How did you arrive at Christianity?

StTruth said:

Thanks for your post. The suggestion of Christ getting crucified and died in order to set the world straight befits best the idea of a god who isn't omnipotent. An omnipotent and loving God wouldn't allow such a mess and then go through suffering to set the world straight and yet it's not efficacious because the world is still in the same mess (if not worse) and sufferings continue.

The picture of a God who suffers alongside the world is a picture of a god who isn't omnipotent. You say it's a powerful picture but there is no power in it at all. It is, at best, a romantic picture of a weak and pitiful God.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a very rigid conception of what power entails. God cannot be all-powerful and yet be willing to suffer rather than choosing some personally costless method of setting the world right. Christianity is really a powerfully subversive look at concepts like strength and weakness, power and vulnerability, so the fact that you're writing off the heart of the religion and what actually sets it apart from others as weak and pitiful is the most troubling thing you've said! You may want to spend less time worrying about evidence and more time on theology itself, because there is a disconnect here that goes much deeper than evidentiary standards.

As for the world not having improved, there are certainly some interesting theories out there. I am fond of John Polkinghorne's interpretation--being a quantum physicist, he takes a multiple universe approach to the question of the world to come and even suggests that the post-Resurrection descriptions are so odd because Jesus may have never been in the same dimension. If this universe was always intended to be a first draft rather than the final version, so to speak, it should not surprise us that it still seems so unfinished.

I'm really not sure what you want. Proofs of God's existence are not going to help you if the true issue at hand is the Problem of Evil. If you think God may be evil, I am not sure why you would even want proof of his existence. The implication of that particular scenario is the stuff of nightmares.

Dirk1540 said:

You're conflating what history shows us was accepted as being true (even though it was in bold violation of Jewish belief...barring a resurrection), with the ability to get ahold of and change a document. Again, these are events and movements that can not be minimized down into just being called 'A document.' On top of that textual criticism DOES show us that documents have been tampered with.

Click to expand...

You may not know this but you believe a common lie told by all apologists. Some years ago, I saw in my home library a book by an old apologist (probably dead now) called McDowell. He too believed in the lie generated by apologists that Jews accepted that Jesus was executed and he went on to say that his body was stolen. What McDowell did was hilarious. First he insisted that Jews at the time of Jesus were so hung up about Jesus disciples stealing his body that they appointed a guard to guard his tomb. Yet the body went missing and so they spread the rumour that the disciples stole his body. But history tells us a different story. Jesus, if he had existed, could not have been buried in a tomb because he was an executed criminal. His body would have been thrown into a ditch along with thousands of other bodies of executed prisoners. Next, the Jews couldn't be bothered with Jesus. Not even Josephus wrote the smallest squeak about Jesus. If Jesus existed, he was such an insignificant Jew that nobody took any notice of him except the Gospels that turn him into a legend.

Dirk1540 said:

You're not doing yourself any favors by claiming that it's possible that Jesus never existed, or that the Jesus of the Gospels was actually a Jesus from 100 years prior...then proceeding to go on elaborate historical inferences of your own as if you respect the data. If anything your 2 claims of a possibly non-existing Jesus or a 70 BC Gospel Jesus would be more consistent with a person who has very low regard for historicity in general, or even a person who claims that history is all a lie.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that Jesus is an accepted historical figure. That is not entirely correct. I have looked up the evidence for Jesus' historicity and I've found it to be sketchy at best. I've had a very interesting email correspondence with Robert Price who is a great scholar who is humble enough to accept me as a friend. Really, the evidence for a real Jesus is incredibly little.

But because Jesus has a huge religious significance and it's a religion that shaped the entire Western thought and civilisation, it's very hard to say he didn't exist. All scholars of antiquity accepted Jesus without question, just as they believed in the Holy Trinity without question. Most scholarship that accepts the historicity of Jesus accepts him on the basis of past scholarship so it becomes like a vicious circle. For example even Bart Ehrman who has lost his faith accepts the historicity of Jesus. But his reasons in favour of a historical Jesus are shallow and unconvincing. While acknowledging that secular historians ALL failed to mention Jesus as a person and Jesus was only talked about by the canonical religious NT books and the non-canonical religious books, he nonetheless says that he believed Jesus existed. I can't help feeling that if King Arthur had any religious significance, people would insist on his historicity today.

But like I've said, I personally believe in the historicity of Jesus. I know Price's arguments are convincing but I can't help being irrational here. I've been brought up to serve the altar of God all my life and I can't find it in my heart to question the divinity of Jesus, far less his historicity.

Few people will ever admit they are irrational in their beliefs but I'm different for I am...

