No, but an atheist who spends hours a day on a Christian website trying to witness to them about the superiority of his lack of faith certainly does.
I believe because I have no choice. We don't choose what we believe. The evidence for God's existence as Creator is greater than the non-explanation from Science for existence, thus, I have no choice but to believe that God exists.
Ok.
We should not determine truth by what has the most evidence. We should determine truth by what can be demonstrated by good evidence. As far as the start of the universe the correct answer in my opinion is that we do not know. There is not good evidence to believe a god created everything.
Sounds like you're shifting the goal post to me. I never talked about determining truth, I talked about what I believe.
This is a flawed way to determine what to believe. Will you never then decide you don't know something? How did you determine that there are only three options?
Last I checked, YOU were the one who preached to me that I don't actually determine what I believe. I can't make myself believe anything!
What an awesome answer. Way to expose your pompous, arrogant self buddy.
You are correct that you cannot choose to believe anything. The problem is people are convinced or not based on their standard of evidence. That is the determining factor. Some people will be convinced of something because it feels right, others are not convinced by that for example. Can you choose to believe computers don't exist? I don't think you can.
Why did you cherry-pick this quote? I explained why I think your standards of evidence are to low which you did not quote to make me look pompous. Here is my entire line of reasoning. If you want to discuss why I am wrong then I am ready. If you want to call me names I am not interested.
I disagree that we should believe based on best evidence. This is where our standards of evidence are different and why I believe yours is too low. If you want to be an adult and have a conversation as to why the best available evidence is a good way to determine truth I am interested in that.
I start with the idea “something” has always existed, because something does not come from nothing unless you redefine nothing as being something, which still means something only comes from something.
What you apparently don't realize is that you insinuated that if people had a high enough standard of evidence like you that we would all be atheists.
Do I have a choice about what I'm able to base what my beliefs come from?
I only claimed that a Christian by definition believes/trusts in Jesus and that Jesus referred to God as the Creator of everything just like every Jew in his day.
If you're saying there are false Christians, I agree. Even scripture says there are false teachers posing as the real thing. However I doubt even a false Christian would be found saying that the term God does not imply the Creator
As I've said before, there's a distinction to be made between "God" used as an axiom meaning "the source of the energy that created all things" (an axiom or common knowledge to the Israelites), and subjective meanings/imaginings of what/who God/gods is/are (images of God/gods). The example you give of the triune vs anti-triune is discussing imagery, which obviously already accepts as an axiom that there is a source of the energy that created all things. I'm not debating that there are many images of God. I'm trying to establish that in scripture God is an axiom uniformly understood to mean the Creator of all things, the source of the energy that created all things. I don't see why we can't agree on that nor why it should remain obscured. We have to qualify the terms so as to understand one another.
We first have to understand that Truth is authoritative and not subjective. In psycholinguistics it's seen when reasoning upon true dichotomies, Something=Nothing is a contradiction. Good=Bad is a contradiction. Darkness=Light is a contradiction. False=True is a contradiction. Ignorance=knowledge is a contradiction. Subsequently in mathematics 0=1 is false information that when reasoned upon as true will end up with false calculations. Likewise in our psycholinguistics when we subjectively see something good as bad or bad as good, or something that is true as false or what is false as true, our reasoning must end in a contradiction.
I'm not sure what you mean to imply. I would assume that a person does not deliberate so as to seek to arrive at a wrong conclusion. Even for a person to be dishonest they must first recognize the Truth, whether they seek to subvert it when they calculate a lie, or when they deny the Truth altogether so as to avoid being corrected. But if you mean to say that we learn from our mistakes, yes of course this is true since knowledge informs ignorance.
This sounds like you agree that Truth is authoritative and not subjective. It would make no sense to argue against any absolute Truth existing lest ignorance and knowledge have no meaning. That is reasoning upon an axiom no different then when pondering God as the Creator in scripture. The alternative is to reason that there is no source of the energy that Created us and something came from nothing (0=1).
Well respectfully, I see it as a contradiction for you to say that you're not arguing against absolute Truth, while simultaneously denying that treating others as one's self is the absolute moral Truth. If I am for treating others in ways I do not want others to treat me, then that ends in a contradiction of reasoning. It therefore would manifest a hypocrisy that would draws lines for others to meet that I myself don't meet.
Truth is authoritative not subjective. Respectfully your reasoning ends in a contradiction according to the semantics. One first has to care about others in some capacity so as to care to draw any distinction between right and wrong behavior. If I were to say I don't care how I treat anyone then that is already wrong to begin with. If I don't like being burned alive, then logically it's wrong to burn other people alive. Respectfully, I don't see that as nonsense.
You're about to below.
If this were true then faith would be akin to superstition. No the term "faith" in scripture does not mean believing "anything" as trustworthy. In scripture it means "trust in God". The implication being that whether defined as the source of energy that created all things or as the Spirit of Love/empathy that we all experience, God is trustworthy. Hence the spiritual enemy we face as Christians is that which would sow distrust in God. Overall the Truth being subverted is that God is good. In other words if I trusted (put faith) in Satan who said that God was a liar, then that would objectively be unfaith in God, the opposite of faith according to scripture. This is basically how propaganda works, by changing what would be normally seen as a positive into a negative, or visa versa.
