Disobedience has consequences.

[Davian]

What if I told you an Atheist's idea of proving God exists is subjective?

When something is subjective, it is considered a matter of personal opinion. Truth is considered to be independent of personal opinion. That is to say, personal opinion cannot change the truth. Any position that is held that is not unchangeable, immutable, or eternal is opinion; it is not truth.

When someone says, “prove to me that Christianity is true.” They are not asking you proclaim, “In my opinion, Christianity is true.” Instead, they are asking you to prove to them that Christianity is true despite their opinion that Christianity isn’t true. The problem is, the atheist’s burden of proof is an opinion, and one should not test truths using opinions because truths are always true independently of individual opinion or personal conviction.

Now that a description of truth has been given, we should look at the implications of the following statement: “Christianity is true.” When we say Christianity is true, we mean that it is absolutely true. This, of course, means that Christianity is true independently of any individual’s opinion. This, of course, can be said of any true proposition.

When the atheists say, “prove to me that God exists” or “prove to me that Christianity is true,” many of them have a different burden of proof in mind. One might ask, “If God exists, why doesn’t he heal amputees?” Another will ask, “Why is it that God won’t just come down and show himself to me?” Another may say, “If God exists, he can prove himself to me by ridding the world of evil and suffering.” Perhaps another atheist will ignorantly say, “If God exists, he would be testable by the scientific method.” Different atheists will give different levels and conditions concerning what constitutes as meeting the burden of proof.

This is, unfortunately for the atheist, where their request to prove that Christianity is true falls apart. Truth is immutable, unchangeable, and absolute, but the burden of proof that each atheist says they require is completely subjective and nothing more than personal opinion. If we are to be justified in believing in any proposition, we must have a concrete way to test the truth of propositions. A subjective standard will not do. If the burden of proof for any truth is subjective, then anyone can be justified in believing in any proposition, including Christianity, as long as the burden of proof has been met for that individual. If the burden of proof is subjective, then a universal truth cannot be considered universal, rather, all “truths” are a matter of personal opinion.

If the atheist is to hold that we ought to test the truth of propositions in a subjective manner, then no proposition is ultimately provable. The epistemological implications on the atheist worldview is devastating. The obligation that the atheist sets forth for us to meet their own subjective burden of proof destroys their own epistemology. If their epistemology falls, then so too does their objection concerning their burden of proof not being met for Christianity. After all, if no proposition is provable beyond opinion, then all known propositions are opinions. If all propositions are opinions, then the only consistent conclusion concerning epistemology is that no one can know anything at all, thus, such a way of testing propositions leads to skepticism.

Any Christian that has had a discussion with an unbeliever concerning the truth of Christianity has probably been told that it is the Christian’s task to prove the truth of Christianity to an unbeliever. The atheists’ ideas concerning how Christianity might be validated or invalidated are utter nonsense.

First, setting out a Biblical foundation will be appropriate. 1 Peter 3:15 is often quoted, “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,”[acp footnote]1[/acp] Christians are to give a defense of their faith, but they are not obligated to prove to someone else that Christianity is true. Too often, Christians allow atheists to set the parameters concerning what the Christian’s task is in an apologetic situation. We should not base our apologetic on the atheist’s demands, rather, we should focus on the task that God has given us. We are to set scripture as our authority, and give a defense that is consistent with the scriptures.

We are also obligated to show the absurdity of any worldview that is to stand in opposition to God’s authority. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 says, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” From these verses we have our justification of using logical arguments that show the absurdity of any worldview that stands in opposition to God’s authority.