St Truth

Silmarien said:

You seem to have a very rigid conception of what power entails. God cannot be all-powerful and yet be willing to suffer rather than choosing some personally costless method of setting the world right. Christianity is really a powerfully subversive look at concepts like strength and weakness, power and vulnerability, so the fact that you're writing off the heart of the religion and what actually sets it apart from others as weak and pitiful is the most troubling thing you've said! You may want to spend less time worrying about evidence and more time on theology itself, because there is a disconnect here that goes much deeper than evidentiary standards.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. I can accept an all-powerful God choosing to suffer even though he doesn't need to. I am willing to allow for some divine eccentricity. But what I cannot accept is for a loving God to stand by and watch thousands of infants and young children dying slow and painful deaths from starvation every day. Come on, such a god cannot be loving by any stretch of the definition of love.

Silmarien said:

I'm really not sure what you want. Proofs of God's existence are not going to help you if the true issue at hand is the Problem of Evil. If you think God may be evil, I am not sure why you would even want proof of his existence. The implication of that particular scenario is the stuff of nightmares.

Click to expand...

I have two major problems. The first is the existence of God is totally unsupported by reason or evidence. When someone is asked why he believes in God, it's almost always he believes because he was brought up a Christian and he has no reason for belief or he believes because of some personal experience. And when you examine the personal experience, it's ALWAYS an experience that is capable of myriads of explanations and the explanation that God has anything to do with it is the most far-fetched and is the most fitting for the realm of fantasy.

My second problem is both the necessary attributes of God - omnipotence and love - contradict each other in the reality of the world we live in.

These two problems are separate. When you join them together they sound funny. As you asked, why would I want evidence of a god who is evil. I still want it. If we can establish that God is evil but omnipotent and there is good evidence for his existence, it will satisfy my mind. Because the human mind can only think rationally. And the two problems I presented are the same two problems everybody has if they think about it.

I speak only the truth for I am none other than...

St Truth

possibletarian said:

ed: Thereby combined with the cosmological argument that I explained in my previous post means that he cause of the universe is most likely the Triune Christian God.

pos: You haven't explained anything yet, or why a god of any type would be involved much less the so called christain god, and I have no idea what the trinity has to do with anything. Sorry this sounds much more like new-age waffle to me.

Click to expand...

You don't understand the cosmological argument? Why do you think the universe got its name? It is a unity UNI and a diversity.

ed: Jeremiah 33:25.

pos: It does not say anything other than god established a covenant with day and night, and the fixed laws of heaven and earth. All that is a a man writing about what he believes a god is saying, it simply does not make it true that a god said it.

Click to expand...

It means that the bible teaches that God created the laws of nature/physics and that is one of the verses that helped establish modern science because it inspired the men that read it and believed that it did come from God that the universe could be studied and repeatable experimentation would be possible to discover things about this universe. The existence of this verse and others like it show that modern science could only have come from the Judeo-Christian worldview because no other sacred religious book teaches this.

pos: You can find many such other observational texts in other fantasy and poetry. Many holy books contain similar declarations.

Click to expand...

Name the book and the declaration.

pos: I also trust the night and day to come and go, but I don't need a god to explain it.

Click to expand...

Well even Einstein admitted that the existence of the laws of physics plainly imply a Lawgiver. Only intelligent personal beings can create laws.

ed: Actually if the timing of those objects and even the movements of the plates and the operation of the weather were not just right, life and especially human life could not exist.

pos: Of course life needs good conditions to evolve, but the thing is you saying that your all powerful god could not have made it any other way than the violent chaotic life threatening dangerous mess it is. Maybe your god is bound by man's invention of a descriptive universe, which makes him.. well an invention.

To say that your god could not have made the earth to not have volcanos, floods, and be life threatening, and look to all intents and purposes not created by an intelligent designer is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

Actually contrary to popular belief the biblical understanding of Omnipotence does not mean that He can do absolutely anything. He cannot create a square circle for one thing. IOW, He is bound by logic and what is possible. He cannot do what is logically impossible. In order to accomplish His goal of destroying evil forever and providing ways for us to grow spiritually, requires a universe that operates primarily by natural laws and personal beings with free will. So the only way He could get some of these things accomplished in a universe like this is to have such naturally violent events to transfer nutrients and other things.

StTruth said:

You misunderstand me. I can accept an all-powerful God choosing to suffer even though he doesn't need to. I am willing to allow for some divine eccentricity. But what I cannot accept is for a loving God to stand by and watch thousands of infants and young children dying slow and painful deaths from starvation every day. Come on, such a god cannot be loving by any stretch of the definition of love.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you do not seem to be interested in any answers to this question. You have decided that there is no answer and that the only appropriate thing to do is approach the issue from an atheistic perspective whereby this life is the only one there is and everything must make sense now.

