How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Chriliman]

Sorry for the low quality graphic. When I uploaded it this site must of downgraded the quality. Here is a link to dropbox where the file should be good quality.

Absolute truth conversation tree:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3xdrfjpsaxm4dw/Absolute-Truth 3.png?dl=0

Concept of the existence of absolutes:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1buj01993fs332x/Concept-of-the-Existence-of-Absolutes.png?dl=0

I created these graphics myself, but the knowledge is from God as all knowledge originates from Him.

 

[Chriliman]

I took the liberty of adding my perspective to Chriliman's thoughnt experiments.


Chriliman
Is God Real?: A Thought Experiment.

The definitions of objective and subjective are as follows:

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, opinions, or experiences.


Ken
This definition often confuses people because it gives the impression you can choose if something is objective or subjective. A better definition would be; objective is something that can be demonstrated; subjective can’t be demonstrated. Example;
Can you demonstrate Math, or laws of nature? Yes; those are examples of objectivity.
Can you demonstrate morality? No; that is an example of subjectivity

Chriliman
Which is of greater importance, being objective or subjective
Being objective means to seek truth based on facts that are not influenced by personal feelings, opinions, or experiences. The truths that you seek can be proven to be real outside of your mind. For example: if you throw a ball in the air it will come back down based on the laws of nature. This is an objectively proven truth because you can observe the balls actions and can use mathematics to prove that what the ball is doing is in fact real.
This shows that truth can exist not just in our minds, but outside of our minds as well.
Being subjective means to seek truth based on personal feelings, opinions, or experiences. The truths that you seek can only be proven to be real to yourself. For example: I believe God is real because I have proven it to myself. This is a subjectively proven truth because you can not prove that God exists outside of your mind.

Ken
This is misleading. Some truths are subjective, others are objective; you don’t get to choose. Morality, good/bad, are subjective because they can’t be demonstrated; math is objective because it can be demonstrated; you don’t get to choose which truths are objective or subjective.

Chriliman
This shows that God may not exist outside of our minds, but can exist in our minds.

Ken
As does Santa Clause; I think that call it; “figment of imagination”

Chriliman
We can prove that truth can be both subjectively and objectively real,

Ken
No; some truths are subjective, others are objective.

Chriliman
but we can only prove that God is subjectively real. Only God himself can prove that He is objectively real.

Ken
Yes he can demonstrate his existence just like everybody else does.

Chriliman
This leads to the question:
Why doesn't God objectively prove to all people that he exists?
Follow my logic below:
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

You would all agree that we are logical beings, correct? Using logic is crucial in understanding and proving anything. Using logic will also lead us to be as objective as humanly possible. Even the Bible says to prove all things. Which makes complete sense, why shouldn't we at least attempt to prove all things? With all this in mind, follow my logic and feel free to add more logical thoughts.

Surely God wouldn't instruct us to prove all things, while leaving Himself to be unprovable. Yet the only way to truly prove something exists, is to have a full objective understanding of that which is objectively provable. For example: We can objectively prove that truth exists by observing the objective laws of nature.

Ken
But not all truths can be objectively proven.

Chriliman
This leads to the question: Can God be understood and proven objectively?

Ken
Only if he demonstrates his existence like everyone else.

Chriliman
"But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

Christians believe in order to have a full understanding of God you must first believe He exists and then seek His Word/Will. If we break that statement down logically using objectivity and subjectivity, it reads like this: In order to understand God objectively you must first subjectively believe He exists. How can objectivity possibly come from subjectivity? If you must first be subjective in order to achieve objectivity, you are still only achieving subjectivity. This is absolute logic that can't be denied (if you can use logic to deny it, please do!).

This begs the question: Why has God allowed it to be impossible for us to objectively prove that He exists? (please reference my thought experiment to better understand the importance of this question)

I'm a believer because I believe God is objectively proving He exists through prophecy and miracles and potentially creation itself.

Ken
Unless the prophecy, miracles, and creation you speak of can be demonstrated, it is subjective.

Chriliman
Yet its clearly not enough to prove to all people He exists otherwise everyone would believe! I believe if God is real He will objectively prove to all people that He is real because He MUST! Otherwise why allow us to be logical beings, when our logic leads us to the conclusion that we can not objectively prove that God exists, only He can prove this!

