Does morality exist without God?

[razeontherock]

You're seeing circular arguments where there's only ever been the honest request for evidence. Ultimately, whatever 3sigma's personal convictions, the request stands: do you, or do you not, have evidence for your claims?

You and I have been down this road before, so that means there's is absolutely nothing honest about any request for evidence here.

"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas" (Mt 12:39)

The only valid question, is how to escape this predicament?

 

[selfinflikted]

You have already determined what is "outlandish" and "unreasonable." This translates to all "evidence" that Christians present, i. e. that which cannot be controlled in a scientific laboratory

There you go, reading minds again. You're bad at it, I might add.

Which you honestly have already decided to believe is "suspect," i.e. deluded and outlandish.

Nope. I told you why I suspect that it's "suspect" - trivial.

 

[selfinflikted]

The only valid question, is how to escape this predicament?

So how?

 

[Cabal]

You and I have been down this road before, so that means there's is absolutely nothing honest about any request for evidence here.

"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas" (Mt 12:39)

The only valid question, is how to escape this predicament?

Stop quoting irrelevant Bible verses and present the evidence?

I've seen that verse touted as a convenient get-out for why no-one can see miracles (beyond the ones that are little better than statistical noise, naturally), but using it as a get-out for presenting any evidence whatsoever is a new one on me. I applaud your ingenuity.

 

[razeontherock]

So what? That's the reason we ask for evidence all the time! Outlandish claims should be supported by evidence if they are to be taken seriously. That's the "so what?".

Here's the thing; the Bible is written for believers. That would mean it's claims are not outlandish, but reality. Where disagreements come in is we fail to recognize on what plane that reality is. The Bible's concepts are alive, and if we fail to take them seriously we find our understanding of it absolutely shut out. It's a real catch 22, and breaking that cycle is most definitely a miracle; one could say the most significant miracle ever.

 

[selfinflikted]

Here's the thing; the Bible is written for believers. That would mean it's claims are not outlandish, but reality. Where disagreements come in is we fail to recognize on what plane that reality is. The Bible's concepts are alive, and if we fail to take them seriously we find our understanding of it absolutely shut out. It's a real catch 22, and breaking that cycle is most definitely a miracle; one could say the most significant miracle ever.

So you already have to believe to believe what the Bible says. Now, THAT makes sense.

 

[Tzaousios]

There you go, reading minds again. You're bad at it, I might add.

Well, you are bad at reading my mind thinking that I am reading minds.

Do you mean to tell me that there is "evidence" for Christian religious belief which is not scientifically controlled in a laboratory, is reasonable, sound, not suspect, not trivial, not outlandish, whatever adjective, that you will accept or will convince you?

Nope. I told you why I suspect that it's "suspect" - trivial.

I am sorry, but you have given me no indication that "trivial" is not in reality conflated with all of the other pejorative adjectives that were previously mentioned.

 

[razeontherock]

Stop quoting irrelevant Bible verses and present the evidence?

I've seen that verse touted as a convenient get-out for why no-one can see miracles (beyond the ones that are little better than statistical noise, naturally), but using it as a get-out for presenting any evidence whatsoever is a new one on me. I applaud your ingenuity.

Nothing ingenious about this - it is exactly it's original intent, and usage. If you want to be presented with evidence, you have the Bible to read, and the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection.

Is that hard? Well, try denying yourself, taking up your Cross and following Jesus

 

[razeontherock]

So you already have to believe to believe what the Bible says. Now, THAT makes sense.

Faith is like a mustard seed ... no Chris, i don't think that would get through to 3sigma

Anyway, yes you have to start with something, and it can come from us or our own power: "without me ye can do nothing." (John 15:5) That's Jesus talking, btw

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, you are bad at reading my mind thinking that I am reading minds.

Do you mean to tell me that there is "evidence" for Christian religious belief which is not scientifically controlled in a laboratory can be reasonable, sound, not suspect, not trivial, not outlandish, whatever adjective, that you will accept or will convince you?

That is exactly what I'm telling you. It simply must be compelling enough for me to believe it.

I am sorry, but you have given me no indication that "trivial" is not in reality conflated with all of the other pejorative adjectives that were previously mentioned.

Well, it's not. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "I was going to be late for work, and I couldn't find my car keys. I prayed, and god told me where they were, and I was not late for my job. Praise Jesus!" To me, that is trivial. Yet, that's the best evidence some people can seem to come up with. Trivial. (and no, I'm not lying. I've heard that MORE than once. Disgusting, really.)

 

[Tzaousios]

So you already have to believe to believe what the Bible says. Now, THAT makes sense.

Wait a second, do you mean that it makes sense insofar that a Christian would believe to believe in the Bible in order to justify their choice of theism? Or, do you mean that you yourself think it makes sense and is not delusional or imaginary?

 

[selfinflikted]

Anyway, yes you have to start with something, and it can come from us or our own power: "without me ye can do nothing." (John 15:5) That's Jesus talking, btw

So, if one must already be a believer to believe what's in the Bible, how does telling an unbeliever to read the Bible so he can become a believer make any sense?

 

[selfinflikted]

Wait a second, do you mean that it makes sense insofar that a Christian would believe to believe in the Bible in order to justify their choice of theism? Or, do you mean that you yourself think it makes sense and is not delusional or imaginary?

No, it totally makes sense to me. The question is, how do you become a believer, if you are an unbeliever and can't believe the Bible because you don't already believe?