Death is a part of this world. But if you do not address the Problem of Evil from within the Christian framework, whereby there is a promise of eternal life, you are not engaging with Christianity. If you want powerful Christian approaches to the question, I would suggest reading some Dostoevsky, since he's got the most profound grasp on the problem of anyone I've ever seen and yet remains devout.

I have two major problems. The first is the existence of God is totally unsupported by reason or evidence. When someone is asked why he believes in God, it's almost always he believes because he was brought up a Christian and he has no reason for belief or he believes because of some personal experience. And when you examine the personal experience, it's ALWAYS an experience that is capable of myriads of explanations and the explanation that God has anything to do with it is the most far-fetched and is the most fitting for the realm of fantasy.

Click to expand...

I would recommend Edward Feser's work if you want to see an atheist who was won over to theism because of the classical arguments for God's existence. I do not think that natural theology takes you as far as he thinks it does, but I do find parts of his defense of Aquinas compelling. The question becomes whether Aristotelian or naturalistic metaphysics are a more comprehensive way to address the philosophy of science, and if you are won over by an Aristotelian approach, you are suddenly vulnerable to Aquinas's Five Ways. Or at least some of them.

I know you do not trust philosophical argumentation, which is frankly a problem, since the existence of God is a philosophical, not scientific, dispute. You are adopting a philosophical stance called positivism by insisting upon empirical evidence, so the first thing you need to do is examine that positivism and see if it holds up.

My second problem is both the necessary attributes of God - omnipotence and love - contradict each other in the reality of the world we live in.

Click to expand...

I agree. Which is why Christianity, by hinging upon the idea that the reality we have is not the reality that God ultimately intends, and by offering a glimpse of the world to come in the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus, is the only religion that really solves this particular conundrum, as far as I'm concerned.

Which doesn't mean that it's true, but it's the only option out there that even looks like it could be (aside from Buddhism), due to the sticky issue of the Problem of Evil.

Silmarien said:

If you want powerful Christian approaches to the question, I would suggest reading some Dostoevsky, since he's got the most profound grasp on the problem of anyone I've ever seen and yet remains devout.

Click to expand...

Haha I just was thinking about asking you for your favorite recommendations for addressing the problem of evil.

Silmarien said:

The problem is that you do not seem to be interested in any answers to this question. You have decided that there is no answer and that the only appropriate thing to do is approach the issue from an atheistic perspective whereby this life is the only one there is and everything must make sense now.

Click to expand...

You are wrong to say that. You can't be more wrong than that. I am dying for an answer but so far nobody has given one. Just look at your own post. You hint a lot. You give me books to read but you seem totally unable to state a single cohesive answer. And it's not as if you are lost for words. No, you are more than able to express yourself clearly and unambiguously but look at your reply. You are adopting precisely what everyone else with faith is adopting - not giving a straight answer. I want you to think very honestly why you do this.

I have a fair idea why this is so. The answer that you have is actually not compelling at all. There is a lot of appeal to emotion and the authors you have recommended have of course worded the answer in a beautiful way that is tediously long (for people like me) but charmingly comprehensive (for romantics like you). Because of that, even a person of your linguistic prowess is not able to summarise it in a post on CF because when you summarise it, the 'charm' is gone and the answer appeals only to the emotion and requires this special 'charm' to work its magic on a person. But I'm not looking for a charming answer. I am not looking to be bewitched by romantic beauty so that I may 'fall in love with God'. I want an answer that satisfies my mind. That is all. Please don't be angry but please consider carefully what I have written and ask yourself if there might be some truth in what I'm saying.

Silmarien said:

Death is a part of this world. But if you do not address the Problem of Evil from within the Christian framework, whereby there is a promise of eternal life, you are not engaging with Christianity. If you want powerful Christian approaches to the question, I would suggest reading some Dostoevsky, since he's got the most profound grasp on the problem of anyone I've ever seen and yet remains devout.

Click to expand...

You keep saying that I look at things from an atheistic perspective but that's not true. However much I look at it from the Christian perspective (as you call it), the fact that there is promise of heaven does not exonerate God from doing nothing to alleviate the long-term suffering of children and infants. I understand the promise of heaven but it's really a non-issue. It doesn't address God's cruelty in doing NOTHING when he could do something to stop the suffering.

I have mentioned the video of the lynching of the young child. If God were to kill him instantly (maybe with a heart attack) before they burnt him which they did for hours, I would say that God is merciful. It's not true that I'm trying to look for faults with God or to be perversely atheistic. I'm prepared to see God as merciful if he killed the boy and not let him go through hours of torture. I could not even watch the video, sinful as I am. But God did. He saw it live. He knew it would have happened. There are a million things he could have done (that I can think of alone) but he did nothing and the boy went through an incredible torture. However much I may put myself in the CHristian perspective, that video alone compels me to think ill thoughts of God. And that's just one video of the billions that I've not seen. But God saw them all and he did nothing.

