The 2 biggest issues with theism

[leftrightleftrightleft]

In my opinion, there are 2 big issues with theism:

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

2) Why do logic and reason lead to agnosticism? Why doesn't logic and reason lead to God in a more irrefutable, objective way?

Premise 1: Humans minds are fallible in that their memories are imperfectly recalled and their senses only receive incomplete impressions of reality
Premise 2: A human cannot escape his own mind

Therefore: A human cannot know anything for certain.


What are your ideas about these two problems?

 

[lesliedellow]

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

And what would such a universe look like? Assuming that it displayed any kind of regular behaviour, atheists would just note the regularities, call it science, and then somehow conclude that God doesn't exist.

2) Why do logic and reason lead to agnosticism? Why doesn't logic and reason lead to God in a more irrefutable, objective way?

How does your opinion manage to transform itself into a fact?

Premise 1: Humans minds are fallible in that their memories are imperfectly recalled and their senses only receive incomplete impressions of reality
Premise 2: A human cannot escape his own mind

Therefore: A human cannot know anything for certain.

What are your ideas about these two problems?

They are not problems, they are facts, and they apply as much to science as religion - something which even Richard Dawkins seems to realise.

 

[South Bound]

In my opinion, there are 2 big issues with theism:

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

For example?

2) Why do logic and reason lead to agnosticism? Why doesn't logic and reason lead to God in a more irrefutable, objective way?

Many of us believe it does.

All of us, apart from Christ, are incapable of discerning the things of God. If the unregenerate's "logic and reason" lead him to agnosticism, then all he's doing is following the downward, Christ-less trajectory he was on before.

It wasn't the logic and reason that did it. It was his own sinful state. All logic and reason did was provide a vehicle to express that state.

 

[ebia]

In my opinion, there are 2 big issues with theism: 1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

A consistent world that is understandable on its own terms is a gift - it allows us to develop science etc to live within that world.

2) Why do logic and reason lead to agnosticism? Why doesn't logic and reason lead to God in a more irrefutable, objective way?

Can every tool point irrefutably to God and still be useful for its own purpose?

 

[Radagast]

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

So that the universe would be a predictable place to live in. And it's not all effects, just most.

2) Why do logic and reason lead to agnosticism?

They don't. Look at the past 2,000 years of logic and reason being applied.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

So that the universe would be a predictable place to live in. And it's not all effects, just most.

Can you name one in which the test fails?

They don't. Look at the past 2,000 years of logic and reason being applied.

Do you agree that ultimately we cannot know anything for certain beyond that we are thinking?

Everything we see could be a virtual machine and we could be brains in a vat. Those around us could be philosophical zombies and we would never know the difference.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

And what would such a universe look like? Assuming that it displayed any kind of regular behaviour, atheists would just note the regularities, call it science, and then somehow conclude that God doesn't exist.

If God spoke audibly to each and every one of us, that would be an effect which can not be attributed to some other cause. Even if he spoke regularly to us and known intervals, it would not make the cause any less clear.

How does your opinion manage to transform itself into a fact?

Can you point out the flaws in my premises which lead to a false conclusion?

 

[Radagast]

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

The obvious exceptions are (1) the origin of the universe itself, and (2) the Resurrection of Christ.

 

[Radagast]

Everything we see could be a virtual machine and we could be brains in a vat.

That seems likely to you, does it?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

For example?

The claim that Jesus rose from the dead can be explained by noting that mythologization of spiritual leaders has happened multiple times throughout history (Buddha, Sai Baba, etc). Furthermore, written words and eye witness testimony has been shown to be relatively unreliable.

The claim of healing prayer can be explained either by placebo effect or willful manipulation by actors. It can also be shown that people will rationalize healing prayer such that God cannot fail. If you are healed, it is a miracle of God. If you are not healed, then your healing was not part of God's will. It's unfalsifiable. Faith healing has also been shown to be no better than random chance in scientific studies.

The claim of near-death experiences can be explained using psychology and brain scans. Such experiences can be induced by activating certain regions of the brain.

Many of us believe it does.

All of us, apart from Christ, are incapable of discerning the things of God. If the unregenerate's "logic and reason" lead him to agnosticism, then all he's doing is following the downward, Christ-less trajectory he was on before.

It wasn't the logic and reason that did it. It was his own sinful state. All logic and reason did was provide a vehicle to express that state.

Can you explain part of the premises in my argument are untrue and how the conclusion is invalid?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

That seems likely to you, does it?

I never said it was likely. But it is possible. Thus, everything you experience and know cannot be with 100% certainty. There must be some small amount of possibility that we are brains in a vat.

It doesn't have to be likely in order to prove my point.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The obvious exceptions are (1) the origin of the universe itself, and (2) the Resurrection of Christ.

The origin of the universe can be explained two ways:

1) It is eternal and thus does not have a cause

2) Nothingness is infinitely unstable


The Resurrection can be explained as I said to SouthBound in my other post.

 

[South Bound]

The claim that Jesus rose from the dead can be explained by noting that mythologization of spiritual leaders has happened multiple times throughout history (Buddha, Sai Baba, etc).

Those are not comparable. A thing is not explained by a dissimilar thing.

Furthermore, written words and eye witness testimony has been shown to be relatively unreliable.

By whom? If this is true, then why do historians rely on written words and eye witness testimony?

