• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Arguments for the Existence of God

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Again, as I told you a long time ago, I think you and a lot of other atheists are reacting to a particular form of Christianity called Fundamentalist Biblicism. One that is not particularly traditional or ancient. You have not considered the breadth of depth of Christian and Jewish interpretation of their own Scriptures. It's more like somebody who ridicules what they do not understand, most people don't consider that virtuous behavior.
We're not talking about interpretations though. The Bible was interpreted as both supporting and opposing slavery. Yet no one here doubts the immorality of slavery. But our opposition to it isn't based on the Bible. We would oppose it even if the Bible said otherwise. Our outrage at even mild forms of sexism isn't rooted in the Bible either, which could be interpreted both as sexist and feminist. (Although the latter interpretation would involve distorting what the text actually says).
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,397
20,704
Orlando, Florida
✟1,502,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
You are just stuck on picayune details to avoid the point. I'm done taking your objections seriously, and my conversation with you is over. You've evaded any attempt for me to sincerely answer your questions, and you refuse to actually engage with materials I provided for you.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Your whole argument seems to be "Bible, yuck!" It's a sentimentalism.. But it has nothing to do with whether the message or not is true. You just find it distasteful.

The heart of Torah is the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses. Start there. The rest, is interpretation for a particular bronze age community, not for me or you. As Christians, we believe the moral law is written on our hearts, but God gave us those ten commandments because sin often blinds us to the moral law. That is why it is necessary to preach this moral law, so that we can be convicted of sin, repent, and trust in the mercy of God and the promise of forgiveness and renewal.
You're projecting your own sentimentalism on to me. You want the Bible to be the cornerstone of human rights. But the facts simply will not allow it. Most of what we consider "human rights" would be considered heresy by those who wrote the Bible.
Most of the philosophers and politicians of the Enlightenment were Christian or heavily influenced by Christianity. Again, your assertion is ahistorical.
And they specifically questioned the very teachings you are now claiming to be the foundation of our understanding of human rights. For that, many were even branded heretics.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are just stuck on picayune details to avoid the point. I'm done taking your objections seriously, and my conversation with you is over. You've evaded any attempt for me to sincerely answer your questions, and you refuse to actually engage with materials I provided for you.
Picayune details? The fact that the Bible was used to both argue for and against slavery seems like a "picayune detail" to you? No, it's an inconvenient detail for you because it flies in the face of what you are trying to argue. Had the Bible been unequivocal in condemning the evils of slavery such a hermeneutic debate could never have transpired.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
From the Wikipedia entry on "History of human rights":
Wikipedia said:
While belief in the sanctity of human life has ancient precedents in many religions of the world, the idea of human rights, that is, the notion that a human being has a set of inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human, began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period. The European wars of religion and the civil wars of seventeenth-century England gave rise to the philosophy of liberalism and belief in human rights became a central concern of European intellectual culture during the eighteenth-century Age of Enlightenment. These ideas of human rights lay at the core of the American and French Revolutions which occurred toward the end of that century. Democratic evolution through the nineteenth century paved the way for the advent of universal suffrage in the twentieth century. Two world wars led to the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The post-war era saw human rights movements for special interest groups such as feminism and the civil rights of African-Americans. The human rights of members of the Soviet bloc emerged in the 1970s along with workers' rights in the West. The movement quickly jelled as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[1] By the 21st century, Moyn has argued, the human rights movement expanded beyond its original anti-totalitarianism to include numerous causes involving humanitarianism and social and economic development in the Developing World.[2]

Some notions of righteousness present in ancient law and religion is sometimes retrospectively included under the term "human rights". While Enlightenment philosophers suggest a secular social contract between the rulers and the ruled, ancient traditions derived similar conclusions from notions of divine law, and, in Hellenistic philosophy, natural law.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,248
6,240
Montreal, Quebec
✟301,985.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I can confidently say that absolutely none of my moral views have their basis in the Christian religion or bible.
I would be a lot more circumspect - assuming you grew up in the "west", I would think it nigh on impossible to not have been at least indirectly influenced by the "Christian tradition".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mediaeval
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You are just stuck on picayune details to avoid the point. I'm done taking your objections seriously, and my conversation with you is over. You've evaded any attempt for me to sincerely answer your questions, and you refuse to actually engage with materials I provided for you.