Silmarien said:

I would recommend Edward Feser's work if you want to see an atheist who was won over to theism because of the classical arguments for God's existence. I do not think that natural theology takes you as far as he thinks it does, but I do find parts of his defense of Aquinas compelling. The question becomes whether Aristotelian or naturalistic metaphysics are a more comprehensive way to address the philosophy of science, and if you are won over by an Aristotelian approach, you are suddenly vulnerable to Aquinas's Five Ways. Or at least some of them.

Click to expand...

This is what I mean by your reluctance to state clearly your answer but you have to employ hints and broad statements of ideas which you know I won't follow and can't therefore find ways of exposing their error. Consider what I've stated earlier and ask yourself what the reason for your reluctance is.

Silmarien said:

I know you do not trust philosophical argumentation, which is frankly a problem, since the existence of God is a philosophical, not scientific, dispute. You are adopting a philosophical stance called positivism by insisting upon empirical evidence, so the first thing you need to do is examine that positivism and see if it holds up.

Click to expand...

As long as God intervenes in our world, comes into the world as Jesus and continues to walk with us and talk with us and act within our space-time and in our world, you cannot exclude God from a scientific evaluation. You can rightly say our God is exclusively a philosophical question only if our God is a Deist God who does not intervene in human affairs. Going into philosophy is a cop out for an intervening God. Because we all know that with philosophy, you can come up with any kind of model that is sustainable even for the most fanciful concepts. Even if you must go into philosophy I have to say this. Just as Void mentioned quantum physics, the fact is most physicists are atheists. Similarly, most modern philosophers don't accept the Christian God. Of course ancient philosophers accept God as almost everyone in the ancient world did. YOu must look at modern philosophers and most of them don't accept the Christian God. But that's just an aside. It doesn't really matter.

Silmarien said:

I agree. Which is why Christianity, by hinging upon the idea that the reality we have is not the reality that God ultimately intends, and by offering a glimpse of the world to come in the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus, is the only religion that really solves this particular conundrum, as far as I'm concerned.

Which doesn't mean that it's true, but it's the only option out there that even looks like it could be (aside from Buddhism), due to the sticky issue of the Problem of Evil.

Click to expand...

No, that's not true. The world to come does not free God from a duty to stop suffering if he is indeed loving. Christianity does not at all solve the Problem of Evil. I agree that Buddhism does with its concept of karma. But Christianity can't. As long as there is suffering and God is omnipotent, God is evil. We can't have it any other way. No amount of heavenly reward can alter that. Can you not see it?

I can because I'm...

St Truth

Dirk1540 said:

Haha I just was thinking about asking you for your favorite recommendations for addressing the problem of evil.

Click to expand...

As I have always said, if there is an answer, state it. Don't give a reading list.

I say all this because I embrace truth, for I am...

St Truth

Ed1wolf said:

You don't understand the cosmological argument?

Click to expand...

I find it very unconvincing.

Why do you think the universe got its name? It is a unity UNI and a diversity.

Click to expand...

And therefore ... ?

It means that the bible teaches that God created the laws of nature/physics and that is one of the verses that helped establish modern science because it inspired the men that read it and believed that it did come from God

Click to expand...

No it means a man wrote about what he thought were laws, then attributed them to a god of his choosing, much like all religions do, also why did they wait thousands of years after it was written? this is a typical example of Christians backfilling history.

that the universe could be studied and repeatable experimentation

Click to expand...

People had already discovered they could experiment

would be possible to discover things about this universe. The existence of this verse and others like it show that modern science could only have come from the Judeo-Christian worldview because no other sacred religious book teaches this.

Click to expand...

Except that hundreds of years before the universe was being explained already.

Goodness, modern science as you call it was based on earlier Greek, Babylonian and others people of science, without which progress in the then prominently Christian world would not have been possible.

Name the book and the declaration.

Click to expand...

Here is an whole book of books including from..

Ancient Egyptian Religion (Pyramid Texts),
Zoroastrianism (Avesta),
Hinduism (Vedas),
Bud-dhism (Tipitaka),
Confucianism (Five Classics),
Sikhism (Guru Granth Sahib),
Chris-tianity (Bible),
Islam (Quran),
Druidism (Mabinogion)
Maya Religion (Popol Vuh)

and in the interpretations of those books. These books include various information on the creation of the Universe, Sun and Moon, the age of the Universe, Cosmic sizes, understanding about the planets, stars, Milky Way and description of the Heavens in different religions.

Many of them go much further in their understanding of the universe than the bible including the size of the moon and other matters. A simple google say of Mayan astronomy will show you how childish the biblical view of the heavens is.

