• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Where's God?

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by doubtingmerle, Jun 27, 2020.

  1. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +861
    Atheist
    Sure they don't. And nor do you need government recognition to know that you are a Christian. But if the government did refuse to recognise your religion and made it illegal, this would be an outrageous infringment on your rights. It's exactly the same here.

    There's an awful lot of things I believe in that I don't push the government on.

    Thank you for that admission that you can't prove anything you say. If you say "You can't prove anything either," then your meaning is that neither of us can prove what we say.

    Thank you for admitting that you can't prove the mind/spirit is not physical.
    Your evidence that the mind exists in a nonphysical form is not worth taking seriously. Personal identity through time? That isn't evidence of a nonphysical mind or spirit. Transgenderism being real? Thanks, I think, but how is saying that a person has a strong and consistent set of thoughts evidence for the existence of the spiritual? NDEs? People having dreams. So what?

    You're mixing up the burden of proof. I don't need evidence. You're the one who claims the spiritual exists. So you prove it. Or, if you can't prove it, provide evidence for it.

    In fact, there is. The laws of our society show that we have decided that such a right does exist. And now I am interested in uncovering your reasons for saying that this right should not be extended to gay people.
    I mean, I'm pretty sure I know that your reasons are purely religious. I'm just interested in helping you to see it.

    Hmmm.
    IA: I don't know why the universe started.
    Ed: Because God.
    IA: How do you know?
    Ed: Well, you just said you don't know. But I do.
    IA: Prove it.
    Ed: Well, you can't prove it wasn't God, so it must be.
    IA: And your evidence?
    Ed: I don't need any. It's just logic.

    "Former". Christians now, are they? I imagine they grew up in a Christian society?

    You might actually be close to grasping the truth here. We shall see.
    So, you can test your physical senses? Against the physical world, right? Your physical senses inform you that there is a wall in front of you, and you can reach out and touch it.
    So, how do you test that your moral sense is accurate?

    You're right. God may or may not be good.
    Since you have stated that it is God who says what is good and what is not, you have no way of knowing.
     
  2. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +861
    Atheist
    That's fine, if that's what we're discussing. But it's not. You're changing the subject. what we're discussing is, how can a Christian claim to have an objective moral foundation.
    Now, in your analogy above, of God as a computer programmer, we can certainly see whether or not the computer programs are able to complete the jobs assigned to them, and it's quite fair to say that God sets a standard against which they can be measured.

    However, the question we are asking is, "How do we know that what God says is good is in fact good?" And your analogy doesn't touch on that. Yes, the "Great Computer Programmer" can set a standard, but who is to say that the standard He sets is the right one?

    You might not notice this, but you just lost the argument.
    You have just shown that the foundation of morality is not what God says, but how we interact with the world around us. As you yourself said: actions which make your life more fulfilling and successful show that they are good for us. Therefore, there is no need for God to tell us what to do. Morality is something we can work out.
    That's an over-simplification, of course, but never the less, you've grasped the essence of it.

    Attempting to define your answer into existence is flawed logic. "It just is" is not a persuasive argument.

    Only in a dictatorship. Which we're not, despite Trump's best efforts.

    There's nothing arbitrary about it. It's a perfectly rational explanation to exclude the supernatural from science. The supernatural cannot be proven, cannot be demonstrated, and has no effect on the real world. Being open to the supernatural would be fatal to the scientific method. You would no longer be able to say, "My experiment proved this," because you would have to say "unless it was the little elves who did it, or God answered a prayer to make it happen, or a wizard cast a spell just as I performed the experiment."

    Again: Creationism has been in many, many battles, doggedly trying to lie its way into respectability. At each turn, it has been crushed. To say that you are a Creationist at this point is, quite simply, to concede defeat.
     
  3. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Exactly, basing goodness on feelings means it can mean anything. Thanks for making my point. Jeffrey Dahmer believed he was living a good life too because his understanding of good was based on feelings also.

    It depends on what whether the creator is good or not. If the creator is not good, then you should not do what He says.

    Ok, thanks for admitting that.

    Of course, but you have no objective basis for making that decision.

    Only if we were not eternal beings and our actions do not have eternal consequences.

