Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[Not me]

See what??

The truth.

in Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

The same way you know one and one is two? You will say that is a nonsense answer. But it's not, for when you discover "how" you "know" one and one is two. The answer to your question is self evident.

In Christ, Not me

Just like math huh?

Show me how it is just like math.

 

[bhsmte]

The truth.

in Christ, Not me

What truth?

I have yet to see you demonstrate anything, that is likely true.

I have seen you preach and give personal opinions and that is about it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It goes like this:

1. If God exists, there will be evidence that God exists.

2. There is no evidence that God exists.

3. Therefore, God does not exist.

If premise 1 is false, then I don’t see how anyone could ever rationally justify belief in God. If premise 2 is false, show me. I haven’t been able to dispute either of these two premises, so I have had to drop my previously-held belief in God.

I think premise one is fraught with epistemological freight, to put it mildly. And I think this is especially the case if our awareness of God is epistemologically tampered with by God Himself. If the Bible is true, then it CAN'T just be a matter of God having left "sufficient evidence" of His active presence in the world. Yet, because of the Modernist and Positivistic bent has now washed over the World for the last handful of centuries, people more and more are looking at Christianity in the wrong way. But, eschatologically speaking, I think that's it to be ... expected?

 

[Not me]

Just like math huh?

Show me how it is just like math.

Once again you misread what I said. I never said it was 'like" math. I said it was like "how" you learned math. Would you wish me to continue?

in Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

Once again you misread what I said. I never said it was 'like" math. I said it was like "how" you learned math. Would you wish me to continue?

in Christ, Not me

Please do.

 

[Not me]

What truth?

I have yet to see you demonstrate anything, that is likely true.

I have seen you preach and give personal opinions and that is about it.

So by saying that there are things that are "likely true" you do believe there are things that are true?

In Christ, Not me

 

[Not me]

Please do.

Someone or something told you that one and one was two. You took that "supposed truth" and applied it in your life. Than by "experience" you came to believe it was true. Henceforth you can balance your checkbook correctly.

much love in Christ, Not me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

By the way, I haven't had time to read this whole thread - I'm just replying to your reply to me.

The problem with that approach for me is that I went through some psychosis several years ago. There may have been some genuine spiritual experience mixed with the psychosis, but it also may have been entirely psychosis. It wasn't like most people describe psychosis, but each person's psychosis is probably a customized expression of their own personality. ... The strange thing about my experience was the intermittency. Most people with psychosis have difficulty functioning and need medication. For me it was like lightning strike dramatic hallucinations every few weeks and then delusional beliefs were spawned by those hallucinations. But I never missed a day of work, and nobody could tell anything was wrong with me during that year or so.

Lately I have made some tepid attempts to pray, but I always find myself stopping and wondering what's the point. I feel like I've proven Christianity to be malarky, and I don't know what a real God (if any) would want. Of course I look at various members of CF who are better educated and smarter than me and also Christians, and I wonder if I made a mistake in my conclusion that Christianity is malarky.

Hmmmmm.

I can understand added caution then. If you know you can't trust your experiences ...

Although - while I don't approach God from a "prove it to me" aspect, some of what happens is external to my experience and verifiable (at least eventually you have to admit the chance of coincidence is ridiculously minuscule).

But to be honest, I think efforts to either prove or disprove God are beside the point and futile. Whatever His reasons may be (and I can think of some good ones), God simply hasn't set things up that way to favor either side. I don't think He wants to be an intellectual exercise to us.

What does He want?

Well, a lot of more modern Christians will disagree with me. But a large part of what He wants is for us to treat everyone with compassion and care. (I find it ironic, but a number of atheists I know are scrupulous about living up to that part - the problem is the pride with which they often do it - "I can be good without God". Their motive is sometimes to do it to "spite" God somehow.)

(And if anyone is reading - no I'm not talking about you since I don't know you - I really am talking about people I have known. Ironically among them is an intellectual giant.)

I think opposition to God puts people in a very dangerous position. But being not sure is not the same thing.