Well even Einstein admitted that the existence of the laws of physics plainly imply a Lawgiver.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep repeating this? Physics is simply the way we observe the universe working, just because something is predictable does not mean there is a law giver.

Only intelligent personal beings can create laws.

Click to expand...

Einstein certainly did not make this connection.

Einstein referred to himself as a religious non believer, agnostic, he believed (in his earlier days) in Spinoza's god. ( a non personal god)

Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.

In a letter to Joseph Dispentiere on 24th March 1954 he wrote.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

In January 1954 he wrote to the philosopher Erik Gutkind, the actual letter can be seen here.

Still, without Brouwer’s suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything “chosen” about them.

Actually contrary to popular belief the biblical understanding of Omnipotence does not mean that He can do absolutely anything.He cannot create a square circle for one thing.

Click to expand...

Of course he cannot, no one is disputing that.

IOW, He is bound by logic and what is possible. He cannot do what is logically impossible.

Click to expand...

Of course not, no one is disputing this.

In order to accomplish His goal of destroying evil forever and providing ways for us to grow spiritually, requires a universe that operates primarily by natural laws

Click to expand...

And here we are off downhill again, you are mixing up logical impossibilities with design possibilities, You are effectively saying that Physics dictated to your god how the universe was formed, in which case he is simply not a god but a mere observer.

and personal beings with free will.

Click to expand...

Here is that 'personal beings' again, which is word salad, as for free will as you call it, it is becoming doubtful it even exists.

There is no such thing as free will

So the only way He could get some of these things accomplished in a universe like this is to have such naturally violent events to transfer nutrients and other things.

Click to expand...

Again you are placing god in the submissive role to physics, either he created the laws of physics and the universe, or he did not.
To say he could only have done it in a way that is destructive to his beloved creation is to beg the question of how much creating and design your god of choice actually could or did do.

Besides didn't the bible say ' For with God nothing shall be impossible.' ?

A quick visit to any devastation zone will make you see they not only do hurricanes destroy crops, livestock, property, pollutes water (which oddly, god in his wisdom does not replace, no matter what prayers are offered) they actually pollute the ground around them making the water undrinkable.

Besides didn't your god stop the sun (and the moon) in Joshua 10:13 ? , of course that is ridiculous, but it shows that if your god exists he is not averse to breaking the so called 'laws' of the universe.

Sorry Ed your argumentative gymnastics here is amazing, your arguments just get sillier each time.
Again I ask you (though by now I doubt an answer) what kind of scientist are you ?

Ed1wolf said:

Well even Einstein admitted that the existence of the laws of physics plainly imply a Lawgiver. Only intelligent personal beings can create laws.

Click to expand...

Both an appeal to authority fallacy and an equivocation fallacy.

ToddNotTodd said:

Both an appeal to authority fallacy and an equivocation fallacy.

Click to expand...

makes you wonder doesn't it.

possibletarian said:

makes you wonder doesn't it.

Click to expand...

Well, I wonder if he’s ever going to adress it...

StTruth said:

You are wrong to say that. You can't be more wrong than that. I am dying for an answer but so far nobody has given one. Just look at your own post. You hint a lot. You give me books to read but you seem totally unable to state a single cohesive answer. And it's not as if you are lost for words. No, you are more than able to express yourself clearly and unambiguously but look at your reply. You are adopting precisely what everyone else with faith is adopting - not giving a straight answer. I want you to think very honestly why you do this.

Click to expand...

Recommending reading materials is a straight answer. If you asked me something about quantum physics and I was hazy in my response and then forwarded you to an expert in the field, you would presumably not accuse me of equivocation. I am not sure why you expect this to be simpler.

If you do not want to do the reading necessary, that is certainly your prerogative. But reading something first-hand is a better option than asking for a watered down version of it online.

This is what I mean by your reluctance to state clearly your answer but you have to employ hints and broad statements of ideas which you know I won't follow and can't therefore find ways of exposing their error. Consider what I've stated earlier and ask yourself what the reason for your reluctance is.

Click to expand...

You've demonstrated quite nicely here why I'm reluctant to spend the time typing out the precise reasons why I think belief in God can be rationally justified. You will just accuse me of addressing concepts you don't understand to trip you up, or of retreating into philosophy to have free reign to say anything at all, or of proposing argumentation that can at best only establish a deistic God. Given that I believe more in the God of Aristotle than the God of Abraham, I cannot give you solid rational grounds to accept the Christian God. If I could, I'd be identifying as Christian.

Silmarien said:

Recommending reading materials is a straight answer. If you asked me something about quantum physics and I was hazy in my response and then forwarded you to an expert in the field, you would presumably not accuse me of equivocation. I am not sure why you expect this to be simpler.

