God's Existance

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638813' date='Aug 26 2008, 01:30 PM']I don't dispute the logic here, it's sound. However, there are some parts which I disagree with, mainly minor things. Like when it mentions that nothing has inherent worth unless there is a God. Why? Something having "worth" is not objective, but rather, subjective.[/quote]

This is precisely the point. Atheists say that something's worth is purely subjective (or psychological), whereas human experience shows that something, for instance a human being, has objective (or ontological) worth.

Let's get deeper into the human being situation here. According to you, worth is subjective, and is therefore arbitrary. Therefore the Nazi genocide of the Jews is neither good nor bad. Their subjective worth for the Jewish human beings was less than nothing, so they exterminated them. There is nothing really "wrong" with this because nothing of any real worth was harmed. This in turn is because nothing can possibly have any real worth because all worth is merely subjective.

This is madness. We, atheist and Christian alike, observe that there is something absolutly wrong here and that something of real, ontological worth has been destroyed. The atheist, however, ignores this data and pretends that everything can be okay without objective moral standards. But he fails to ask himself, "what is 'okay' in the first place?" Why is the whole of humanity suffering any less 'okay' than the whole of humanity living in Utopia? There is no standard by which one can say either of these is "better" than the other, since human happiness has no real worth. Again, I say, this is madness an no one operates in this fashion. We all know deep down that there is such a thing as ontological worth, and that therefore there is such a thing as ontological morality.

In short, you have merely restated the atheistic position rather than interacted with the argument. Argumentum ad nauseum.

Do you have any rebuttals to any of the other arguments, for instance an atheistic case for the mind having a real relation to the external world (which does not argue in a circle)?

Blessings,

Philip

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1638856' date='Aug 26 2008, 02:59 PM']This is precisely the point. Atheists say that something's worth is purely subjective (or psychological), whereas human experience shows that something, for instance a human being, has objective (or ontological) worth.

Let's get deeper into the human being situation here. According to you, worth is subjective, and is therefore arbitrary. Therefore the Nazi genocide of the Jews is neither good nor bad. Their subjective worth for the Jewish human beings was less than nothing, so they exterminated them. There is nothing really "wrong" with this because nothing of any real worth was harmed. This in turn is because nothing can possibly have any real worth because all worth is merely subjective.

This is madness. We, atheist and Christian alike, observe that there is something absolutly wrong here and that something of real, ontological worth has been destroyed. The atheist, however, ignores this data and pretends that everything can be okay without objective moral standards. But he fails to ask himself, "what is 'okay' in the first place?" Why is the whole of humanity suffering any less 'okay' than the whole of humanity living in Utopia? There is no standard by which one can say either of these is "better" than the other, since human happiness has no real worth. Again, I say, this is madness an no one operates in this fashion. We all know deep down that there is such a thing as ontological worth, and that therefore there is such a thing as ontological morality.

In short, you have merely restated the atheistic position rather than interacted with the argument. Argumentum ad nauseum.

Do you have any rebuttals to any of the other arguments, for instance an atheistic case for the mind having a real relation to the external world (which does not argue in a circle)?

Blessings,

Philip[/quote]
I will admit that I am not used to arguing the atheistic world view. I understand your points inside and out because I too used to argue them. I don't subscribe to the atheistic world view as strongly as others do, mainly because I am not driven by the hatred they have towards Christians.

That being said, your argument makes sense within your belief structure, I will give you that. I do not, however, believe in the Christian concept of God. I don't have a very strong belief in any god, for that matter, but I do believe there is, for the most part, a moral standard that's driven by the common good - i.e. self preservation, the desire for authentic happiness and good emotion. However, before you argue that rapists are "happy" when they rape and that kind of thing, that's why I specified authentic happiness - the happiness that brings about positive emotion and optimism.

Are my beliefs strong in comparison to your logic? Maybe not. But your logic is also based in your belief system. So is mine. It's hard to dialogue without understanding both.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638860' date='Aug 26 2008, 03:06 PM']I will admit that I am not used to arguing the atheistic world view. I understand your points inside and out because I too used to argue them. I don't subscribe to the atheistic world view as strongly as others do, mainly because I am not driven by the hatred they have towards Christians.

