Why do you believe God exists and why?

[Reasonable Christian]

All I see in this @JK6661 are series of generally unsupported statements with no meaningful connection between them. If this is the best that you can come up with then I'm less convinced than I was before I started reading it.

What you see is a series of reasons why I believe the cause of the universe is God. If you decline to engage with/dispute my reasoning by making affirmative statements of your own, then I guess we have nothing to discuss.

 

[childeye 2]

How do you get from the universe has a cause to a god as that cause?

We don't. The term we use is God, not 'a' god, which then differentiates the power that brought everything into existence the one universe, from a superstition.

 

[childeye 2]

All I see in this @JK6661 are series of generally unsupported statements with no meaningful connection between them. If this is the best that you can come up with then I'm less convinced than I was before I started reading it.

It's simple. Something is not nothing. 1 is not 0.

 

[Ophiolite]

What you see is a series of reasons why I believe the cause of the universe is God. If you decline to engage with/dispute my reasoning by making affirmative statements of your own, then I guess we have nothing to discuss.

You have offered statements. I declare they are unsupported. You could provide support.

You assert a connection between the statements. I dispute that there is any meaningful connection. You could demonstrate the connection.

Thus, there is plenty to discuss, but the onus is on you to respond.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's simple. Something is not nothing. 1 is not 0.

That is even less enlightening than the text I have provisionally dismissed. This section of the forum provides an opportunity for Christians to offer arguments for their religion. You and jk6661 are not doing an inspiring job of that so far. I'm ready to entertain logical and evidence based arguments. I haven't seen in any yet. I wait with interest.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I want you to know that I truly believe that God has me up all night writing this post especially for you.

Ok, why do you believe this? I do appreciate the thought out response.

Without knowing the details of every case that could be presented for the cause of division, I think this is mostly a semantical argument. Temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with eternal things and spiritual matters, so metaphors are often used. According to scripture the Word of God is the energy that God created with, and Jesus the man, is the same Word of God only now made flesh John 1. Not claiming to speak for anyone, but I think some feel there is a distinction to be made between the spoken Word that created and the Speaker Who spoke the Word, while others feel that the Word spoken still represents in Person the One Who spoke it.

The key point is that the term Truth means something that exists for every person on some level of cognizance, which we learn of, and that we don't make up, and that this is self evident even because it's synonymous with the reality we experience. What is True is always reasonable being that it is self evident, and subsequently it will not contradict it's self, which is why only what is true fits in the puzzle of the bigger picture, which is why when we reason upon what is not true it ends in a contradiction in our psycholinguistics.

Not all truth is self evident. How the universe came into existence or what atoms are made of are not self evident. Or do y9ou mean something different. I do agree that all truth will not contradict each other.

Truth is knowable.

All truth? I don't think so. We cannot know if Solipsism is true or not, we cannot know if god does not exist, we cannot know what happened before the expansion of the universe for example.

Look at these dichotomies and look at the similarities in their positive and negative aspects: True/false, trustworthy/untrustworthy, right/wrong, reality/unreality, knowledge/ignorance, light/darkness, sight/blindness, reasonable/unreasonable, merciful/merciless, Selfless/selfish, kindness/cruelty, faithful/unfaithful, empathy/malevolence.

These are all substantive matters that are a part of the reality we experience. If I don't see them as particles it doesn't mean they don't exist as a part of reality in some other form of energy.

Making a claim that right/wrong exist as energy needs to be substantiated by good evidence. They exist as ideas, do you mean the energy we use to think?

I say this because if we limit ourselves to only believing in what we can see or 'physically visible' as constituting reality, we're changing the term Truth to a subjective view of truth. In other words it's only an opinion that Truth is something only true when we see it. What is thought for example and where does it come from (a rhetorical). We don't think to think to introduce most of the thoughts we think. We're processing things we didn't decide to process most of the time.

I don't believe things that are only "physically visible". I believe things when I am convinced by good evidence based on my standard of evidence. Do you believe there is a True moral action in every situation? I don't. Everything is not ultimately True or False cosmically.

Look at the dichotomies again and see that the battle between the two are happening in the mind. It's important to note that all the negatives usurp from the positives just as a lie exists only to subvert a Truth. All the negatives are corruptive in some aspect with the exception of some nuances of ignorance.

Not sure what this means.