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them . . . " (Romans 1:18-20)

However, the fact that God has made it impossible for any of us to objectively prove His existence also makes it impossible to follow His instruction to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), unless He is only referring to subjective truths, this is the only logical answer. I want to believe in God, but the logic that he has supposedly allowed me to have prevents complete objective belief, thus I will always have doubts unless I submit to subjective belief.

Ken
Okay; so this is how you derive to a personal subjective belief; how does this show the possibility of God to the Atheist?

Ken

This thought experiment has been revised, but still needs more revisions, as I've learned much more since this iteration. If you read through that forum I linked to you will see how much deeper it goes and how atheists have no answer to the questions I'm posing. All they seem to do is contradict themselves, which I find very interesting.

 

[Chriliman]

Could you please link to a more readable version of your images, they seem a little blurry.

You seem to be implying that humans need to be able to perceive an absolute truth for it to exist. I don't see any reason to assume so.

In addition I find the concept of needing to already accept a fact before any evidence can be provided deeply unsatisfying.

I have new links

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1buj01993fs332x/Concept-of-the-Existence-of-Absolutes.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3xdrfjpsaxm4dw/Absolute-Truth 3.png?dl=0

 

[Chriliman]

I don't see what the point of the argument is anyways, since atheists usually don't rule out the logic of a deist's god. An atheist could just respond with "how do you know that god is the one you believe in?"

My argument goes beyond just a deist God, but actually shows how the God of the Bible is a possibility that should not be ignored.

 

[Wryetui]

You can't, God will lead them to the truth if they really want to find it, if not, they will keep being blindfolded.

 

[Chriliman]

You can't, God will lead them to the truth if they really want to find it, if not, they will keep being blindfolded.

I agree completely. I also believe we humans are reaching a point of knowledge through science that is leading us to question reality. Quantum physics is a good example of how far science has come, but still not able to explain anything about our existence, in fact the closer we look the more confusing it seems to become.

However, if we consider the idea of God having no reference to time and space it could easily explain what we see at the very smallest of scales in our universe. Particles behave like waves because when they were created there was no reference to time and space, so they didn't need to be either a particle or a wave. Only when we view them from our subjective point of view (restricted by time and space) do they appear to be both simultaneously. These are quick thoughts because all of this goes much deeper, but it takes time and an honest open mind/heart to really grasp everything.

I believe God wants His truth spread in whatever way possible and I think He could use science to do that, more importantly He uses us to do that, but your right it's up to the person who hears the truth to decide to believe in it.

 

[Wryetui]

Science is a gift from God so we can understand better His creation, so we can wonder with the miracles He did just for us, but I think science lost it's way when it chose to get distanciated from God and to be "independent". I just have two things to say:

Colossians 2:8 Be sure that no one leads you away with false ideas and words that mean nothing. Those ideas come from men. They are the worthless ideas of this world. They are not from Christ.

Wisdom 13 Anyone who does not know God is simply foolish. Such people look at the good things around them and still fail to see the living God. They have studied the things he made, but they have not recognized the one who made them.

 

[ananda]

OP, is there free will in heaven?

 

[Ken-1122]

This thought experiment has been revised, but still needs more revisions, as I've learned much more since this iteration. If you read through that forum I linked to you will see how much deeper it goes and how atheists have no answer to the questions I'm posing. All they seem to do is contradict themselves, which I find very interesting.

What link did you send me? I can't seem to get it. Perhaps you can put the link in your reply, that way I can get it and perhaps understand your point.

Ken
PS
I did look at your “absolute truth conversion tree”. Your tree goes wrong when you ask the atheist does absolute truth exist, and you inaccuracy assume his only options are yes or no; rather than the logical answer; some truths are absolute, others are not.

You then continue down this wrong direction assuming the only option of yes or no answer until you end with a conclusion that you would probably never end with if you were discussing with a real atheist.

 

[Gene2memE]

What is "absolute truth"? It is different from "fact"? How does it differ from subjectively observable reality? From subjective opinions? Where do frames of personal reference fit into "absolute truth"? Is it non-axiomatic? Is it discernible by observation, induction, extrapolation or inference, or is it implicitly apparent?

All you're doing is playing pre-suppositional games with the problem of hard solipsism, positing a deity as a solution. This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God.