None of the aforementioned verses, nor any other verses in The Bible, say that the Christian’s task is to convince or prove to someone that Christianity is true. In fact, The Bible clearly teaches that people only come to belief by the power of God himself. For instance, John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” Matthew 16:17 also says, And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” There are numerous verses in scripture that teach that God is the one who causes belief in an individual but these two examples will suffice. If it is true that God directly causes belief, then it is not the Christian’s job to attempt to cause belief in Christianity within an unbelieving individual. Instead, our job is to proclaim the truth of Christianity and destroy any worldview that dares to raise its hand against God’s authority. The idea that we have to prove Christianity to an unbeliever assumes a false theology that is not found within scripture. It is God who has given us our task to proclaim the truth of the Gospel, we ought to follow the criteria that God has set forth instead of the criteria given by the unbeliever.

Site: The bible truth,

Should not "truth" comport with observations of reality?

 

[Davian]

... The only difficult part of finding God, is taking the step, of taking a notion of Jesus serious enough to ask him. That's it. All you need is enough desire to take Jesus serious enough to approach him.

How circular. You have to believe in order to believe.

 

[LostMarbels]

How exactly does the bible define belief? Does it somehow distinguish it from a thought?

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

believe ON Jesus, not IN Jesus. To believe in something is as you describe. A mental process. To believe on is to rely on the subject of your belief. There is a contrition in that, an acceptance in one self of the object of the belief. It's an affirmation of the object of your belief, and a conscious choice to accept it.

 

[LostMarbels]

Should not "truth" comport with observations of reality?

Of course. I would not believe without prof.

 

[Skavau]

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

believe ON Jesus, not IN Jesus. To believe in something is as you describe. A mental process. To believe on is to rely on the subject of your belief. There is a contrition in that, an acceptance in one self of the object of the belief. It's an affirmation of the object of your belief, and a conscious choice to accept it.

I do not see how this makes belief not a thought.

We'll ignore the word thought for arguments sake though: You're in favour of me being punished for my lack of belief in God. If I die tomorrow you believe and fully support my inclusion in hell.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm make no claims, I only attest to what I know to be true in the word of God.

I wonder why you're here, in the Philosophy forum, if you know that unsubstantiated religious statements will be ignored? Your attesting to anything really means nothing. Someone from another religion could also be on this forum doing the same thing regarding their god or gods. How does a third party distinguish between unsubstantiated statements?

 

[LostMarbels]

How circular. You have to believe in order to believe.

The entire notion that you must accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior before he will reveal himself to you is utter nonsense. How could anyone at all that does not believe in him every come to him if that were true?

 

[Davian]

...

Yes, God IS just, and I condone his actions by my free will in my decision that his Word is true.

Not that you could freely decide otherwise.

(Joh 14:6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I would not think it difficult for the bible writers to jot that down in the absence of divine inspiration. After all, as a sales pitch it would go further than "I am probably the way, I am sure I am truth, etc."

 

[oi_antz]

The point is that if someone claims something, whether they believe it or not, then they must provide evidence if they are to expect someone else to believe it. If LostMarbels doesn't care if anyone believes or not, then they need to realize that any statement they make is utterly pointless. It certainly doesn't help their religion any. You can imagine two people with different religions in a room going "No, you're wrong" without offering anything substantive until the end of time. No minds are changed because neither recognizes the burden of proof.

This bit: if they are to expect someone else to believe it - I don't think this is consistent with LostMarbel's attitude or mine, or Jesus' for that matter. You might like to read John 3:19-20, because we all get to decide how to respond.

The creation story was written by the ancestors of the same elite church government who lied about Jesus at his trumped-up trial and then killed him. Why wouldn't you trust them?

"We are church government and we are here to help.....and we are infallible.......and our councils...and our writings, if you don't believe our writings something is wrong with you.

Is there any scholarly basis for this idea, and can you please provide references for it? Thank you.

It wasn't about the claim being false, hello? It was about who has to prove if the claim is false. It's no straw man because it sets up no argument to attack. It's a solid logical argument. If I say I have wings, you're under no contract to prove me wrong because I'm the one who made the claim and clearly you don't believe my claim. So until I prove my claim true, you can withhold belief or call my claim false because I haven't proven it to you.