So what about this dichotomy of eternal/temporal? Is it a true dichotomy? What I mean, is that we can safely reason with certainty that truth/reality precedes us in existence and also safely presume it exists after we're gone. But while we know that some truths are not forever and temporal, such as preferences or the hairs on my head, we can't know that any Truth is 'Eternal'. It's just not possible to prove something as eternal by definition. Let that sink in as apart of our reality and as being true and reasonable. We can surmise that there are constants of Truth that our ancestors have learned and that our great great great grandchildren will learn these same truths, but we will never prove what is Eternal as being eternal by definition of the term.

Then why do you try to show what is eternal below:

One thing is certain, if there is a Truth Eternal that can be seen in the glimpse that is our temporal experience, then it would be seen in the things that are most important in Life and enduring and are usurped from as in the dichotomies above.

How do you know this?

Empathy is of the highest value in mankind I can think of.

Just because it it the highest value you can think of does not make it so. This is a subjective assessment. Also, I don't believe there are any truths that will be true forever.

But regardless of whether or not God is a person, this is why the term 'Eternal' is an identifier for the term 'God' in the abstract of the eternal question of what is 'Truth'. And this is why the only true meaning for the term God has to be the axiomatic power perceived in "There is a Power that brought everything into existence".

This is just an assertion at this point. The meaning for the term God is whatever people believe to be true about that god. People have believed in gods that did not create everything.

Now we can reason that there is a reality bigger than we know and the psycholinguistics reveal ignorance and knowledge of it only because it happened according to the course of the energy that created all things.

No, everything you have stated so far has not been substantiated by good evidence to be true. Until then, this conclusion is subjective.

And we are a part of that reality created with an intelligence capable of knowing it's own self, and humanity is joined in knowing one another through empathy, which is why righteousness is by grace through faith that all are faithful through empathy. The first immoral lie would have to subvert the faith that holds humanity together as one, for there to be corruption and division in humanity. The first immoral lie would seek to subvert faith in the empathy we witness between us.

More assertion.

Respectfully I feel that you thought I made a claim that I never actually made.
Post #59: 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.


It probably wouldn't work for a sadist. The moral truth above is relative as in degrees of what must be perceived as goodness when reasoning. When examining what is fairness one would be judging themselves according to how they judge others. The defiled conscience projects it's own wickedness on to others, while the pure of heart projects the same purity onto others.

Agree.

As I said, no one can prove something is eternal by definition. It's only through ignorance of this, that one can ask to prove God exists by displaying some substantive physical trail of particles or energy in time and space, which still wouldn't prove anything is eternal.

Then I will remain with "I don't know' as my stance. We should not believe anything until we have good evidence to believe it to be true.

Moreover 'to know' has more than one meaning. To know God in Christianity is to know His Person. Wherefore a Christian like myself who can see the futility of trying to prove God exists Eternal using the corrupt image of a thing, also understands the why and how it is by faith and not superstition, that we comprehend/perceive Him, and 'Who' He is, in what is the good we know to be true within us. God has made it so that only those who perceive the good as God can see the act of love displayed by the Christ on the cross and believe/trust in him. It's the Word of God inside us (Rhema) from the beginning of the creation that recognizes the Christ as the Word of God made flesh (Logos). We are the part of creation that is self aware for this purpose, to know God and worship Him as God.

In the end you are saying that you cannot give good reasons to believe God exists but you do anyway for other reasons. If God exists, he should be able to show me he exists even if he is eternal.

I know what you meant by the statement. It still ends in a contradiction wherefore it's not reasonable and can't be true in it's supposition. God is eternal which can't be proven and He is Spirit which must be known personally as empathy, bigfoot isn't.

God's eternal nature may not be able to be demonstrated but his existence should be able to be demonstrated.

I hope you can somehow come to realize that if you only trust what you can see with carnal eyes, then you're stuck in a bubble that prevents you from knowing God. If you refuse to believe in Spirit and not define it, then you can't discern spiritual things.

Stop here. I am not refusing to believe anything. I cannot believe anything which I am not convinced by evidence. Where is the evidence for Spirit or spiritual things? You claim you have no evidence yet you believe in them.

If you can see empathy moving people, and see that love sacrifices itself for others, then you're looking right at spiritual energy and don't even know it.

I don't know it because I have not seen any good evidence that spiritual energy exists.

If you reduce it to a chemical process in the brain, then you can reduce it to energy and just keep moving the goal posts for eternity because you don't know God personally inside your own self.

Know thyself. You can't know who you are if you don't know God's Word inside you.

This is getting a little silly. I can know myself, I know myself better than anyone on this planet. You need to start providing evidence for your claims. What is the evidence that Gods word exists?

