"Faith is being sure of what we hope for, certain of what we do not see" (Heb. 11:1). We can know and Paul said he would rather have us not ignorant.
Agnostic (Greek root) and ignorant both mean the same thing and come from the Latin root for ignoramus. Intellectually honest people often subscribe to this tenet of faith (and all positions about God require faith) and admit that they don't know and can't prove there is or isn't. This is true: You cannot prove either way. If you could put God in a box and define Him, limit Him, or even prove Him beyond a doubt there would be no place or basis for faith. It is faith that pleases Him and without faith it is impossible to please Him (cf. Heb. 11:6). "He that cometh to God must believe that He exists..." (cf. Heb. 11:6). No one knows all the answers or can prove their position; Christians are not alone, but have taken a leap of faith in the direction of the evidence and seeing the preponderance of the evidence in God's favor like a jury would make a decision without having literally all the evidence at hand, but only enough to grant no reasonable doubt.
We are all agnostics in one way or another at some time, because we have faith and not the knowledge to get saved, but afterward, there is a so-called "properly-basic belief" or experiential proof (the proof of the pudding is in the eating!). God reassures us and as Christ lives in our hearts "the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God" (Rom. 8:16). We have the witness inside.
But to get to the point of knowing the truth that sets us free from our slavery to sin, we have to be willing to do His will and admit we could be wrong. As a scientist is willing to go where the experiments lead and eliminate all preconceived conclusions. The notion that there are no miracles possible is a preconceived idea, for example. There is enough evidence to believe if you want to and never enough if you don't. In other words, it is a moral issue and not an intellectual one because the Bible does have the answers to all the questions and no one is going to come up with some question to make Christianity come tumbling down. The heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart is what Rick Warren says. What kind of soil is what Jesus describes people as, the seed of the Word sown by God is the same, but the condition of the soil is different and some people just don't respond because of the hardness of their hearts or blindness of their souls.
The reason you can't prove God is that it would be reversing a universal negative and disproving that: Could you say that there are no little green men without knowing it all or being everywhere to test your theory? It is impossible to prove a universal negative. You have to be omniscient or pansophic (knowing everything) in other words be God Himself! Being an agnostic is philosophically bankrupt and an invalid position because there is sufficient evidence in nature, philosophy, logic, and in the Bible itself to give witness and testimony of God--there is even an innate knowledge of His existence that is muffled or destroyed and therefore Romans 1:20 says that "they are without excuse." Chuck Swindoll says you practically have to teach kids not to believe.
Most people really disbelieve because they want to justify their lifestyle, like believing they are animals so they can live like one and not feel accountable to anyone. They say that believers have a psychological need to have a "father figure" but they too have a psychological need not to believe and don't see it. It is very convenient for them to doubt or deny God because it would change their lifestyle. What's the worst part is that most agnostics don't know why they don't believe but are very superficial in their reasons and haven't thought out their position--this is nothing but blind faith, which is not knowing why you believe, but going by gut feeling or emotion--they just feel there's is no God because of their bad experience or bad encounter with a Christian.
It seems only logical that one should consider the consequences of being wrong: Pascal's wager challenged people to realize that you've got nothing to lose and eternity to gain by believing and nonbelievers will go to hell if they are wrong, believers will only be annihilated or absorbed into the cosmos as an animal if they are wrong. Who's got more to lose?
God looks upon neutrality with more disapproval than other stands and it is the position of the coward to not be willing to stick his neck out or go out on a limb. When you have an encounter with God you are never the same afterward. Neutrality is like being "lukewarm" described in Revelation 3:19 where Christ spews them out of His mouth because they won't take a stand for Him or even against Him.
I like to get a hold of unbelievers who have blind faith--they can't defend their beliefs and don't have a leg to stand on, having more questions to answer than they can ask. Actually, it takes more faith to not believe than to believe! As Norman Geisler well wrote: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist [or agnostic I would say]." Finally, agnostics don't have the answers but only doubts--we may not know all the answers but know the one who does. Just as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (the German Shakespeare) said, "Tell me your certainties, I have enough doubts of my own." Soli Deo Gloria!