If you do not want to do the reading necessary, that is certainly your prerogative. But reading something first-hand is a better option than asking for a watered down version of it online.



You've demonstrated quite nicely here why I'm reluctant to spend the time typing out the precise reasons why I think belief in God can be rationally justified. You will just accuse me of addressing concepts you don't understand to trip you up, or of retreating into philosophy to have free reign to say anything at all, or of proposing argumentation that can at best only establish a deistic God. Given that I believe more in the God of Aristotle than the God of Abraham, I cannot give you solid rational grounds to accept the Christian God. If I could, I'd be identifying as Christian.

Click to expand...

I dont see anything wrong with recommending reading materials, as long as the person doing the recommending, is willing to answer questions about the same and give some detail as to why they feel the material is compelling.

bhsmte said:

I dont see anything wrong with recommending reading materials, as long as the person doing the recommending, is willing to answer questions about the same and give some detail as to why they feel the material is compelling.

Click to expand...

I wasn't asked any questions, though I'd be happy to answer any that anyone might have. If I'm sparse on details, it's because I don't have a keyboard right now.

I recommended Edward Feser specifically because he's a former atheist who embraced theism for entirely intellectual reasons. (I am honestly not sure how he got from theism to Catholicism but imagine there was more subjectivity involved there.) Neo-Scholasticism might be a good approach for @StTruth, as it is extremely logically oriented, but it is a fairly difficult field, as Aristotelian-Thomism begins with a fullblown metaphysical attack on modern philosophy. That's something that's really hard to even begin to explain on a forum post, especially when I'm not quite an expert in the philosophy in question. (I'm continental and these folk are analytic.)

The other suggestion was Dostoevsky, particularly The Brothers Karamazov, which contains the most powerful version of the Problem of Evil I have ever seen. I'm not sure if I would consider that book a weird sort of Orthodox apologetics, but if you want to see a Christian grapple deeply with the Problem of Evil, it does not get any better.

Dirk1540 said:

Haha I just was thinking about asking you for your favorite recommendations for addressing the problem of evil.

Click to expand...

Dostoevsky, for sure. I also really like John Haught. He's a Catholic theologian who deals in evolutionary theology, so engages heavily in the new conundrum that evolution poses for the Problem of Evil. It's something of a Free Process defense.

I'm generally comfortable with Free Will and Free Process defenses. The argument from skepticism (i.e., that we are not in a position to know whether evil is necessary and so forth and so on) is great on a purely philosophical level, but I do not care for the version that's used to justify biblical atrocities. I also think it does some damage to the concept of omnibenevolence in general, since I'm not sure to what degree "goodness" has a meaning if we deny that humans can understand divine goodness at all. Not so much a problem for me, but certainly a challenge to orthodox thought.

Silmarien said:

I wasn't asked any questions, though I'd be happy to answer any that anyone might have. If I'm sparse on details, it's because I don't have a keyboard right now.

Click to expand...

I am very sure I have asked questions repeatedly. There can be no doubt in your mind that I have questions galore. You even replied that I didn't want to look at the answers given. I explained that all you do is to give hints and to give me a reading list without answering my questions. Anyway, I'm too lazy to go through the posts. I will let you have my questions again:

1. What is the most compelling reason or evidence that you can come up with for the existence of God?

Please supply details and do not say 'I am convinced by the Aristotlean model for God and I'm convinced by the Thomist position.' When terms are used, these should be defined clearly. Do not also say 'Read Dostoyevsky and you'll understand my reason'. That is not giving an answer but giving a reading list. What you said in #125 is not an answer: "The question becomes whether Aristotelian or naturalistic metaphysics are a more comprehensive way to address the philosophy of science, and if you are won over by an Aristotelian approach, you are suddenly vulnerable to Aquinas's Five Ways. Or at least some of them." It's a hint and an evasion. If you have no answer, just say you have no answer. Pretend you are in a court of law and a no-nonsense judge is there to bellow at you, "Answer the question!"

2. Is there a counter-argument to my statement that God cannot be both omnipotent and loving given the problem of suffering? If there is, what is it?

Please do not say 'Christianity gives the most powerful answer to this problem' and expect me to look at this as an answer. It's not an answer.

These are the two questions I have been asking throughout CF and everyone knows these two questions of mine. I hope you will give a clear and unambiguous answer without hinting at an answer and giving me a reading list.

St Truth

Yeah right, Silmarien is a brilliant philosopher in my book, finding out what she considers to be the best material interests me very much. That saved me an awful lot of leg work of navigating through a bunch of mediocre or bad books.

You should listen to her, that's my advice...for I am...

Dirk1540
Lol

radhead said:

I'm sorry, but you just haven't shown any connection between Christianity and those things.

Click to expand...