Right. He made a claim. His claim is "Jesus is God's Word, and acknowledges Him as his worthy King" and most Christians believe that, but it's still a claim that he has the burden of proving to non Christians because they don't automatically accept that claim. He claimed it publicly to others on this thread and because I challenged the claim he now has burden to prove it.

You are assuming that I have an interest in knowing that you have wings, though this is not the case when translated to the real world. People who don't believe actually have more interest in not believing than they do in believing. You said so yourself. So, your analogies really are consistently strawmen, I will request of you again to please use real examples since we are discussing real things.

Let's say you want to find out if a Chupacabra is real. So, you go out to where they have supposedly been spotted, looking for one.

While out looking for one, you hear all manner of accounts. Some claim the creature is 6 feet tall, glowing red eyes, walks on two legs, can fly. Others say it's a small rat like looking creature, hairless, etc. Some claim to know it's nothing more than a coyote with mange, or a raccoon with mange. Others claim it's a government tested animal escaped from some lab. Still others claim it's a supernatural interdimensional being, or perhaps an extraterrestrial.

You look at video footage some have gotten, you manage to find some fresh animal carrion that is attributed to a Chupacabra, you hear accounts, so on and so forth. And let's say you even see a creature one day run across a rural road, that you cannot identify, although it doesn't defy the animal kingdom as you know it (IOW it's not a 7 foot tall, glowing red eyes man-goat with wings) rather let's say it just doesn't look quite like anything you've seen before ... say a cross between a hairless hyena and a small kangaroo or something ... and the first time you see it you think, "Holy wow, is that a Chupacabra ?"

So now you have evidence of something ... dead animals, video, eye witnesses, and you/yourself saw something as well that was hard to identify.

After looking at it all ... can you now say definitively what a Chupacabra is or isn't ? If you decide to go with "coyote with mange" which is a popular theory and seemingly backed by lots of evidence, how can you disprove that there isn't a 7 foot tall bipedal goat sucking bat-humanoid with wings and glowing red eyes killing livestock ? How can you prove that there isn't a supernatural being involved in some of the other cases ? Or even more mundanely but still unique, what if there are multiple normal animals (coyotes, raccoons, wolverines, etc) running around with mange and it's an odd coincidence that these different animals have mange and are being sighted at the same time ?

What helps someone back up their assertions, are evidence. Eye-witness accounts are generally very unreliable, which is why corroborating evidence helps to determine the facts of what was seen and not seen. Even an eye-witness who saw an actual something may get details wrong, or think something is happening that isn't even happening or take place. Now, if a person were interested to the degree they wanted to investigate someone's account and claim ... okay. And what you are basically pointing out, is that, "If you really wanted to know this, you would investigate. It's not up to me to prove what I'm saying is true, it's up to you to find out if what I'm saying is true for yourself."

But consider the Chupacabra example ... even someone who is investigating such accounts will run into a plethora of different claims, explanations, theories, etc. What happens when the evidence they find points to your own claims being wrong ? What if they find a much more mundane explanation ? What if they find nothing at all ? Or what if they conclude something spectacular that even seems more extraordinary then your own claim ? In general, if you want your claim to be taken seriously, there should be evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you are often just one of many voices saying, "I know the truth !" with little more than words for all we know.

Now consider one more thing: suppose you actually did see, 100%, something extraordinary. Let's say you saw a 7 foot tall flying humanoid with glowing red eyes sucking blood out of a goat, then it takes off into the night and disappears in a puff of flame or some such. And let's say this ACTUALLY happened. But you have no video evidence of it, nothing to corroborate your story. Let's say for a moment that the carcass even went up in a puff of smoke, leaving no trace behind.