However, I think no progress is possible if you aren't at least open to seeking Him.

Romans 2 talks about those who don't have the full revelation of God still knowing right and wrong, and being judged on that basis. But it is not something we can promise people who have access to the Gospel. All we really know is that God will judge everyone rightly. (And before you think all fire and brimstone of some recent-age preachers, the Church didn't have the same view of God for a millennia and a half (and part still doesn't.) In a sense, we judge ourselves, and Romans even says this ... we accuse or excuse OURSELVES.

I wonder if some of the books aimed at "proofs" would help? I foun them interesting, but if my belief was based on them, well it wouldn't have been nearly as powerful. But they are at least thought-provoking. Such books like "The Case for Christ" and "Letters From a Skeptic"?

Those personal experiences I'm talking about are a starting place, but as I've said, they aren't anywhere near the sum of my faith.

And what I think is that if someone is sincerely seeking and open - even if necessarily skeptical - God will give a person what they need. It's more about a right heart.

Some people teach today as though the sum of Christianity is that God demands we perform mental gymnastics to convince ourselves of a series of absurdities, and THAT determines our salvation for all eternity. Frankly, that's a dismal and ridiculous picture of God.

What God REALLY wants is to restore us to the way He always intended us to be - which is in His image and likeness. We are RATIONAL beings - that's part of our dignity gifted to us by God. He doesn't want to rob us of that, but to fully establish us in it.

The overriding feature we should possess though is the same one we know of God. God is love. And that is the sum of His commandments to us as well. Love. (Meaning agape - always seeking the best for everyone.) That's what He wants from us. As well as, yes, believing in and trusting in Him, but I honestly believe that (1) He fully understands any shortcomings we have and will have mercy on them (we trust Him with babies, and mental incompetents, and those who never heard the Gospel - in other words, those who lacked capacity or opportunity to believe), and (2) He will give what a person needs for their salvation.

(Some of this reflects our beliefs in Orthodoxy - which was what the Church always believed, and some more modern denominations teach differently now. But it's frankly my belief that some modern misunderstandings of the Gospel and God Himself are reasons why some can't help but reject what they view as Christianity. But I don't blame people - most of them are trying to be faithful to how they perceive truth to be, and are fortunately able to fit themselves into it. In the end, they do display a heart for God in that.)

I think you are in a unique position. Fortunately, God understands this. The very fact that you are seeking some understanding means something.

I hope you will give yourself time. And just be open. And follow any good inclinations of your heart.

I hope you don't mind if I say I'm praying for you.

 

[bhsmte]

Someone or something told you that one and one was two. You took that "supposed truth" and applied it in your life. Than by "experience" you came to believe it was true. Henceforth you can balance your checkbook correctly.

much love in Christ, Not me.

No.

Someone didn't just tell me, 1 and 1 is 2. They demonstrated, why 1 and 1 is 2.

People can say anything and make any claim. Demonstrating a claim is likely true, is completely separate, from making a claim.

 

[bhsmte]

So by saying that there are things that are "likely true" you do believe there are things that are true?

In Christ, Not me

Evade much?

 

[Silmarien]

It goes like this:

1. If God exists, there will be evidence that God exists.

2. There is no evidence that God exists.

3. Therefore, God does not exist.

If premise 1 is false, then I don’t see how anyone could ever rationally justify belief in God. If premise 2 is false, show me. I haven’t been able to dispute either of these two premises, so I have had to drop my previously-held belief in God.

I'd like to point out that I've seen idealists say something similar to argue that belief in matter is unjustified. They would argue that idealism begins with a premise that cannot be doubted, i.e., that mental activity exists, whereas materialism and dualism require belief in something extra that can be doubted: the existence of something outside of experience.