 

[Bombila]

I agree! Their problem is when you compare their ideas to the whole of Scripture, there are major concepts they can't account for. Things like "for God so loved the world," and "He gives light to every man who enters the world." These just don't jibe with their idea of God creating people just to suffer in hell for eternity.

Well, to be fair, Calvinists don't exactly say God created people specifically to send to Hell, but that he creates all humans but of necessity, being omniscient, knows before he creates them which ones will go to hell, yet creates them anyway.

They do dismiss the passages you quote as being intended only for those who will be saved, who are not all Calvinists and might be found anywhere in the world in any religion.

And their initial point is sound: being omniscient, God must know, did know, and will know, which humans will be saved and which will not, and while that does not negate free will, it does mean that God creates many individuals he knows specifically are destined for destruction even before he creates them.

Whatever doctrine that might be, it is not what the Bible teaches! You wind up with Peace that passes all understanding, and boldness like a lion. And while it doesn't take a whole lifetime of time, the approach just might be to condense your whole life's effort into the goal; "seeking the Lord with your whole heart." While words can't really convey this state, once we're there it doesn't take long.

Then I fail to understand what "seeking the Lord with your whole heart." even means, and so have many others failed to understand it.

Now this is humility! G-d can work with that. Let me point out the Bible tells us it is only the Word of G-d itself that can distinguish between these things you mention, (which the KJV calls "soul") and Spirit. Another conversation I had with an unbeliever not too long ago involved him using the idea of growing a 3rd arm as an analogy. I'm not sure he ever quite understood that this "third arm" would be G-d Himself, and no longer truly us ...

Really, this sounds as if one can do little beyond wait for God to make a move, in the meantime simply using one's imagination to create mental images of what might be. I have to tell you, that may be 'faith', but it is very hard to make a sane and logical case for doing it.

 

[chris4243]

No, it totally makes sense to me. The question is, how do you become a believer, if you are an unbeliever and can't believe the Bible because you don't already believe?

You could always be brought up that way, like most of us.

 

[Tzaousios]

That is exactly what I'm telling you. It simply must be compelling enough for me to believe it.

I cannot wait for you to put into practice the consideration to be compelling the evidence from a Christian which is not scientifically controlled in a laboratory. It will be very nice to see rather than the same going along with the general train of thought of the peanut gallery, except with your own rhetorical flourishes.

Well, it's not. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "I was going to be late for work, and I couldn't find my car keys. I prayed, and god told me where they were, and I was not late for my job. Praise Jesus!" To me, that is trivial. Yet, that's the best evidence some people can seem to come up with. Trivial. (and no, I'm not lying. I've heard that MORE than once. Disgusting, really.)

Do you mean to tell me that you do not equate as being outlandish and trivial the belief in the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the deity of the man Christ with the car keys example above?

 

[selfinflikted]

You could always be brought up that way, like most of us.

Funny thing is, I was! But, the incredible part is, reading the Bible is what (mostly) lead to my deconversion.

 

[selfinflikted]

I cannot wait for you to put into practice the consideration to be compelling the evidence from a Christian which is not scientifically controlled in a laboratory. It will be very nice to see rather than the same going along with the general train of thought of the peanut gallery, except with your own rhetorical flourishes.

Yea, I would like to see it too. But so far, no one has offered any evidence (to me) that is compelling enough.

Do you mean to tell me that you do not equate as being outlandish and trivial the belief in the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the deity of the man Christ with the car keys example above?

Virgin birth, resurrection, deity of a man - Outlandish because these things do not conform to reason. We never see these things, only hear about them in ancient books.

Car Keys: Trivial, because 1) Why would god save you from being late for work, when there are much, MUCH more pressing matters that deserve his attention, and 2) You could have just looked for your keys and found them yourself (which, is likely what happened anyway).

 

[Tzaousios]

Funny thing is, I was! But, the incredible part is, reading the Bible is what (mostly) lead to my deconversion.

I really hope you are not going to toss up the Old Testament punching bag next...

Virgin birth, resurrection, deity of a man - Outlandish because these things do not conform to reason. We never see these things, only hear about them in ancient books.

So these are outlandish but not trivial?

Anyways, I do not see the point you are making in terms of evidence. How would resurrections and virgin births of Joe Schmoe happening all over the place be compelling evidence for you to believe?

Car Keys: Trivial, because 1) Why would god save you from being late for work, when there are much, MUCH more pressing matters that deserve his attention, and 2) You could have just looked for your keys and found them yourself (which, is likely what happened anyway).

I agree that your example was silly. In fact, I do not see what purpose it served other than to try rhetorically to associate its silliness/triviality/unreasonableness with the tenents of the Christian faith that are held dear.

 

[razeontherock]

That is exactly what I'm telling you. It simply must be compelling enough for me to believe it.

@ Tzaousios, I will vouch, he seems reasonable and we've had pretty lengthy exchanges.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard "I was going to be late for work, and I couldn't find my car keys. I prayed, and god told me where they were, and I was not late for my job. Praise Jesus!" To me, that is trivial. Yet, that's the best evidence some people can seem to come up with. Trivial. (and no, I'm not lying. I've heard that MORE than once. Disgusting, really.)

I can sympathize why you would find this trivial Not disgusting, but trivial. Consider: "the very hairs of your head are all numbered." (Mt 10:30, Luke 12:7) Now THAT is trivial! Yet it is still significant enough for Jesus to have mentioned it, and for His Disciples to make note of it. All of this together speaks to the kind of intimacy our Father craves ...