    Actually most scholars believe that torment in fire is rabbinic hyperbole. Fire is a symbol of severe suffering not meant to be taken literally. But see above about why it is eternal.
     
  4. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +861
    Atheist
    You said to @doubtingmerle :
    But remember when I said:
    Okay. If we accept this to be true, how do you go about proving that the things that God says are good, actually are good? You keep avoiding this question. I don't blame you.
    And you answered:
    So you've sabotaged your own argument. According to you, we can tell what it is good. You take actions, and look at the results. You discover that your life is more fulfilling and successful than previously, and that shows that they are good for us.

    Well, exactly. And how do you tell if this "God" who you believe to be the creator is good? Since your definition of "good" is being in accordance with God's character, you're using circular reasoning. "How do we know God is good? Because He's God, and God is good by definition."

    In what sense do our actions have eternal consequences? And why should this lead to a person being punished forever?
    In human society, we consider lifelong punishment to be a very severe punishment indeed, fitting only for extreme crimes. If we were able to have such a thing as "eternal" punishment, that would surely be classed as cruel and unusual. Why do you think it is a suitable punishment? Steal an orange, don't repent of it, and go to hell for a million years? That simply doesn't make sense.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2021
  5. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Because it does not fit the scientific and theological evidence as well as OEC.

    Actually, the fossil record shows that it is more likely that God intervened usually at the Genus level when environmental conditions resulted in significant extinctions.

    It claims that life, language, and love came from the random motion of subatomic particles.

    That is just the process by which a person is produced but the ultimate cause has to be personal.

    Genetic entropy and not enough time to name two significant barriers to macroevolution.
     
  6. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Scholars have tried to fully explain the Trinity for close to 2000 years, but no one has been able to. This is actually evidence that the Christian God is not manmade, most man made religions can explain everything about their god.
     
  7. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    He would not have all those illnesses that the study refers to, that would certainly be better off dont you think? I am sure that alcoholics and pedophiles think that they are not being true to themselves either when they are not allowed to engage in their preferred behavior. But ultimately they are improving themselves by refrainng which should be the goal for all of us, right?
     
  8. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I will take that as an unable to refute.
     
  9. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Those are the two majority views of evolution. If you can name another popular view of evolution, I am all ears. Yes, God can be shown to probably exist by scientific means. See my post to interested atheist about the BB theory and the law of causality.

    Ants and bees do have a very simple form of intelligence similar to computers which is expected since they also are created by an intelligent being. But both the creator and humans are more than just an intelligence. A personal being also has emotions, and a moral conscience. Such things cannot be produced by the random motions of atoms.

    You are free to believe that random motions of atoms can produce things such as language, love and life, but it is more rational to believe that such things came from pre-existing forms of these things.

    Of course, if you can create the most complex things in the known universe, persons, you certainly can create much simpler things, like rocks and chemicals.

    Macroevolution is an unwarranted historical extrapolation. How do you make observations and measurements in the deep past?
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2021
  10. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +1,997
    Humanist
    Wrong. You are playing the game of, "whoever gets the last word in, wins". If we all played that game, the thread would go on forever.

    You have been refuted many times. You ignore what we write. Then you make the same claim over again.

    Rinse. Lather. Repeat. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. Rinse... Wait, no lather? Therefore victory!
     
  11. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +1,997
    Humanist
    Here is the evidence for evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent (talkorigins.org)

    That all fits evolution far better than old earth Creationism.

    And yet we see a whole series of horse family fossils from eohippus to the horse, zebra, and donkey. And the changes with time are exactly the type of thing one would expect to see if the process was directed by natural selection.

    Suppose God created a new creature from scratch at every genus. Horses and zebras popping into existence out of nothing violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy.

    Horses and zebras popping into existence out of nothing violate the laws of momentum. If the zebra God creates is stationary with respect to the center of the earth, while the surface of the earth is moving at 1000 mile per hour, that newly created zebra will go for a nasty tumble. Whoops! No more zebra. But if God creates a zebra out of nothing moving at 1000 miles an hour, that violates the law of conservation of angular momentum.

    Here is the list of the arguments you have given here to verify that life, language, and love cannot come from the motion of subatomic particles:

    1. Because I said so.​


    We have been through this before. Nobody has been here for all 4 million years of human evolution. Therefore, you declare it never happened. But, of course, some things happened (like human evolution) before you were born.