The battle is in the mind and it's happening in our heads. Here is an assertion: There's an enemy in Satan that speaks in our thoughts and lies to us so that we can't see/believe in God or think that we do when we actually don't. I challenge you to prove that there are no lies floating in your mind and that you'll not need to know God to see them. Deception is so simple when Satan can change a definition of one single term so that we think it means something that it doesn't mean at all. Faith is not superstition, it's how we know God personally as what is good in us.

Ok.

The only assertion I made is that God is Spirit according to scripture, and I gave evidence of that.

Where is this evidence?

If you once truly believed that this is a great Love seen in the lamb that suffered the cross, who do you think talked you out of believing that, by convincing you that we have to see a trail of particles to the eternal for that Love to exist as God?

I never said I need a train of particles. You said that about me. I need good evidence to believe a claim.

What matters is that such a Love exists and that it precedes us, and will exist after we can't see it, and that it's of the highest value as mankind's goodness which joins humanity in one.

Great, provide evidence for this please.

I feel you are being unreasonable until you can admit that proving or testing the Eternal is impossible and that this is self evident and true.

I can agree that "proving" something is eternal may not be possible. However, that doe snot mean whatever is eternal cannot be "proved' to exist.

Then you would admit that God would have to show it's self and a thing can't do that. In other words it's perfectly reasonable that only those who valued God in regarding the good inside themselves as God, and not regard Him as a thing, should be permitted to truly believe in God's son. It's perfectly reasonable that only those who would want to see 'Who' God Is, should get to see 'God'.

I want to see who god is. I want to know what is true and not true. The fact remains if god exists he has the ability to show me he exists.

 

[childeye 2]

Your beliefs about anything in scripture don't reflect anything about reality merely because you hold them: you need to substantiate them.

Yes of course.

Jesus' existence in history is not the claim I'm remotely debating, so maybe read my post a bit more carefully before spouting more nonsense

And yet Jesus substantiates scripture in his role as the Messiah.

You not intending it doesn't mean you didn't do it regardless.

Yes it does. I wasn't referring to you personally when I said "someone", but it's understandable how you could have taken it that way, because you said this in post #62: I never said being a Christian didn't mean you don't believe in God as Creator and such, that's a patent strawman.

I felt we were in agreement and had no reason to imply that you were that "someone" in post #60 because you had said this in post #58: Of course the scripture founded on the idea of God revealing it would have God as a presuppositional axiom...

And no, the source of the wind is not the same as God as a "source" because one can be investigated and demonstrated independently of scripture, whereas by your own admission, God only exists as a concept because of scripture.

I didn't say that God exists as a concept because of scripture, I said it's defined in scripture as meaning the Creator as in wind means air blowing. That's a Huge difference. And God by definition as the 'source' is being investigated on some level independently of scripture even when we investigate the source of the energy of anything which is included in everything.

God as monotheistic is not any more compelling than god as part of a pantheon, the point remains that you haven't shown that this is somehow objective, when God has to be conceived of by a human mind and thus isn't an objective mind independent thing like rocks, trees, etc

This is the only universe we know of in whatever ability we have to know it, so monotheism is a constant in that regard. That's self evident to me.

Except you're assuming that initial power with no evidence beyond appealing to a book that already assumes it. Do you not understand circular logic as a fallacy? Because that's what you're doing

I understand that's how you see it, but you're mistaken. Yours is the circular logic in that you assume I appeal to scripture rather than verify the reality of the Spirit of Christ through personal observations.

Having intellect does not mean that the conclusions reached must all be true, that's pure relativism

That says nothing to negate the fact that I'm here and have an intellect.

He cannot speak about God revealing without a CONCEPT of God to begin with, you're putting the cart before the horse and trying to avoid the contingency of God as a concept from human minds

This is why the term God is an axiom. Otherwise I could not consider that it's a circular reasoning that is the cause of your concept that you conceived wherein it's Isaiah's concept that he conceived.

Then you genuinely may have an issue, because that can just as easily be understood as schizophrenic positive symptoms of auditory hallucinations. I have no reason to say you are lying, but I can assert with reasonable confidence you are likely mistaken, if not possibly bordering on schizophrenia

The point remains that you're admitting that all this stuff about God emerges in your brain, not from outside of it in a way you perceive, but that it's your brain working in different ways. How is that supporting anything besides that God is a product of your brain?

There were witnesses.