If those "picayune details" you're referring to is what the text of the bible actually says, then yes.... he's focused on what the book actually says.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I would be a lot more circumspect - assuming you grew up in the "west", I would think it nigh on impossible to not have been at least indirectly influenced by the "Christian tradition".
True. Without it we wouldn't be able to celebrate the yearly War on Christmas. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I would be a lot more circumspect - assuming you grew up in the "west", I would think it nigh on impossible to not have been at least indirectly influenced by the "Christian tradition".

I can confidently say that because the bible promotes a lot of what I believe to be evil or immoral teachings.

As for the good parts of the bible that I do agree with, none of them are original to, or exclusive to Christianity. For example, Christians always like to take credit for the golden rule, however we find it present in virtually every civilization in history, including those that predate Christianity.

Christianity historically brings nothing new to the table in good moral thought or teachings. Every good thing the bible says, or Jesus was said to have preached can be found in pre-existing non Christian civilizations.

Christianity however does bring some unique immoral or evil ideas to the table, which I reject whole heartedly. The idea that humans are born as evil, wretched, unworthy sinners in need of salvation being one of them.

So yes, I may agree with Christians on many moral points, however those points do not originate with their religion.... no matter how much they may want to take credit for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If those "picayune details" you're referring to is what the text of the bible actually says, then yes.... he's focused on what the book actually says.
Apparently that doesn't matter, because he is able to interpret the text differently, and only his interpretation matters. We can safely ignore all those who currently interpret it (and those who have historically interpreted it) in a manner that isn't compatible with our understanding of human rights. And yet we're accused of being ahistorical...
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Apparently that doesn't matter, because he is able to interpret the text differently, and only his interpretation matters. We can safely ignore all those who currently interpret it (and those who have historically interpreted it) in a manner that isn't compatible with our understanding of human rights. And yet we're accused of being ahistorical...

To be honest, I think you're trying to make excuses for, or just flat out ignoring some pretty clearly written immoral teachings.
 
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟44,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think evidence would be a logical stopping point.

But evidence doesn't speak for itself. It always has to be interpreted, and it is always interpreted according to our pre-logical assumptions or presuppositions or worldview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: expos4ever
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟44,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You really shouldn't drop Hume's name around me, I think that he is too epistemologically skeptical.

Perhaps Hume, Mill, Nietzsche, and the like were merely being consistent with their presuppositions, in which case they were simply being logical. When a person arbitrarily resorts to common sense when his hypothesis starts to have unpleasant implications, it does not save the hypothesis from itself. It shows that it's a bad hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
But evidence doesn't speak for itself. It always has to be interpreted, and it is always interpreted according to our pre-logical assumptions or presuppositions or worldview.

We interpret, yes, but that process in its entirety can be based on life experience and careful reflection. That is not something arbitrary.

Your argument amounts to: "we can think, therefore we know nothing". It is not epistemology so much as anti-epistemology. It is not the love of wisdom, but the love of ignorance. It is the absolute worst of philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But evidence doesn't speak for itself. It always has to be interpreted, and it is always interpreted according to our pre-logical assumptions or presuppositions or worldview.

Or it's interpreted by instruments or logic (as in the example of mathematics)....in which accuracy and presuppositions can be controlled for.

Again, this approach to epistemology is an absurd form of reductionism. There are things which can be known....without bias or presuppositions. 1+2=3 regardless of any opinions or worldviews that I might hold....it's something which can be demonstrated by evidence. If you and I go walking in the desert and happen upon a corpse with a bullet in its head....we can reasonably say that it's true that in the past that body was shot in the head. It may or may not be the cause of death. It may even be that upon further investigation, the evidence shows that the bullet wound was faked and a bullet was placed within the wound. Regardless of which outcome the evidence shows...we can learn something about the past...directly from evidence.

