Are you really praying?

If you only pray by sending off little messages to God when you are in the middle of something else then you are missing out. If you really want to pray then you need to be spending some quality time with God. You need to find some time when you can be quiet and spend time just being with God.

I know that for some of us this is very difficult. Those of you with a young family will know that it is incredibly hard to find any time to do anything. Young children are very demanding and you are on the go all the time, babies in particular make finding time along almost impossible.

You know just because something is almost impossible doesn’t mean that it is not worth doing. Most of us, if we are pressed, could find some time if we really wanted to.

If you knew that if you made a 15 minute phone call you would get a million pounds (read dollars or whatever) then you would find the time to even if it was nearly impossible.

So how much is that time with God worth to you? This is where the problems arise.

I often hear people complaining that God doesn’t listen to them or they never hear God speak. This is often down to not listening. You can’t expect, in any relationship, to get a clear message from someone you only ever listen to about once a month. For one thing you have to learn to hear the voice of God which comes in many different forms. You can’t listen just occasionally and expect to understand what God is saying. It’s not that God is trying to hide away its simply that the rest of life gets in the way.

So let me encourage you to find a time (first thing in the morning or last thing at night maybe?). If you go to bed at 11pm then either go at 10:45pm and spend 15 minutes before you go to sleep with God or turn off the TV at 11 and go to bed at 11:15pm. You can work out what to do in the morning for yourself.

If you want to hear God you have to give Him time to speak.

Was God designed by God?

I feel compelled once again to address another argument put forward by Richard Dawkins (if he does nothing else he is giving me something to do at the moment).

Again I wish to say that I believe Richard to be a caring man who is simply trying to do what he believes to be right. I have nothing against him as a person and I don’t share anyones view who says he is the devil incarnate. There have been many atheists who tried to bring God to His knees throughout history and Richard is just another. I am saddened by the vitriol he directs at people of faith and can’t help but feel that people who resort to such language (especially when they are writing a book) are doing so because they know their argument is weak.

I’ve read recently about another of Richards (so called) brilliant arguments. In this one he uses logic (actually I challenge this in a moment) to create a new argument for the non-existence of God. I’m not sure what he wants to prove by doing this because Christians don’t claim that the proofs for the existence of God are conclusive and neither is his argument (if it worked) so it seems to me there is no progress at all. Never mind let’s get stuck in.

Richard claims that he there is an argument for the existence of God which goes like this (the teleological argument):

a) The world is complex

b) Complexity implies a designer (I used implies because this cannot be proved 100% but it’s pretty close).

c) Therefore the world has most likely been designed. We call that designer God.

Richard then (in his so called masterstroke) turns the argument around by saying:

a) God is complex

b) Complexity implies a designer

c) Therefore God must have been designed

He claims that the conclusion (c) is logical nonsense (which it is) so the whole argument falls apart.

However he misses one fundemental part of the argument for the existence of God and that is that the Christian argument is that the world came into existence in a complex way.

So the argument for the existence of God is:

a) The world came into existence in a complex way

b) Complexity implies a designer (I used implies because this cannot be proved 100% but it’s pretty close).

c) Therefore the world has most likely been designed.

It is logical nonsense to say God came into existence (logically God must always exist otherwise he becomes another creature and not God).

The argument includes the part where the world comes into existence otherwise the flaw in the argument is that this implies the world has always existed; something nobody believes (at least nobody I’ve ever heard of).

There are other counter arguments but I can’t be bothered writing them up. I think one is enough.

Although Richard may claim that his argument is fool proof it isn’t and the simple application of logic shows this.

There is no absolute proof for the existence of God and neither is there any proof that he doesn’t. We could argue the logic for hours but it would prove nothing. This is why ultimately belief is a matter of faith and I happen to believe its better because it involves faith but that’s a discussion for another time.

If you would like to read a book report on Richard Dawkin’s book by a scientist who is a fan of his then go here (I warn you though that it’s not positive).