That being said, your argument makes sense within your belief structure, I will give you that. I do not, however, believe in the Christian concept of God. I don't have a very strong belief in any god, for that matter, but I do believe there is, for the most part, a moral standard that's driven by the common good - i.e. self preservation, the desire for authentic happiness and good emotion. However, before you argue that rapists are "happy" when they rape and that kind of thing, that's why I specified authentic happiness - the happiness that brings about positive emotion and optimism.

Are my beliefs strong in comparison to your logic? Maybe not. But your logic is also based in your belief system. So is mine. It's hard to dialogue without understanding both.[/quote]

My argument, like any argument, is not to be dependant on any antecedant belief structure. It is supposed to explain the data. The data is what we observe in ourselves and in the world around us.

Morality is observed. It is a fact, not a question. My arguments account for its existence, yours do not. Yours end up making them into a psychological phenomenon, which goes against the data.

In short, theistic arguments account for all the data, and atheistic ones do not. This has been proven up to this point, I think. Anyone who wants to be intellectually honest should abandon a position that does not explain the data in favor of one that does.

As to questions about the Christian God, that is an entirely different matter. I am not sure that the Christian God can be proven by reason alone (insofar as we are trying to prove the aspects of the Christian God which make him unique among other conceptions of God). I might reccommend C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity", then his "Miracles", then G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy", then Tim Keller's "The Reason for God". Check them out: they are worthwhile and offer some good arguments concerning the Christian God.

Blessings,

Philip

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1638872' date='Aug 26 2008, 03:25 PM']My argument, like any argument, is not to be dependant on any antecedant belief structure. It is supposed to explain the data. The data is what we observe in ourselves and in the world around us.

Morality is observed. It is a fact, not a question. My arguments account for its existence, yours do not. Yours end up making them into a psychological phenomenon, which goes against the data.

In short, theistic arguments account for all the data, and atheistic ones do not. This has been proven up to this point, I think. Anyone who wants to be intellectually honest should abandon a position that does not explain the data in favor of one that does.

As to questions about the Christian God, that is an entirely different matter. I am not sure that the Christian God can be proven by reason alone (insofar as we are trying to prove the aspects of the Christian God which make him unique among other conceptions of God). I might reccommend C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity", then his "Miracles", then G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy", then Tim Keller's "The Reason for God". Check them out: they are worthwhile and offer some good arguments concerning the Christian God.

Blessings,

Philip[/quote]
I can agree that your arguments point to some moral absolute or a universal 'first cause.' However, it is a far jump from that to a God that is anything resembling the personal God you believe in, and as you just admitted, it's questionable at best whether or not you can prove such a God exists. Thus, I cannot bring myself to believe that a God like that does exist, and I remain in the same state of belief as I have been.

That being said, is it possible for something to be both psychological and still fit with the absolute you are talking about? I think it's impossible to say that things in the world are not somewhat psychological in nature - like the example i mentioned about the iraq war. Morals in that aspect are subjective. And too, even interpretation of morals is subjective. That explains why there are so many belief systems, even among Christians.

Edited August 26, 2008 by fidei defensor

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638878' date='Aug 26 2008, 03:37 PM']I can agree that your arguments point to some moral absolute or a universal 'first cause.' However, it is a far jump from that to a God that is anything resembling the personal God you believe in, and as you just admitted, it's questionable at best whether or not you can prove such a God exists. Thus, I cannot bring myself to believe that a God like that does exist, and I remain in the same state of belief as I have been.

That being said, is it possible for something to be both psychological and still fit with the absolute you are talking about? I think it's impossible to say that things in the world are not somewhat psychological in nature - like the example i mentioned about the iraq war. Morals in that aspect are subjective. And too, even interpretation of morals is subjective. That explains why there are so many belief systems, even among Christians.[/quote]

But you cannot remain in the same state of belief. You were in the atheistic camp, and now admit that arguments for the existence of a god (of some sort...be it a "force" or some other sort of impersonal god...) are consistent and make sense. Now you must move into the theistic camp where you know God exists, but you do not know who (or what) he/she/it is.

It is not that it is questionable whether or not the Christian God exists, but rather whether the god whose existence we have just proven is the Christian God or not.