    Would you like us to explain to you one more time that entropy can decrease in an open system? Did you forget that already?

    And how do you know that 4.5 billion years is not enough time for evolution?
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2021
  12. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +861
    Atheist
    You're half right. It doesn't fit the theological evidence better, but it sure does fit the scientific evidence better.

    Begging the question fallacy. Your argument assumes that God exists.

    Yes? What's wrong with that?

    Does it?
    Why?

    And after all that time you spent on this thread telling us it was simple and you'd be happy to explain it to us?
    You're right, of course. Nobody has been able to make sense of the doctrine of the Trinity, because it doesn't make sense.

    I'd like to answer you, but it would be breaking forum rules to do so.
    I thought I ought to make you aware of that. We've mentioned it before, but you might not know that the rules could very well apply to an answer to this particular question.

    Perhaps we've just got bored with refuting you? We do it an awful lot, and you don't seem to get much benefit from it.

    Why?
     
  13. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +3,794
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    In the hearts of the people.
     
  14. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +7,297
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    If I told you I would have to put up with your studied indifference and contemptuous dismissal. Why would I want to go through that again?
     
  15. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    The definitions I am using is mostly 1a with some 2a and b thrown in. I am not denying that humans are fallible and inject some subjectivity into language, though its foundation is set in stone, ie the language of the triune God which only occurs between members of the Godhead but is the objective origin and foundation of our language.

    See above.

    Generally only societies that are founded on Christian principles value their dignity and actually have an rationally objective basis for doing so. Secular humanist societies at present still do up to a point (except the unborn) as a remnant from their Christian past. But we see that over time that erodes in such societies.

    Maybe, but it appears you are basing your view of humanity just on a majority vote.
     
  16. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +861
    Atheist
    Yeah?
    Prove it.
     
  17. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, I dont deny that humans cannot understand God's moral perfectly or perfectly objectively.

    Actually many evolutionists even today believe in a form of social Darwinism. Though of course, not the extreme point of the Nazis.

    This is true, which is my point, if there is no God then there is no such thing as real existing morality. Us being animals does mean something to many people. Often in debates about the morality of homosexuality, one of the first arguments in favor of it being moral is that other animals engage in homosexual behavior.

    Were you raised by Christian parents? I know you are not entirely produced by your environment but you are strongly influenced by it especially in the area of morality. My morality is not based on some divine command theory but rather the moral character of God.

    Of course, there are going to be similarities between societies worldwide given that all humans are created in the image of the Christian God and created with a moral conscience based on His character. Though Japan was a pretty horrible place until Douglas MacArthur gave them a Judeo-Christian Constitution. Though even today they are much more racist and sexist than most Western societies. And God revealed the concept of human equality to Moses 1000 years before Aristotle.

    Christians are commanded to influence society for good. ie being salt and light in the world and society. That is how they ended slavery in several nations, mistreatment of children and women, and many produced many of western societies best ideas and practices, such as human equality, true justice, ending infanticide and abortion. And of course, humanitarian institutions like orphanages and hospitals and even modern universities. If you consider these things theocratic then your version of secularism may be antithetical to Christianity.
     
  18. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +861
    Atheist
    This means you cannot say if God is good or not. The things you can't understand about God's morality could be explained simply by His being an evil God, and you have no way of showing that He is not.

    To quote Richard Dawkins:
    "I was mortified to read in the Guardian (‘Animal Instincts’, 27 May 2006) that The Selfish Gene is the favourite book of Jeff Skilling, CEO of the infamous Enron Corporation, and that he derived inspiration of a Social Darwinist character from it. The Guardian journalist Richard Conniff gives a good explanation of the misunderstanding: Animal instincts. I have tried to forestall similar misunderstandings in my new preface to the thirtieth-anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene, just brought out by Oxford University Press."
    Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (p. 267).

    At this point in the thread, after a full and thorough exploration of your arguments, we've established that in fact the opposite is true. If there is a God such as the one you describe, then there is no such thing as real, existing morality. This has been quite clearly demonstrated by your inability to show that Christian morality can be founded on God's character, and your complete inability to refute Euthyphro's Dilemma.