Who exactly could issue an Eternal God an official I.D..? This is precisely why the term God is an axiom to a Christian. The scripture claims we know Him when we know Love. I obviously can't produce a video of God creating the universe since I couldn't have been created yet. It's therefore unreasonable to expect anyone to be able to do so. But there's no denying that Love exists if we are to be honest, and scripture identifies God's Spirit as Love/empathy. Love/empathy is good and trustworthy which inspires faith and gives life meaning. People live and die for the cause of Love. What imagery of God can you produce that is greater in any axiomatic or absolute Truth?
Since caring about how we treat others is the whole point of reasoning right from wrong, then we can conclude that our moral reasoning serves Love/empathy. The alternative is I don't care how I treat others, which is already wrong and unreasonable.
Well at least you display above an openness to accepting that to Christians the definition of God being the Creator is axiomatic as a matter of deductive and inductive reasoning. So we don't necessarily disagree on that. And I agree that there are differing images/imaginings of God/gods according to scripture. I don't see where we actually disagree there. I think we're still dealing with some semantics though. So I would only add that in scripture God is not articulated as a "concept". The scriptures are testimonies of interactions with the Creator that were initiated by the Creator. Even the term "Christ" implies the True Image of God sent by God.
No. I was saying that no one should have a standard of evidence that they will believe the best available evidence for God claims. That is my opinion and I think I have good reasons for that opinion. I simply disagree with you. Do you want to tell me where my where my reasoning is wrong?
Yes. That is why people have different beliefs based on the same evidence. I became a nonbeliever because I realized my standards of evidence were to low for an extraordinary claim like god exists. That is my determination as to how I want to evaluate evidence.
This is not what I said. If you believe god exists because it is the best available evidence that is because you have chosen a standard of evidence that allows for that. I disagree that is a reliable way to determine truth of god claims.
So do you think that everyone who believes in God does so because their standard for evidence is below what your current standard of evidence is?
If I'm able to decide what standard of evidence I require in order to believe something, then it sounds to me like I'm actually able to determine what I'm going to believe. You saying out of one side of your mouth that I have no choice in what I believe, but then out of the other say that I'm perfectly capable of deciding what standard of evidence I'm going to utilize which will in turn cause that belief - How is that any different than me deciding what I want to believe?
I can agree that you believe that and we can go from there. My problem is when you say other Christians must think like you to be a Christian.
You cannot equate math to what words mean. 1=1 as true or 0=1 as false is universal truth based on the objective rules of math. What a word means is not that cut and dry. 1=1 will always be true to the best of our knowledge. Darkness = light may be true someday of the word changes usages. The word Awful used to mean very good, now it means very bad. Word meanings are not constant.
This is a complicated question. Truth means different things in different situations. Some truths are subjective like peoples preferences like favorite color. One persons truth is different than another's. Some truths are objective and is true no matter what people believe to be true or not. Like the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years +/- 30 years. One can believe it is 10 years but they would be wrong. So when you say truth is authoritative not subjective I don't think I agree with you.
Show me that treating others as I would treat myself is an absolute moral truth. Moral truth and other truths are different. Moral truths are ultimately subjective.
Just because we have preferences in how we treat people does not mean there is an ultimate truth. I feel like I want to treat people a certain way. I then evaluate that against my moral system to see if that is actually a good and moral thing to do. I get to decide what my ultimate moral goal is and then subjectively evaluate actions against that goal. Until you can demonstrate there is a moral truth that is a fabric of the universe then I have no choice but to reason morals.
Ok, you have your own definition of faith that I understand now. You use the term faith only in relation to God. Great. Now if you used that same standard in relation to big foot would it make sense? Why is faith good to determine if god exists but not big foot?
I don't care what the bible says until you can demonstrate it is the word of god.
Your conclusion does not follow. Our reason for determining right and wrong could be because we hate others not love them. Then we would have a different moral system. Love comes from the brain, that has been demonstrated by science inquiry and experimentation. No brain, no love. People who cannot love or have empathy for others can still have morals and they do.
Well provide sufficient evidence these testimonies are true then we can go further.
No. I do believe some people do.
No. Your standard of evidence is what convinces you or not. You also need to be convinced of a standard of evidence, you don't get to just one day choose it either. You are convinced or not convinced of a proposition by evidence. For example, I don't believe God exists. I cannot just say one day I need to have a different standard of evidence and that love is enough evidence for gods existence. I would need to be convinced through evidence that love is good evidence for a gods existence. I hope this makes sense. If not, I trust we can talk about this further without any animosity.
I am not sure what you are asking.
If the best evidence is good evidence then yes believe it. If the best evidence is not good evidence then don't believe it. You are convinced that the earth is sphere shaped and that we landed on the moon because the best evidence is good evidence and it convinces you. It convinces me too. What if the best evidence that we landed on the moon was that a child told you they transported back in time and saw it? Would you believe it? The best evidence is not a good pathway to truth. Good evidence is.