Can you explain part of the premises in my argument are untrue and how the conclusion is invalid?

Yes, I can. However, it's clear that your initial question was not sincere, but just a trap to bait us into a "you krischens iz so dumb" thread and, to be honest, at my age, I'm just not interested in playing that game.

 

[dhh712]

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

2) Why do logic and reason lead to agnosticism? Why doesn't logic and reason lead to God in a more irrefutable, objective way?

I have come to the understanding that it is for a display of who will trust Him or who will trust, in their arrogance, only what their worldly logic will tell them. I'm no scholar in logic, yet I have a fair grasp of it; however, I have run into both extremes in which logic is utilized where one side makes a case for God existing and one side makes case where He doesn't. Personally, I do not have the interest to invest lots of time into studying the cases for or against the existence of God; I feel that that is not what sustains faith anyway. Nevertheless, you generally have two sets of people in the world: those that have faith in the world and those that do not. Those that deny the existence of God have faith in what the world tells them, that is what they trust whereas those who have faith in God trust what He tells them regardless of what the world says.

 

[KWCrazy]

The origin of the universe can be explained two ways:
1) It is eternal and thus does not have a cause

Disproved by the second law of thermodynamics. All matter is in a constant state of increasing entropy, meaning that the closed system we call the universe; the entirety of everything; is in a constant state of decay from its original state. God is eternal. Rocks are not. All forms of energy degrade to a lesser form of heat energy.

2) Nothingness is infinitely unstable

Disproved by the third law of thermodynamics. In a complete vacuum with no heat source nothing happens. If something doesn't exist, it will never exist by its own spontaneous autocreation.

The Resurrection can be explained as I said to SouthBound in my other post.

Wrong! Christ still lives. If sought, He may be found. He is knocking on the door of your heart right now. Open to Him and He will reveal all. Reject Him and be known to all the world as a fool who said in his heart "There is no God."
(See Psalms 14:1)

 

[Sketcher]

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

He didn't. A Big Bang with God makes more sense than a Big Bang without him.

2) Why do logic and reason lead to agnosticism? Why doesn't logic and reason lead to God in a more irrefutable, objective way?

Ultimately, they don't lead to agnosticism. Theism makes more sense.

Premise 1: Humans minds are fallible in that their memories are imperfectly recalled and their senses only receive incomplete impressions of reality
Premise 2: A human cannot escape his own mind

Therefore: A human cannot know anything for certain.

What makes you so certain of this principle?

 

[thesunisout]

In my opinion, there are 2 big issues with theism:

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

In my opinion, there are 2 big issues with theism:

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

Scientists theorize a cause, like the Big Bang, but they cannot explain the ultimate cause of the big bang, how it started. The best science has ever been able to do is push the ultimate cause back a step; they do not offer a complete explanation. So, it's not true that all effects can be logically attributed to a cause that does not involve God because they have not fully explained it.

2) Why do logic and reason lead to agnosticism? Why doesn't logic and reason lead to God in a more irrefutable, objective way?

Premise 1: Humans minds are fallible in that their memories are imperfectly recalled and their senses only receive incomplete impressions of reality
Premise 2: A human cannot escape his own mind

Therefore: A human cannot know anything for certain.

What are your ideas about these two problems?

The ultimate question for an agnostic is "what is truth?" I know because I used to be one. Pontius Pilate also asked this question when he was staring Jesus Christ in the face. The evidence is staring you in the face; the creation itself. Just as a painting is evidence for a painter, a creation is evidence for a Creator.

No, we cannot know anything for certain, which is because our wisdom is fallible. Only God can reveal Himself to us, and make us certain of that knowledge. That is how you will know God exists, when He reveals Himself to you. He has already given you clues which are leading towards Him; now you need to be ready to surrender your life to the truth and allow God to take you the way He wants you to go. Are you willing to surrender your life to God if He reveals Himself to you?

 

[ebia]

There seem to be two sides of an unspoken issue emerging here.
Side 1: scientists don't claim to have an explanation for everything; science does assume that there is an explanation for everything to be found
Side 2: Christianity is not about a God of the Gaps, and shouldn't be chasing a gap to fit God into.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Those are not comparable. A thing is not explained by a dissimilar thing.

By whom? If this is true, then why do historians rely on written words and eye witness testimony?

I am not here to debate whether the explanations are true. I am merely pointing out that such explanations are possible, and even plausible.

Yes, I can. However, it's clear that your initial question was not sincere, but just a trap to bait us into a "you krischens iz so dumb" thread and, to be honest, at my age, I'm just not interested in playing that game.

Perhaps you can explain what was wrong with the premises in my argument in the OP. There is no need to assume I am playing games. If you can point out the flaws in the premises, then we can further our conversation.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

In my opinion, there are 2 big issues with theism:

1) Why did God set up a universe in which all effects can logically be attributed to a cause which does not involve him?

2) Why do logic and reason lead to agnosticism? Why doesn't logic and reason lead to God in a more irrefutable, objective way?

Premise 1: Humans minds are fallible in that their memories are imperfectly recalled and their senses only receive incomplete impressions of reality
Premise 2: A human cannot escape his own mind

Therefore: A human cannot know anything for certain.


What are your ideas about these two problems?

I do not see them as problems at all. You have yet to demonstrate one and two are true.