> Philippians 4:7 says "And the peace of God,
>which transcends all understanding, will guard
>your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."
>Basically, what you said. The peace of God
>transcends ALL understanding, so what's the
>point in trying to figure it out logically? Last
>time I checked, logic was a significant part of
>traditional understanding. Without faith, you
>can't see God's peace. But, like you said, Sam,
>you know it.

The point in trying to figure it out logically is that I do not accept faith as a valid basis for any system of thoughts or beliefs that are supposed to represent or lead to Truth. If I must accept on faith, even if that faith is given to me somehow by God himself, I can't call what I then discover "Truth" by any definition of Truth that I know of.

If you claim "I believe in God", you are logically also making the statement that "God exists" (because who in their right mind would believe something exists that does not exist?) It is then the assumption of any rational person that you have some evidence of this existance, because who would believe whole-heartedly in something without benefit of evidence? Evidence, by it's very nature, is, well, evident. What constitutes evidence for you should also constitute evidence for me. If you believe that the world is round (or at least, a three-dimensional solid), then evidence to support that belief would be the ability to move in one direction continuously and end up back where you started. Any two rational people would agree on that. If you then set out in one direction and continued until you return to where you started, then I, as a rational being, would accept your supposition that the world is non-flat.

If it is a fundamental Truth that "God exists", then you should be able to show me evidence for this. I ask for evidence, and you show me a book. I say "What is this book?" You say it is the Bible, and it was inspired by God and it proves his existence. I ask "How do you know it was inspired by God?" You answer either that you just know it to be true, or that you know it to be true because the Bible tells you so. The second line of reasoning I throw away out of hand because it is circular--you cannot logically use the Bible to support the Bible.

I then ask you how you "just know" that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. You can make all sorts of appeals to knowledge beyond rationality, but in the end, you can only say that you "know" without being able to present me evidence that would convince me. You in one breath claim to know God and in the very next make an appeal to his unknowability to explain away a lack of evidence.

If you choose to believe in God despite a lack of evidence, or if you feel that God has brought you understanding and even evidence despite the fact that you can't present me that evidence, then that is your belief. But you can't make a claim to Truth on something that can't be explained. And if you're basing your beliefs on an unknowable and uncommunicatable experience, then you're basically slipping into existentialism anyway.

My main point, again, is that if you're going to make a claim to Truth, you have to have evidence. Even if I choose not to follow the path you lay out as a basis for finding that Truth, you *ought* to at least be able to lay it out for me without appealing to the uknowable or the uncommunicatable. If your *very first step* requires such an appeal, unless you're doing a proof by induction (which you're not, because too many *other* steps require this appeal as well) then what rational being could possibly do anything but reject your argument?

-- Dave