It was wrong when Kant proposed it in the late 1700s, and fell out of favour shortly afterwards. It was wrong when it was re-cycled in the 1930s by Van Til et al and fell out of favour shortly afterwards. Its still wrong now. But a lot of people can't be bothered to do the reading to understand why.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wow, you should have kept the image small. Gave it some mystery.

 

[Chriliman]

OP, is there free will in heaven?

That's a great question. I believe we will have a subjective experience completely devoid of evil. In other words I believe the only option will be to choose a perfect existence, why would you want anything else? The devil was stupid enough to think he could choose something better than a perfect existence, he thought he could be like or better than God, which is why he fell and which is why God will and has destroyed him. Unfortunately for the devil, he must suffer for eternity because of God's absolute judgment. However, since God is absolute mercy he had to sacrifice himself to save the rest of us mortal humans from having to experience what the devil will experience, but it requires belief in the sacrifice God made which is Jesus Christ.

 

[Chriliman]

What is "absolute truth"? It is different from "fact"? How does it differ from subjectively observable reality? From subjective opinions? Where do frames of personal reference fit into "absolute truth"? Is it non-axiomatic? Is it discernible by observation, induction, extrapolation or inference, or is it implicitly apparent?

All you're doing is playing pre-suppositional games with the problem of hard solipsism, positing a deity as a solution. This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God.

It was wrong when Kant proposed it in the late 1700s, and fell out of favour shortly afterwards. It was wrong when it was re-cycled in the 1930s by Van Til et al and fell out of favour shortly afterwards. Its still wrong now. But a lot of people can't be bothered to do the reading to understand why.

Please read through this forum http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/god-real-thought-experiment if you have time! Then ask any question you like.

 

[Chriliman]

What is "absolute truth"? It is different from "fact"? How does it differ from subjectively observable reality? From subjective opinions? Where do frames of personal reference fit into "absolute truth"? Is it non-axiomatic? Is it discernible by observation, induction, extrapolation or inference, or is it implicitly apparent?

All you're doing is playing pre-suppositional games with the problem of hard solipsism, positing a deity as a solution. This is the transcendental argument for the existence of God.

It was wrong when Kant proposed it in the late 1700s, and fell out of favour shortly afterwards. It was wrong when it was re-cycled in the 1930s by Van Til et al and fell out of favour shortly afterwards. Its still wrong now. But a lot of people can't be bothered to do the reading to understand why.

Here's the link to the forum http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/god-real-thought-experiment If you have time please read through it all, then ask any question. Thanks!

 

[Ken-1122]

That's a great question. I believe we will have a subjective experience completely devoid of evil. In other words I believe the only option will be to choose a perfect existence,

Will people have the option to do wrong? To be unfair?

Ken

 

[The Cadet]

Sorry for the low quality graphic. When I uploaded it this site must of downgraded the quality. Here is a link to dropbox where the file should be good quality.

Absolute truth conversation tree:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3xdrfjpsaxm4dw/Absolute-Truth 3.png?dl=0

Oh great, presuppositionalism again. Lovely.

Just in the "blatantly obvious" department, here's one clear error: something "seeming" irrational does not make it irrational. You've looked at the possibility that our consciousness creates the universe and said, "Eh, that doesn't sound right", and as a result have discounted it out of hand without actually demonstrating that it is logically impossible. For all I know, our universe is created by our consciousness.

Seriously, though, this is all solipsism 101. Like all presups, you, in essence, bring up the issue that we cannot know anything, because we cannot logically get beyond "I think, therefore I am" without trusting our senses. Then you try to bridge that gap with god. The problem is that we have no mechanism of deciding whether or not god is true! It doesn't get us any further. If you want to claim that your worldview has solved the problem of hard solipsism, you need to actually demonstrate that your worldview has solved the problem of hard solipsism!