"Evidence" is not really a neutral idea, since what we accept as evidence will depend upon how we've been conditioned to think about a certain question. There is no evidence you can offer to a convinced idealist for the existence of matter, because they've already ruled out as irrelevant any evidence that cannot be directly obtained from within conscious experience. Likewise, a convinced atheist will be coming from a direction from which any argument for God is invalidated because it's already outside of the atheist's preferred framework for assessing the question. What I see happen a lot is what I would call a Naturalism of the Gaps--the automatic assumption that naturalistic explanations will be found for every difficult question about reality facing us, tomorrow if not today. This really amounts to assuming your conclusion, and it's one of the places where conversation breaks down.

As for the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God, I've seen atheists over at the Secular Outpost tear people apart for that one. The question isn't really whether any evidence exists, but whether there is sufficient evidence. I think that's very subjective, though. Some people think it's really, really strange (borderline impossible) that anything exists at all, and others don't really think it's even a question worth asking. Asking the "wrong" questions can lead you out of religion, but it can also lead you back to it. I spent months trying to figure out why I wasn't an atheist and pretty much independently hit upon everything the various theological traditions have been saying for millennia. Reinventing the Wheel 101.

 

[DogmaHunter]

“We” have agreed there is this “thing” called righteousness, correct?

Yes, but only in the sense that we both use the word.
We have not agreed on what it means.

I'll refer you back to the toilet example.

than the question was asked “what is it”
The answer is “that which is right”

And then I asked, "right, according to whom?".
Because what your bible defines as "right", is really not in agreement with how I understand the term. I can guarantee you that.

Than the question was, people have different definitions of what the word righteousness means. Which is correct. So the question was asked what is righteousness “in itself” not anyone’s particular version.

Than it was answered again; righteousness is that which is right. For that is what righteousness is.

That's the same vague answer as the first time it was asked.
Which is just silly.

Anytime you wish to give an unambigous definition for the term, I'm here for you.
Until then, this is a waste of time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

See what??

"the truth"

haha



EDIT: LOL, I swear I didn't see this post that I'll quote below, before I made the above comment:

The truth.

in Christ, Not me

That is funny.​

 

[DogmaHunter]

The same way you know one and one is two?

We can demonstrate that one and one is two.

You will say that is a nonsense answer

Obviously.

But it's not, for when you discover "how" you "know" one and one is two

It's objectively demonstrable in reality.

The answer to your question is self evident.

No. 1+1=2 is not a claim that has to be taken on "faith".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Someone or something told you that one and one was two

And demonstrated it.

You took that "supposed truth" and applied it in your life.

There's nothing "supposed" about it.

Than by "experience" you came to believe it was true

No, I already understood it was true from the get-go. As said, it was demonstrated, not just claimed.

Henceforth you can balance your checkbook correctly.

My checkbook is also demonstrably real.

 

[Not me]

No.

Someone didn't just tell me, 1 and 1 is 2. They demonstrated, why 1 and 1 is 2.

People can say anything and make any claim. Demonstrating a claim is likely true, is completely separate, from making a claim.

Step 1) Correct, someone just didn't tell you. (but they did tell you,the words came out their mouths)

Step 2) Than they or you applied that truth to real things in this world, and than you came to "see" that it was the truth. Henceforth it was demonstrated to you it was the truth.

 

[Not me]

And demonstrated it.



There's nothing "supposed" about it.



No, I already understood it was true from the get-go. As said, it was demonstrated, not just claimed.



My checkbook is also demonstrably real.

Good, you believe truth does exist. So the next question would be does righteousness exist?
(but I do believe we have come full circle)

In Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

Round and round we go, were it stops, nobody knows!!!

 

[Not me]

Yes, but only in the sense that we both use the word.
We have not agreed on what it means.

I'll refer you back to the toilet example.




And then I asked, "right, according to whom?".
Because what your bible defines as "right", is really not in agreement with how I understand the term. I can guarantee you that.



That's the same vague answer as the first time it was asked.
Which is just silly.

Anytime you wish to give an unambigous definition for the term, I'm here for you.
Until then, this is a waste of time.

The answer of what righteousness is accurate and correct. But you refuse to acknowledge it. It's very simple. Righteousness is that which is right, but it's even more, righteousness is "alone" that which is right. When you come to see this truth, blessed will you be.

Much love in Christ, Not me