Even if this happened in reality, how would you convince someone else ? And for what practical reason would it matter to them ? Let's say they even went looking for it, based on your account and nothing more than your word ... but found nothing, saw nothing, etc. At what point for practical purposes, would such a person be able to say, "Well, I can't prove you wrong, but you've got nothing to show for your story, I found nothing when I investigated, so even if you're right it's basically meaningless to me because recognizing whether you're right or wrong is irrelevant to my own experience." Burden of proof is more than just intellectual honesty, or one person thinking the other is lazy ... there are often a sea of claims and explanations and speculations for the same thing, which people often DO investigate and do not find what is claimed to be found, and at some point draw different conclusions than what you may have drawn. Or, they have decided to stop trying to figure something out, and wait and see if anyone who is making claims can back up their claim with evidence. This isn't always due to "I don't care anymore,", rather this can often just cut through the myriad of voices and begin to see who may actually have something substantial to offer.

I too like this, and I like the effort you went to with it, and that is why I hesitate to poke holes in it. But I suppose you will want to know the weaknesses I see:

* You have inconsistent claims as to what a Chupacabra is. When it comes to descriptions of God, The Holy Spirit testifies to the truth, the truth is solid and consistent.
* You cannot actually just go to a zoo and study a Chupacabra, but you can with God. He invites you to.

Freedom of assembling deadly weaponry casually is not the same as restricting one's speech, association or movement.

Can you please explain why not? What makes it different? (I am not assuming it necessarily is or isn't, but sometimes is and sometimes isn't. I am pressing you to analyse the cause of the pattern).

It is also not the same as punishing someone for what they think.

This is not comparable to what you think God will do.

Can you please explain this view, and provide quotes r links to things I have said that gave you this impression? Maybe you have superimposed it based on what others have said, that you think share a common identity with me. It just seems to not be consistent with what I know of God's intentions.

Not at the price of my personal liberty, no. Some things are more important than GDP per capita.

You need to exaplin what this means, because it makes no sense to me. What relevance does GDP per capita have WRT perfect government?

I can't imagine anyone would do that. Why?

God is a proponent of the truth. If one day someone is discomforted by the truth and finds comfort in delusion, they may turn their worship away from Him and follow those who promise to give them the comfort they desire. It happens, so if you can't imagine it happening, then I think your imagination is not very realistic. That happens too.

I do not see how it is just an opinion. If someone supported the overthrow of democracy in favour of fascism and I told them they were in favour of authoritarian government would that just be "my opinion"?

Just for my interest, do you know a place that is governed democratically?

Why does God allow those who don't believe in him or believe in and follow truthfully or untruthfully in another God to suffer eternal torment?

What's the point?

I don't know that it has a point, but that it is a consequence. Imagine this person, how can he know anything but anguish?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:30&version=NIV

I really find it hard to believe you can't understand what he's saying. Also finding it hard to believe that you want people to warp their own beliefs in order to find God. I'm ALSO finding it hard to believe that you are making a claim and you're claim the burden of proof lies on the claim itself rather than you.

Wha is the claim he is making again? I have only noticed him testifying to his faith in claims God has made.

Do you think a single misstep justifies eternal torment?

I don't. He is not sorting us based on mistakes but character. IE, how do we behave once we know that we have been mistaken?

My target audience are those who defend the idea that the unsaved deserved to be tormented for eternity.

Can I please analyse this with you? Who decides which person is saved and which is not?

 

[LostMarbels]

I do not see how this makes belief not a thought.

That doesn't change the biblical reality tho. You have to understand that. Just because you cannot understand and/or accept something your disbelief does not make the topic false.

We'll ignore the word thought for arguments sake though: You're in favour of me being punished for my lack of belief in God. If I die tomorrow you believe and fully support my inclusion in hell.[/QUOTE]

However you wish to term it I believe God is just. I 100% fully support God's will concerning this.

 

[Davian]

Of course. I would not believe without prof.

What proof?

 

[Skavau]

That doesn't change the biblical reality tho. You have to understand that. Just because you cannot understand and/or accept something you disbelief does not make the topic false.