    In the debates I've read, that point is usually made when the anti-homosexualist claims that homosexuality is unnatural, not immoral.

    In your case, going by what you have said in this thread, they're the same thing.

    Heard the news? A gang of white hooligans bearing Confederate flags just invaded the seat of American government. The President-for-five-more-days is supported by the Ku Klux Klan and, in a rally where there were Neo-Nazis chanting "Jews shall not replace us," he said there were very fine people on both sides.

    You mean Moses who ordered wholesale genocide?

    “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”

    Slavery in the USA was directly based on the Bible.
    And by the way, what exactly is wrong with abortion?
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  19. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Yes, but if there is no God then there is no objective basis for morality and it doesnt really exist, it is just personal preference. And since humans generally live according to what they think is objectively real, not having an objective basis for morality is a slippery slope toward tyranny and moral degradation. This can be seen in societies like the Aztecs, Germany, France, the Soviet Union and others.

    Of course, I am not denying that. All humans are created in the image of the Christian God with a moral conscience, so all humans are interested in morality and in the more successful societies their morality is more similar to God's moral law.

    Evidence?

    Who said to go back to the Greeks and Babylonians? We need to go back to the moral laws of the universe just like if we ignore the physical laws of the universe we get into trouble so also ignoring the moral laws of the universe we get in trouble. The creator created these laws for our good and flourishing.

    Christianity has actually raised women not degraded them (unlike humanism that allows the killing of unborn women), does not allow involuntary slavery as I demonstrated earlier and encourages us to obey the moral laws of the universe which allows us the greater freedom to flourish. Humanism pushes for more powerful governments and more rules and regulations which restricts human freedom and flourishing.

    Most of those things are the result of the corrupt leadership of the Roman Catholic Church whom ignored the actual teachings of Christ and His word and restricted access to His word which kept the people ignorant of what God expected of them morally. But then when the Reformation occurred and His word became more widespread and taught to the people things slowly began to improve.

    Not orthodox biblical Christians, as I demonstrated earlier most churches in Germany had long before rejected orthodoxy and incorporated the heresy of theological liberalism.

    Actually Western secular humanism was an offshoot of Christianity and has borrowed Christian morality ever since but it is a hollowed out morality with no objective basis and therefore has been deteriorating ever since it began as we see its capitulation to the cheapening of human life and restriction of human freedoms like religious practice and free speech.

    Yes, but even the enlightenment is an offshoot of Christianity but it too is hollowed out with its rejection of the true God and has deteriorated over time similar to humanism as I stated above. And has now devolved into Post Modernism which rejects the existence of objective truth.
     
  20. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +159
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Evidence it is not truly random? Well if you dont think that the environment is random, then if you go back further to the origin of the universe, it is definitely random. Most atheists believe the universe is the result of random motions of subatomic particles.

    No it is more than common sense, we know that throughout all of human experience morals only come from moral beings. There is no empirical evidence that it can come from ultimately random amoral processes.

    No, but even if it is emergent from chemicals it is still bound by the laws of physics regarding chemicals which means that thoughts are determined by the ratio of chemicals in your brain and not on the weighing of evidence or logic. Thereby making your argument self refuting. In addition, if transgenderism is real, it basically refutes a materialistic view of the mind.

    You are missing my point. Of course, you can subjectively decide you dont like his conclusions but you dont have a real objective base for condemning them. Should justice be decided on emotion?

    I can demonstrate it, most of the best characteristics of Western civilization come from Christian principles and the moral law of the Christian God.

    Huh? No, that is what makes it perfect because it CAN take variation into account. A standard that did not take such things into account would certainly not be perfect.

    The law is contained in the Law-Word of God called the Bible.

    No, see above if it was not context sensitive then it would not be perfect. A universal law applies to all situations and takes those situations into consideration without any changes on our part.

    No, there are certain moral principles that are somewhat open ended and where we use our God given moral conscience to work thru those principles and apply them to the specific situation. And then there are laws that are so obvious that they demand obedience without the need for much thinking but certainly not above thinking.

    Evidence that other species think about morality?

    I can demonstrate that the Christian God most likely does exist. See my post to interested atheist where I do so using the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
Loading...