You really should read those books I reccommended: they explore this issue without saying ridiculous things like, "the Bible says it so you should believe it." They, using reason, try to provide basis for Christian beliefs and they do a fantastic job. You owe it to yourself to read those books. If you like, PM me and I will buy them for you.

You said: "I think it's impossible to say that things in the world are not somewhat psychological in nature."

You are confusing epistemology with ontology. The way we come to know things (epistemology) of course has an element that is psychological. But there must be an object which is known (ontology), and this is not subject to the changing tides of subjective opinion. Thus your statement that the interpretation of morals is diverse has no bearing on whether or not morals exist absolutely or not.

Morals, like the multiplication table, exist ontologically. Just beacuse someone does not know them or makes a mistake does not mean that the multiplication table does not exist, and it certainly does not make the multiplication table a figment of one's imagination.

Blessings,

Philip

[HisChildForever]

[quote]I can agree that your arguments point to some moral absolute or a universal 'first cause.' However, it is a far jump from that to a God that is anything resembling the personal God you believe in, and as you just admitted, it's questionable at best whether or not you can prove such a God exists. Thus, I cannot bring myself to believe that a God like that does exist, and I remain in the same state of belief as I have been.[/quote]

Out of sheer curiosity I ask, why is it so difficult to connect the "first cause god" with the Christian God? You used the word "personal" to describe the Christian God, so does that imply that the "first cause" god is impersonal? With that tossed out there, what is your reasoning to explain why this impersonal god created the universe and has since stepped back from it?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1638891' date='Aug 26 2008, 03:57 PM']But you cannot remain in the same state of belief. You were in the atheistic camp, and now admit that arguments for the existence of a god (of some sort...be it a "force" or some other sort of impersonal god...) are consistent and make sense. Now you must move into the theistic camp where you know God exists, but you do not know who (or what) he/she/it is.

It is not that it is questionable whether or not the Christian God exists, but rather whether the god whose existence we have just proven is the Christian God or not.

You really should read those books I reccommended: they explore this issue without saying ridiculous things like, "the Bible says it so you should believe it." They, using reason, try to provide basis for Christian beliefs and they do a fantastic job. You owe it to yourself to read those books. If you like, PM me and I will buy them for you.

You said: "I think it's impossible to say that things in the world are not somewhat psychological in nature."

You are confusing epistemology with ontology. The way we come to know things (epistemology) of course has an element that is psychological. But there must be an object which is known (ontology), and this is not subject to the changing tides of subjective opinion. Thus your statement that the interpretation of morals is diverse has no bearing on whether or not morals exist absolutely or not.

Morals, like the multiplication table, exist ontologically. Just beacuse someone does not know them or makes a mistake does not mean that the multiplication table does not exist, and it certainly does not make the multiplication table a figment of one's imagination.

Blessings,

Philip[/quote]
I like you, you're smart!

I actually have many of the books you mentioned, and have read them.

I should also mention, I do not subscribe to the atheistic camp's ideas. Agnosticism describes my belief better. I believe that a concept of God is reasonable, but I have rejected the Christian religion, for my personal belief anyway.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1638904' date='Aug 26 2008, 04:20 PM']Out of sheer curiosity I ask, why is it so difficult to connect the "first cause god" with the Christian God? You used the word "personal" to describe the Christian God, so does that imply that the "first cause" god is impersonal? With that tossed out there, what is your reasoning to explain why this impersonal god created the universe and has since stepped back from it?[/quote]
I believe it's plausible for a god of some kind to exist who caused the entire universe to come into existence, etc. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the whole Christian belief system is true - that Jesus came to forgive sins, he did this or that, etc - in my mind.

[havok579257]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638956' date='Aug 26 2008, 07:18 PM']I believe it's plausible for a god of some kind to exist who caused the entire universe to come into existence, etc. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the whole Christian belief system is true - that Jesus came to forgive sins, he did this or that, etc - in my mind.[/quote]


Is there a reason behind your non-belief in Jesus?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1639000' date='Aug 26 2008, 06:31 PM']Is there a reason behind your non-belief in Jesus?[/quote]
I used to be a hardcore Catholic, but have since simply fallen away. I have no "life changing" event that shattered my faith or something that made me "mistrust" God. I just... don't believe anymore.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638956' date='Aug 26 2008, 07:18 PM']I believe it's plausible for a god of some kind to exist who caused the entire universe to come into existence, etc. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the whole Christian belief system is true - that Jesus came to forgive sins, he did this or that, etc - in my mind.[/quote]