We'll ignore the word thought for arguments sake though: You're in favour of me being punished for my lack of belief in God. If I die tomorrow you believe and fully support my inclusion in hell.

However you wish to term it I believe God is just. I 100% fully support God's will concerning this.[/QUOTE]
So you're in favour of certain beliefs being punishable.

 

[LostMarbels]

I wonder why you're here, in the Philosophy forum, if you know that unsubstantiated religious statements will be ignored? Your attesting to anything really means nothing. Someone from another religion could also be on this forum doing the same thing regarding their god or gods. How does a third party distinguish between unsubstantiated statements?

I was here to discuss "disobedience has consequences" After attempts to keep the conversation on track, I found it completely hijacked so I decide to just go with it.

 

[LostMarbels]

Not that you could freely decide otherwise.

Of course I could. I was once on your side of the debate.

You do realize this is what the devil did? He was right there with God, knew God, Jesus and all that was of God to be true. And he decided to rebel. Free will in the most extreme.

I would not think it difficult for the bible writers to jot that down in the absence of divine inspiration. After all, as a sales pitch it would go further than "I am probably the way, I am sure I am truth, etc."

Thanks for sharing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I was here to discuss "disobedience has consequences" After attempts to keep the conversation on track, I found it completely hijacked so I decide to just go with it.

The OP is predicated on the same kinds of unsubstantiated statements. Since the OP is presumably aimed at unbelievers, then what's the point of your involvement if whatever you say will be ignored?

 

[LostMarbels]

However you wish to term it I believe God is just. I 100% fully support God's will concerning this.

So you're in favour of certain beliefs being punishable.[/QUOTE]
I accept God's will concerning hell.

 

[Skavau]

Can you please explain why not? What makes it different? (I am not assuming it necessarily is or isn't, but sometimes is and sometimes isn't. I am pressing you to analyse the cause of the pattern).

Assembling a deadly weapon is a specific action that, if in the wrong hands or assembled for malicious motives could cause carnage.

A belief is a conclusion of a thought or a series of thoughts. Belief is not a choice - it is a conclusion one comes to after being exposed to specific viewpoints, arguments and evidence for a position(s). Punishing someone for what they think is to punish people for something they cannot control.

Free expression is an important and mandatory aspect for a free society. The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect minority opinions. Popular opinions do not tend to require protection. Subjugating and forbidding esoteric, minority, taboo or reviled opinions causes societal stagnation, causes people to fear they may express an objectionable comment and worse than that - it decrees that the listener may not hear a certain viewpoint. That other people may decide for you what you may hear.

You need to exaplin what this means, because it makes no sense to me. What relevance does GDP per capita have WRT perfect government?

What is a "perfect government"? To me, if anything, it would be a government that succeeded in wealth creation for all its inhabitants. Everyone lives comfortably. That would represent a successful government but such a thing would not be worth it if there was no free expression or freedom of conscience.

Just for my interest, do you know a place that is governed democratically?

Most of the Western World is composed of representative democracies.

I don't know that it has a point, but that it is a consequence. Imagine this person, how can he know anything but anguish?

A consequence that God imposes upon non-believers. You cannot abdicate God's involvement in the existence of hell. I presume you believe him omniscient, omnipotent. He could reform it. He could remove it. He could just remove non-belief from causing hell.

 

[Skavau]

So you're in favour of certain beliefs being punishable.

I accept God's will concerning hell.

You just can't bring yourself to say the words.

 

[LostMarbels]

The OP is predicated on the same kinds of unsubstantiated statements. Since the OP is presumably aimed at unbelievers, then what's the point of your involvement if whatever you say will be ignored?

It doesn't matter if I'm ignored.

(Isa 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

I'm just putting God's word out there.

 

[LostMarbels]

You just can't bring yourself to say the words.

If you do not accept Jesus your going to hell. Yes, I'm OK with God's will. What do you think I'm scared of admitting?

Read my signature. I believe in a literal hell. I accept it or what have you.