Theism, on the other hand, relates entirely to experience and not at all on reasonable evidence....so it's not a surprise that you seem to want to downplay the significance of evidence in describing the past as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
This morality and its authoritative character can be justified after the fact only if the source of our morality is acknowledged to be a morally perfect, authoritative God.

Why?

This is easily seen by a contrast with the situation in atheism. If we presuppose an atheistic, materialistic perspective, then morality becomes nothing more than human opinion.

Why?


But one opinion is no more authoritative than another, and so morality loses its authority. And being downgraded to opinion, morality loses its transcendence. And if we are consistent with our atheism, we are compelled to conclude that human opinion itself is nothing more than the necessary result of the electro-chemical reactions in the brain.

You seem to have a very different idea on what atheism is really about compared to me.

To me, it's just the label you get when you are not a theist.
It's not a collection of claims. It's not a particular belief about origins or human nature or whatever.

Atheism doesn't tell you what I do believe.
It tells you only about what I do not believe.

It most certainly doesn't tell you anyting about my view on morality and how I acquire a moral compass and standard.

My atheism is only a lack of belief in theistic claims. Nothing else.


Free-thought and freewill are now illusory.

I'm an atheist and I don't agree that free-thought and freewill are illusory.


Human beings become then, on the hypothesis of materialistic atheism, automatons, and no one has ever yet succeeded in showing how automatons can have moral duties. As Bowne might say, presupposing atheism “wrecks” the basis of morality. It makes the world morally absurd. The only relief from this absurdity is to acquaint oneself with the God who made the conscience.

There are two things absurd here...

The first, is how you try to redefine atheism only to be able to declare it morally bankrupt.

The second, is how you pretend that mere obedience to a perceived authority qualifies as a moral compass or standard.
 
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟44,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Or it's interpreted by instruments or logic (as in the example of mathematics)....in which accuracy and presuppositions can be controlled for.

Again, this approach to epistemology is an absurd form of reductionism. There are things which can be known....without bias or presuppositions. 1+2=3 regardless of any opinions or worldviews that I might hold....it's something which can be demonstrated by evidence. If you and I go walking in the desert and happen upon a corpse with a bullet in its head....we can reasonably say that it's true that in the past that body was shot in the head. It may or may not be the cause of death. It may even be that upon further investigation, the evidence shows that the bullet wound was faked and a bullet was placed within the wound. Regardless of which outcome the evidence shows...we can learn something about the past...directly from evidence.

Theism, on the other hand, relates entirely to experience and not at all on reasonable evidence....so it's not a surprise that you seem to want to downplay the significance of evidence in describing the past as much as possible.

Are you an evidentialist? It is legitimate to question our way back to our ultimate standard of truth and to try to identify our unproven basal assumptions about reality. This is not absurd reductionism. It is analogous, rather, to the search in physics for fundamental particles. Once we have identified our basal assumptions, it is also legitimate to work out the implications of our assumptions. If those implications logically lead to absurdity (nihilism, universal skepticism, or solipsism, when we assume atheism), appealing to common sense when convenient does not get rid of those implications, it only masks them. To think, speak, and act differently from what our professed worldview logically gives grounds for is to live inconsistently with our worldview.
 
Upvote 0

Mediaeval

baptizatus sum
Sep 24, 2012
857
185
✟44,873.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
We interpret, yes, but that process in its entirety can be based on life experience and careful reflection. That is not something arbitrary.

Your argument amounts to: "we can think, therefore we know nothing". It is not epistemology so much as anti-epistemology. It is not the love of wisdom, but the love of ignorance. It is the absolute worst of philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Earlier in the thread I used as a basis for argument the fact that we can know some things.
 
Upvote 0

victorinus

catholic
May 15, 2016
1,990
314
usa
✟49,922.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm trying to learn more about evidence and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I've looked at the popular arguments used by Christian apologists (including the Kalam argument by William Craig), but I'm still not really convinced that the traditional God of monotheism exists.
Can anyone provide me with some arguments or evidence that will change my mind?
Thank you.
entropy proves to a scientist that the universe had a beginning
-any beginning requires a beginner
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mediaeval
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0