Where do you think the Bill of Rights came from?

rad: Yes, it was the main organized religion in the west but that is not saying much. Are you even aware that *slavery* was justified by Christianity?

Click to expand...

No, it was not justified by Christianity, people claiming to be Christians tried to justify it with misinterpretations of the Bible.

rad: The Ku Klux Klan was saying the same things you are 100 years ago.

Click to expand...

Saying what? That Western Civilization was founded on Christian principles? I doubt it, most were not that educated. But even they did, a broken clock is right twice a day. But they plainly violated the Biblical teaching that all humans are equal before God and government by equally created in His image. Read Genesis 1.

rad: And they were considered a nice, family oriented association in their day. Which I'm sure that people like yourself would have completely embraced.

Click to expand...

Actually no, even 100 years ago in the South, they were a distinct minority. Some of their views were supported by nice family oriented people but overall they were not the majority of southerners. If I was a devout Christian at the time, I doubt I would have embraced it, since they plainly violated multiple commands of God, such as the teaching regarding all humans being created in Gods image, not to oppress people, and you shall not murder.

rad: The good principles Jesus taught were not unique to him.

Click to expand...

That is true except maybe "love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you." But the reason other people know these principles is because all humans are created in the image of the Christian God, so they have many of these principles built in to their consciences but they are distorted by our sinful nature.

rad: Nor are they things that anyone needs to be taught.

Click to expand...

Ummm.. you obviously have never raised children. The things that they don't need to be taught are selfishness, distrustfulness of others, and violence (especially for boys). Respect of others, settling arguments peacefully and self sacrifice must be taught.

rad: They are inherent in every culture. Every remote tribe practices love, until the point in time that they are corrupted by missionaries.

Click to expand...

While occasionally some small groups that never experienced Christianity have some aspects of good morality, most don't. Most of the Native American tribes in America were constantly at war with each other long before Europeans arrived and how about the Aztecs? They slaughtered thousands every year in horrible ways. And then look at nations that once had Christian influenced and then rejected their forefathers Christian teachings, like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, ie the Soviet Union.

Silmarien said:

I wasn't asked any questions, though I'd be happy to answer any that anyone might have. If I'm sparse on details, it's because I don't have a keyboard right now.

I recommended Edward Feser specifically because he's a former atheist who embraced theism for entirely intellectual reasons. (I am honestly not sure how he got from theism to Catholicism but imagine there was more subjectivity involved there.) Neo-Scholasticism might be a good approach for @StTruth, as it is extremely logically oriented, but it is a fairly difficult field, as Aristotelian-Thomism begins with a fullblown metaphysical attack on modern philosophy. That's something that's really hard to even begin to explain on a forum post, especially when I'm not quite an expert in the philosophy in question. (I'm continental and these folk are analytic.)

The other suggestion was Dostoevsky, particularly The Brothers Karamazov, which contains the most powerful version of the Problem of Evil I have ever seen. I'm not sure if I would consider that book a weird sort of Orthodox apologetics, but if you want to see a Christian grapple deeply with the Problem of Evil, it does not get any better.



Dostoevsky, for sure. I also really like John Haught. He's a Catholic theologian who deals in evolutionary theology, so engages heavily in the new conundrum that evolution poses for the Problem of Evil. It's something of a Free Process defense.

I'm generally comfortable with Free Will and Free Process defenses. The argument from skepticism (i.e., that we are not in a position to know whether evil is necessary and so forth and so on) is great on a purely philosophical level, but I do not care for the version that's used to justify biblical atrocities. I also think it does some damage to the concept of omnibenevolence in general, since I'm not sure to what degree "goodness" has a meaning if we deny that humans can understand divine goodness at all. Not so much a problem for me, but certainly a challenge to orthodox thought.

Click to expand...

Thats cool.

IMO, i dont find one off examples of people going from atheism to christianity, or even the opposite compelling. The reason is, individual personal motivation and personal psychology, plays a strong roll in what people believe or dont believe.

Overall general trends of larger populations are more interesting to me. When you look at the overall, christianity has been declining the world over and especially so in advanced nations who's people are exposed to higher levels of education.

With that said, i completely understand how some people gravitate or are christians, as i was one for the majority of my life. If a certain faith belief allows someone to cope with life better and become a better person, than that is the right fit for that person. If having a certain faith belief, means that person will negatively judge someone who disagrees with them and or misrepresent well evidenced reality to protect their belief, than i will challenge that person.