Agnostic (Greek root) and ignorant both mean the same thing and come from the Latin root for ignoramus. Intellectually honest people often subscribe to this tenet of faith (and all positions about God require faith) and admit that they don't know and can't prove there is or isn't. This is true: You cannot prove either way. If you could put God in a box and define Him, limit Him, or even prove Him beyond a doubt there would be no place or basis for faith. It is faith that pleases Him and without faith it is impossible to please Him (cf. Heb. 11:6). "He that cometh to God must believe that He exists..." (cf. Heb. 11:6). No one knows all the answers or can prove their position; Christians are not alone, but have taken a leap of faith in the direction of the evidence and seeing the preponderance of the evidence in God's favor like a jury would make a decision without having literally all the evidence at hand, but only enough to grant no reasonable doubt.
We are all agnostics in one way or another at some time, because we have faith and not the knowledge to get saved, but afterward, there is a so-called "properly-basic belief" or experiential proof (the proof of the pudding is in the eating!). God reassures us and as Christ lives in our hearts "the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God" (Rom. 8:16). We have the witness inside.
But to get to the point of knowing the truth that sets us free from our slavery to sin, we have to be willing to do His will and admit we could be wrong. As a scientist is willing to go where the experiments lead and eliminate all preconceived conclusions. The notion that there are no miracles possible is a preconceived idea, for example. There is enough evidence to believe if you want to and never enough if you don't. In other words, it is a moral issue and not an intellectual one because the Bible does have the answers to all the questions and no one is going to come up with some question to make Christianity come tumbling down. The heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart is what Rick Warren says. What kind of soil is what Jesus describes people as, the seed of the Word sown by God is the same, but the condition of the soil is different and some people just don't respond because of the hardness of their hearts or blindness of their souls.
The reason you can't prove God is that it would be reversing a universal negative and disproving that: Could you say that there are no little green men without knowing it all or being everywhere to test your theory? It is impossible to prove a universal negative. You have to be omniscient or pansophic (knowing everything) in other words be God Himself! Being an agnostic is philosophically bankrupt and an invalid position because there is sufficient evidence in nature, philosophy, logic, and in the Bible itself to give witness and testimony of God--there is even an innate knowledge of His existence that is muffled or destroyed and therefore Romans 1:20 says that "they are without excuse." Chuck Swindoll says you practically have to teach kids not to believe.
Most people really disbelieve because they want to justify their lifestyle, like believing they are animals so they can live like one and not feel accountable to anyone. They say that believers have a psychological need to have a "father figure" but they too have a psychological need not to believe and don't see it. It is very convenient for them to doubt or deny God because it would change their lifestyle. What's the worst part is that most agnostics don't know why they don't believe but are very superficial in their reasons and haven't thought out their position--this is nothing but blind faith, which is not knowing why you believe, but going by gut feeling or emotion--they just feel there's is no God because of their bad experience or bad encounter with a Christian.
It seems only logical that one should consider the consequences of being wrong: Pascal's wager challenged people to realize that you've got nothing to lose and eternity to gain by believing and nonbelievers will go to hell if they are wrong, believers will only be annihilated or absorbed into the cosmos as an animal if they are wrong. Who's got more to lose?
God looks upon neutrality with more disapproval than other stands and it is the position of the coward to not be willing to stick his neck out or go out on a limb. When you have an encounter with God you are never the same afterward. Neutrality is like being "lukewarm" described in Revelation 3:19 where Christ spews them out of His mouth because they won't take a stand for Him or even against Him.
I like to get a hold of unbelievers who have blind faith--they can't defend their beliefs and don't have a leg to stand on, having more questions to answer than they can ask. Actually, it takes more faith to not believe than to believe! As Norman Geisler well wrote: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist [or agnostic I would say]." Finally, agnostics don't have the answers but only doubts--we may not know all the answers but know the one who does. Just as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (the German Shakespeare) said, "Tell me your certainties, I have enough doubts of my own." Soli Deo Gloria!