I think I can understand your point. To be clear an axiom is a statement commonly considered to be self evidently true, such as "The wind blows". However here is where you misunderstand me. To the Israelites in scripture the statement that "God is the Creator" would be an axiom which is why I qualified it as such according to scriptural terminology. My effort is to demonstrate that when the scripture says "God", it is referencing the Creator as a forgone conclusion to it's meaning. Hence it presents that there is a source of the energy that created all things.
True, but let's remember we're talking about Christianity, and scripture doesn't articulate God as a concept. For example the scriptures are testimonies of interactions between mankind and God initiated by God.
If you're saying that the term creation implies a purpose, that sounds reasonable to me. However, it doesn't mean that the philosophical question of why we are here would not arise regardless.
I would say that recognizing Love/empathy is of the highest value in mankind would be a start. The purpose of a temporal existence being to learn how to value Love/empathy by experiencing the absence or perversion of it in some real form. In essence to know God and become thankful for His Spirit that otherwise a creature would take for granted in vanity.
I don't quite understand where you got the impression that I said other Christians must think like me to be a Christian. I simply said they all believe that the term God denotes the Creator. The issue as I see it, is not about what I believe nor that all Christians must think like I do, but rather what must be true as a matter of due course regarding God being the Creator in scripture. When you feel you can acknowledge that in scripture the term God denotes a Creator, then we will be in agreement.
Words are simply vehicles for sentiments. It's understanding the sentiments that matters when trying to communicate. "One" is a word that is meant to express a unit with some measure of value attributed to it, while zero expresses a sentiment of having no value. Even the words dark and light do change in scripture being understood spiritually to be alluding to a blindness that can't tell light from darkness.
Well I think I can safely say that the true number of hairs on my head will not be the true numbers tomorrow. Hence what is true today is not true tomorrow concerning that.
I agree that the moral Truth is not the same as typical facts, but in our psycholinguistics the principles still work the same in our reasoning. We can't decide that it's arbitrarily right to hurt others without changing what is immoral into being moral. In that sense the moral truth is authoritative. It appears purely subjective to us because we must decide how we would want to be treated so as to treat others in the same way. Therefore it's happening internally within us. But since the moral Truth requires caring about the needs of others in doing good to them, it is also external holding an objective view of the situation. This is why I believe scripture says that God dwells within us and us within Him in the bigger picture of how people are connected.
I would say I reason as to what the moral thing to do similarly as to what you describe. What are the costs to me are weighed against the cost to others. The only difference is I see it as a spiritual battle, wherefore faith in God (the good/altruism) is being attacked, and I am able to stand by the Spirit of Truth.
Again it's not my definition. And I still don't think you understand that in scripture faith is not akin to superstition. The scriptural use of the term denotes that faith is about counting God as trustworthy.
Indirectly. If I happened upon big foot I could have faith that whatever happened God is still good.
Faith in scripture is not superstition and therefore doesn't determine the existence or non existence of God. God is an axiom in scripture and as I have said Truth is authoritative not subjective. I don't mean to sound silly, but God wouldn't appear and disappear according to my faith anymore than bigfoot does. No, faith implies that God is deemed as good/trustworthy. That can't even be contemplated if I'm wondering if He exists.
I don't actually articulate the bible as the Word of God. I see it as testimony to the Word of God.
How exactly does serving empathy not follow caring about others?
Not exactly. The narrative of hate is not exclusive from Love. Hate generally manifests though the hurt of a perceived betrayal wherefore Love/empathy is still an impetus.
I don't believe a person without a brain is able to think or is even alive in any meaningful sense. You're probably talking about people who have lost part of their brain and are unable to feel empathy.
As I said before, I think a person has to be called according to God's plan. I'm probably just tilling the soil. If you want the seed planted then you need to read the words of the Christ for yourself.
The wind blows for a reason. The question begging in such an axiom hardly registers in complexity compared to the universe, but that doesn't make it any more or less true in it's premise. There's a source of the energy that creates the wind is therefore also a simple axiom. It may seem arrogant or impatient to make the leap to God, but when God implies the initial source of all energy in the universe in scripture, I don't see the problem with that and see no reason to support an aversion to the term in it's abstract form. Perhaps I am arrogant in that I would expect someone to understand that being a Christian is about believing in the man Jesus as the Christ, and subsequently God as a Creator has to be an axiom.
If I'm honest and stay true to the premise of God as an axiom, I am also part of the energy of the universe and I find myself having a degree of intellect and emotions that I must presume others share. In that sense and from this perspective God is more realized than explained.
I see nothing incredulous or intellectually dishonest about saying God is good. The sentiment is simply having faith in what is perceived as good in Life. Even in recognizing the futility of an eternal endeavor to prove something as eternal, it's entirely rational because it's good, as in hopeful. In all intellectual honesty, the counter narrative that there is no purpose for our existence is as grumpy as scrooge.
Respectfully, I put forth a framework of theology which admittedly has holes, but the key points are all there.
As I said God is not articulated as a concept in scripture, but in real interactions initiated by God. I see the disagreements as caused by semantical confusion. I don't have much to say about hell other than to say I'm not motivated by fear of hell.