StTruth said:

1. What is the most compelling reason or evidence that you can come up with for the existence of God?

Please supply details and do not say 'I am convinced by the Aristotlean model for God and I'm convinced by the Thomist position.' When terms are used, these should be defined clearly. Do not also say 'Read Dostoyevsky and you'll understand my reason'. That is not giving an answer but giving a reading list. What you said in #125 is not an answer: "The question becomes whether Aristotelian or naturalistic metaphysics are a more comprehensive way to address the philosophy of science, and if you are won over by an Aristotelian approach, you are suddenly vulnerable to Aquinas's Five Ways. Or at least some of them." It's a hint and an evasion. If you have no answer, just say you have no answer. Pretend you are in a court of law and a no-nonsense judge is there to bellow at you, "Answer the question!"

Click to expand...

I am fond of Aquinas's Third and Fifth Ways, though I think they need to be used together.

The Third Way is a cosmological argument that starts from the existence of contingent things, i.e., those that need not exist, to argue the existence of a necessary being. Aquinas never presupposes that the universe must have a beginning, but does seem to argue that if every contingent object could go out of existence, over an infinite stretch of time there must be a point at which all do simultaneously cease to exist. Without the existence of some underlying reality, you are left with nothing giving rise to something, which is generally considered nonsensical.

I think the argument is susceptible to quantum physics, though not because quantum physics proves that the universe could have spontaneously sprung out of nothingness. It does nothing of the kind, since quantum fluctuation is not nothing, and the better conclusion for the non-theist is perhaps that the quantum vacuum is itself eternal. My concern is that particles seem to act in a certain way, follow certain rules (strange as those rules might be), which leads us to the Fifth Way.

The Fifth Way is a teleological argument, though it discusses finality from within an Aristotelian framework--objects are directed towards specific ends. The universe is ordered. If you put water in a freezer, you do not expect it to turn into vapor or a bouquet of flowers. But objects that lack intelligence cannot be acting towards ends without being directed by something else, so to my mind, the fact that physical laws seem to exist at all is really quite interesting. Here is some more information on the classical argument from design: An exposition of the Fifth Way by St.Thomas Aquinas

The scientific issues underlying these two (and the rest) of Aquinas's Five Ways are fascinating, since the question becomes whether Neo-Aristotelian or naturalistic metaphysics better explains modern science. Has science overthrown the Aristotelian concept of the final cause, or is it incoherent without it? One additional difficulty is that many scientists don't understand philosophical concepts, so they will blur the line between scientific and philosophical inquiry, overstep their bounds and insist that their metaphysical interpretations of scientific evidence is itself science. This is especially common with Richard Dawkins and those like him, and you can see the problem manifested in his disagreement with fellow atheist biologist Denis Noble, as explained here: Top Down or Bottom Up?

As an addendum, I am not a materialist. I find materialism about as promising a model of reality as geocentricism, and I think people cling to it for similar reasons--it is the model of reality that flows from their metaphysical prejudices, and anything that doesn't work must simply be smashed into place like a couple of puzzle pieces that don't quite match. There are plenty of challenges out there to a materialist account of the philosophy of mind--Thomas Nagel, for example, has spent his career arguing that material processes cannot in and of themselves magically produce non-material phenomena. You can toss in the problems of reason and intentionality as well. And some of what quantum physics has to say about the relationship between mind and reality.

For non-materialists, the question of God becomes valid once more, because for those of us who hold that mind is a fundamental part of reality, it becomes somewhat difficult to avoid some sort of God concept, since what is God if not whatever mental energy is underlying reality? This does not necessarily lead to the Christian God--I find pan(en)theist approaches quite compelling as well--but I think you can only avoid theism if you're committed to atheism, and our non-materialist atheists tend to admit their biases in regard to that.

2. Is there a counter-argument to my statement that God cannot be both omnipotent and loving given the problem of suffering? If there is, what is it?

Please do not say 'Christianity gives the most powerful answer to this problem' and expect me to look at this as an answer. It's not an answer.

These are the two questions I have been asking throughout CF and everyone knows these two questions of mine. I hope you will give a clear and unambiguous answer without hinting at an answer and giving me a reading list.

St Truth

Click to expand...

I can't help you with the Problem of Evil. I do not believe it can be answered in the context of the world as we know it, but I'm willing to withhold judgment, since if theism is true, there is far more to reality than what we know. Saying that evil exists, therefore God cannot be good may well be like a four year old deciding that their parents are evil for feeding them vegetables. I also made it quite clear why I thought Christianity provided the most compelling response to this problem--it is the only religion that provides a glimpse of the world it claims that God truly intends and provides a quite clear reminder in the meantime that God has not abandoned the world in the meantime but chooses instead to suffer with it. The fact that you do not find this approach sufficient doesn't make it a non-answer.

Anyway, take this or leave it. I'm not really interested in a debate on the subject, especially right now when I do not have access to an actual keyboard and shouldn't be spending half my time painfully typing out long responses on a tablet. If you want to engage more deeply with any of this, it'll have to wait a couple of weeks. Though you'd be better off reading what the actual professionals have to say first.