paul, and Aristotle’s ideas lack specificity. Plato’s idea is quite specific, but doesn’t explain the ultimate destination. Epicurus’s idea seems to have a quite specific list of human goal, but they all fit in the same category. Therefore, I tried to have a specific list that composed of many different categories and the ultimate destination.

After interacting with other philosophers’ ideas and having started to think and research about the question since the semester began, I came up with 15 things that cause people’s behavior and actions.

1. Gaining pleasure and removing pain

2. Getting rid of fear

3. Basic instinct

4. Satisfying secondary desires

5. Responsibility

6. Emotion

7. Love

8. Habit and addiction

9. Personal passion

10. Religion and faith

11. Adventure and curiosity

12. Conscience

13. Sudden impulse

14. Reflex function

15. Outer force

*The order has nothing to do with importance or priority.

I think that every human action and behavior that has purpose fits in at least one thing in this list. There is no such thing as the most important one among these things. They are all valuable, but something that make one more valuable are the situations and people’s different orders of priority.

All the fifteen of the list have the same destination – making a better life, which, I think, is the ultimate goal of human actions and behaviors.

Step 1

• Does God live in His creation?
• If God exist outside of time, what was there before the beginning?
• What was the purpose of God creating life on earth when life can be created anywhere else?
• Is there life other than on earth?

Step 3

God does not live in time. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Everything was created by God in seven days, including time. Time was the creation; therefore, the creator does not live in it. The Bible states that God is eternal, if God lives in time, He will no longer be eternal. In 1 Timothy 1: 17 “Now to the King eternal, for ever and ever. Amen” He lives outside of time.

God being the Trinity has lived in time in the form of Jesus Christ. God eternally exists as three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; each person is fully God, there is one God. This is something humans cannot fully understand. When God sent His one and only son, Jesus, it was written that he was “the son of man” which implies that he was human. God lives in the past, the present, and the future. Living in the past, the present, and the future is living in time. The past, present, and future is all a big part of time, however, this is just an aspect of a human being. What humans see in the world is so much smaller than the things God sees in our hearts.

God lives both outside and inside of time. Such as the Trinity, this is also question humans cannot fully understand. The Bible states that God is both Imminent and Transcendent. Imminent meaning God is close and lives in time. Transcendent meaning God lives far away from time.  Jeremiah 23:23 says “Am I only a God nearby, declares the Lord, and not a God far away?” When God says this, he means God is not only nearby, but far away as well.

Step 6

Due to my opinion and research, I would conclude to my question “can an eternal being such as God live in time?” God does not live in time. Time is the creation and God is the creator, therefore, the creator does not live in His creation. Like Helm said, there is a sharp and rational distinction between God and His creation. If God lived in time, He would not live eternally anymore. Time is something that changes every second. Augustine believes that time is not a substance or thing, but a change between things. He says that God is changeless and timeless.  Humans cannot do anything about the existence of time. We can choose the certain location and the amount of time, but we cannot choose a certain location in time. Unlike the human body, God can be at all the past, the present, and the future. Living outside of time, God is in the past, the presence, and the future being the only omnipresence being everywhere.

God being the only being that lives eternal also exists as three persons; The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, there is one God. The Bible never says the word Trinity; however, it mentions that there is a Father, a Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are two different contexts of the Trinity; the first is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all consubstantial. The second is that God is “three” persons. These two formulas are recognized in many ways.  As the Trinity, God may have lived in time in the form of Jesus Christ. In Jeremiah 23:23 says “Am I only a God nearby, declares the Lord, and not a God far away?” Depending on which perspective one looks at this verse, the different ways one can understand it.