And of course, absolutely none of this is formatted in syllogisms. That's kind of a big deal. I'm having trouble figuring out the line of logic that says that if god doesn't exist, absolute truths are impossible, and phrasing it as a syllogism would make it far easier for me to grasp it. As far as I can tell, it goes something like this:

P1: Our truths and realities are all dependent on our consciousness
P2: Absolutes are not dependent on our consciousness
C: Therefore an absolute conscious mind must exist

...Except that that doesn't follow. At all. Simply because what we hold to be true is dependent on our consciousness does not mean that the absolutes are dependent on any consciousness. Why do the absolutes need to be dependent on any consciousness? I reject that idea. A rock is a rock, regardless of whether or not a mind is there to observe it. Your case simply does not hold water. It's not even good presuppositional apologetics. At least Matt Slick makes the case coherently and in a way that is difficult to question. At least Sye Ten Bruggencate is somewhat entertaining. Oh, and as usual, there's no case made from this impossibly vague, useless definition of god as "absolute consciousness" (a definition which demands absolutely nothing of the being beyond existence) to the very specific god of Christian dogma.

Concept of the existence of absolutes:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1buj01993fs332x/Concept-of-the-Existence-of-Absolutes.png?dl=0

This picture actually illustrates the problem even more clearly. The atheism picture is actually accurate - we have no way of determining anything that may or may not exist beyond our subjective reality. Your theology does nothing to remedy this. You have to assume that this is the case in order to come to absolutism. In other words:

Wow, you should have kept the image small. Gave it some mystery.

+1.

 

[Ken-1122]

Here's the link to the forum http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/god-real-thought-experiment If you have time please read through it all, then ask any question. Thanks!

This is the same link I responded to back in post #20 and I have yet to receive a response. You said it has been revised but I have yet to see where it has been revised. Would you mind responding to the points I made to your link back in post #20?

Ken

 

[Gene2memE]

Okay, read it. It was … painful. Excessively so.

You still haven't defined "absolute truth". Your answer in that thread was: "No one can define absolute truth, all we can comprehend is that it must not be able to contradict itself."

That’s just the law of non-contradiction. ‘A’ cannot equal ‘not A’.

You’re also pre-supposing the answer before the question is formed.

You stated in the other thread: “You need to have faith in absolute truth and the absolute truth is that God has sacrificed himself for all of us and we should have faith in Jesus because of this.”

So, I need to have faith that a thing that you wont define and have not/cannot demonstrate exists, because of the existence of a thing that you cannot show to exist, and I need to have faith – that is, belief without evidence – in Jesus because of this.

Yup, soundly logical argument there. I’m totally convinced.

I'm not entering a debate where the fundamental term underpinning the argument remains undefined and you claim is undefinable. That's just an exercise in futility. It's the logical equivalent of nailing jelly to a wall, or punching fog.

If you want to convince me absolute truth exists and the existence of a god is a necessary condition of its existence, and that I need faith in God because of this, you'll need to start by define your terms. THEN we can proceed with logical argumentation.

 

[ananda]

That's a great question. I believe we will have a subjective experience completely devoid of evil. In other words I believe the only option will be to choose a perfect existence, why would you want anything else? The devil was stupid enough to think he could choose something better than a perfect existence, he thought he could be like or better than God, which is why he fell and which is why God will and has destroyed him. Unfortunately for the devil, he must suffer for eternity because of God's absolute judgment. However, since God is absolute mercy he had to sacrifice himself to save the rest of us mortal humans from having to experience what the devil will experience, but it requires belief in the sacrifice God made which is Jesus Christ.

If "we will have a subjective experience completely devoid of evil", then how did the devil fall (assuming you believe that he was a heavenly angel before his fall)?

Also, if "we will have a subjective experience completely devoid of evil", then will free-will be absent from heaven? If so, then is that heaven worth living in? If not, then there must be the potentiality of choosing evil, right?

 

[PsychoSarah]

My argument goes beyond just a deist God, but actually shows how the God of the Bible is a possibility that should not be ignored.

You do realize that the probability of any specific god being real is exceedingly low, right? Here is how the reasoning for that works, and I am being exceedingly generous with these numbers, it is just using probability in a way that doesn't spark any issues about what evidence exists or what various observations mean, it is neutral. Probability deities exist: 50%. Probability only 1 exists: 50% probability of deities existing X limited number 50% = 25% and so on in that manner. Probability that the 1 deity that exists is relevant to our lives in any regard: 12.5%. Probability that this deity cares about our actions: 6.25%. Probability that this deity rules over an afterlife in addition to all the other things: 3.125%. Already getting pretty low, and I haven't brought up any bible specifics yet, such as Jesus. The more specific one gets, the lower the probability goes.