That's not necessarily reasoning (which I was asking for). That's opinion. I want to know what "evidence" (for lack of a better word) you have to support your belief.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1639009' date='Aug 26 2008, 06:46 PM']That's not necessarily reasoning (which I was asking for). That's opinion. I want to know what "evidence" (for lack of a better word) you have to support your belief.[/quote]
Actually, the burden of the proof is on you to prove that this "god" that exists out there is the Christian God, not for me to prove that he isn't.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1639020' date='Aug 26 2008, 08:02 PM']Actually, the burden of the proof is on you to prove that this "god" that exists out there is the Christian God, not for me to prove that he isn't.[/quote]

Sorry, I can't give you any proof that Jesus is Lord and God. There will be no proof, and I fear for you, that you will know he is God when you bow before him to the Glory of God the Father, before the white throne judgement.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638952' date='Aug 26 2008, 07:15 PM']I like you, you're smart!

I actually have many of the books you mentioned, and have read them.

I should also mention, I do not subscribe to the atheistic camp's ideas. Agnosticism describes my belief better. I believe that a concept of God is reasonable, but I have rejected the Christian religion, for my personal belief anyway.[/quote]


[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1638956' date='Aug 26 2008, 07:18 PM']I believe it's plausible for a god of some kind to exist who caused the entire universe to come into existence, etc. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the whole Christian belief system is true - that Jesus came to forgive sins, he did this or that, etc - in my mind.[/quote]
Since you say you believe that the existence of a Creator God is plausible, but don't believe in the "Christian God," whose god do you believe in?

(Serious question, not being a smart-alek here.)

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1639031' date='Aug 26 2008, 07:09 PM']Since you say you believe that the existence of a Creator God is plausible, but don't believe in the "Christian God," whose god do you believe in?

(Serious question, not being a smart-alek here.)[/quote]
I'm not sure. I have a very weak position, I realize. But I'm not leaning strongly towards any belief, I'm mainly apathetic. But since I've believed in the Christian God and then fell away, I'm not really impressed by any of the arguments that I used to stand by.

[havok579257]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1639006' date='Aug 26 2008, 08:40 PM']I used to be a hardcore Catholic, but have since simply fallen away. I have no "life changing" event that shattered my faith or something that made me "mistrust" God. I just... don't believe anymore.[/quote]


What caused you to suddenly stop believing in Jesus the Christ?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1639228' date='Aug 26 2008, 09:26 PM']What caused you to suddenly stop believing in Jesus the Christ?[/quote]
Despite my prayers for renewed faith, they failed and I fell away. I just stopped believing.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1639020' date='Aug 26 2008, 09:02 PM']Actually, the burden of the proof is on you to prove that this "god" that exists out there is the Christian God, not for me to prove that he isn't.[/quote]

Fine. Then disprove the Christian God.

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1639257' date='Aug 26 2008, 11:59 PM']Despite my prayers for renewed faith, they failed and I fell away. I just stopped believing.[/quote]

You don't think that maybe your dry spell was a period God intended you to use to strengthen your faith?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1639271' date='Aug 26 2008, 10:14 PM']Fine. Then disprove the Christian God.



You don't think that maybe your dry spell was a period God intended you to use to strengthen your faith?[/quote]
My point was that YOU have the burden to prove the Christian God, not that have to try to disprove him. You're trying to convince me that this uncaused cause is the Christian God.

And if God intended to strengthen my faith, he failed.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1639274' date='Aug 27 2008, 12:17 AM']My point was that YOU have the burden to prove the Christian God, not that have to try to disprove him. You're trying to convince me that this uncaused cause is the Christian God.[/quote]

In order to properly convince you - or, rather, in order to state my case - I need to understand exactly what it is you believe and what it is you do not believe, as well as why. You've already been clear in what you now believe (a disinterested god). I also know what you do not believe - Jesus, etc. The missing piece here is the [i]why[/i]. I can't debate this with you if you don't explain to me why you don't believe in the Christian God.

[quote]And if God intended to strengthen my faith, he failed.[/quote]

God doesn't fail. Which means you must have.