Except pretty sure the Genesis story suggests it was merely not being obedient to God, nothing about empathy, just being stupid enough to believe a talking snake and eating a fruit

Realizing that your using scripture to verify reality and that temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with eternal things, the issue whether taken as a metaphor or not, was about sowing distrust in a station of innocence, and thereby undermining the faith that God loved us as Himself.

And where is your evidence that empathy must require your god at all except by self referential question begging of God as empathy? Seriously, the mental gymnastics you're doing is astonishing

Realizing that temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with the Eternal, Empathy precedes in existence and will proceed after I am gone which is my faith. Empathy is experienced as the goodness in mankind that joins all people in one faith. The fact that Love is worth living for and dying for which gives life meaning that we should walk in it, is evidence of a purpose for our existence which would coincide with God's purpose of knowing Him and being worshipped in Spirit in relation to that experience.

They realize the idea in terms of conceiving of it, the idea doesn't have substance itself, like things we call rocks, trees, etc, that could exist apart from humans ever existing.

They can be experienced and not be something in themselves, you're confusing a descriptive and normative understanding of morality's ontology. One is describing something mind independent in that quality, the other is describing a quality that is assessed by facts that would be the case regardless of observations by others: someone feeling pain and suffering inflicted by another needlessly is evil because that suffering is not something that is good for the person.

Experiencing something does not mean the thing has a mind independent existence, you're making a leap in logic there, especially with an abstract concept like good and evil, versus concrete things

Thank you for taking the time to explain your meaning. If I am understanding you correctly, I can safely agree with what you're saying in sentiment regardless of whether I agree with your terms. The term idea is faulty since empathy is not an idea. And subsequently I can point out that when I read Isaiah saying God creates good and evil I don't see that as in contradiction of your sentiments above. Nor does it conflict with good and evil being a knowledge that is realized by definition. Nor does it change the fact that a lie must usurp from the Truth even as distrust usurps from trust.

Except there cannot necessarily be an absolute absence of light, that metaphor falls apart with consideration of the science regarding that.

If we consider where the term Eternal must apply it would not apply to darkness, which is evidence of God.

Empathy can restrain evil, but acting like there is a substance for evil or that evil exists in itself rather than being an assessment we make of actions

I don't believe evil is even reasonable because of empathy, hence I can comprehend that distrust could be sown by a lie and evil can be justified in action to the deceived.

There is logical inconsistency in appealing to this thing without arguments for why it is the case, but merely asserting it is an axiom based on a book that already assumes this thing to be the case, which is, again, circular logic

Let's stop returning to this strawman. I demonstrated why it's an axiom by examining the implications of not believing in it as good, not by using scripture.

No, it isn't as black and white as you want to think, that's more signs of mental instability when you engage in split thinking. Humility is not the same as self deprecation, humility is admitting your flaws, not making up flaws where there may be none

And let's not dismiss enlightenment through resorting to ad hominem attacks. Since humility is admitting you're wrong just admit you were wrong about this.

That changes nothing in regards to your seeming idea that the good must be defined in terms of pleasure or other feelings

I just said the good things in life to draw a distinction between bad things in life. No reason to read more into it than that.

That's not empathy, that's optimism: empathy is the understanding of others as like yourself and that sense of their feelings and experiences being similar but distinct. You're expanding one concept far beyond what would be reasonable to try to reduce everything to that, instead of considering that it may be more complicated

While Hope can be seen as optimistic one cannot be optimistic that empathy will fail.

I didn't say people invented goodness, goodness is a descriptive quality, it's something utilized for understanding our actions. We cannot speak of goodness as a mind independent property, because goodness requires a mind to understand it at all, that's the fundamental misunderstanding you make

I don't know where you got the idea that I don't consider goodness to be a descriptive term for empathy. And I don't know how you can presume that I don't realize that it requires a mind to understand anything. I didn't say you said people invented goodness, I said that I don't need scripture to realize that there is a such thing as goodness which I didn't invent. This obviously means my mind didn't make it up.

No, that's more argument from ignorance that suggests something must be so because you personally cannot imagine otherwise

It's not even imaginary to begin with, empathy is real.

I didn't claim God doesn't exist, so you're talking to the wrong person anyway. That's still a blatant argument from ignorance: people's consensus in itself is not evidence of the truth of their claims, that's an argument from popularity as well. I also never said it was impossible, I only said that appealing to the popularity or commonality is not good reasoning if your conclusion was true

If refuse to admit that God means the power that brings me into existence as an axiom in scripture that's arguing out of ignorance too. There's nothing wrong with appealing to others who speak of God before I was even born to understand what the term meant to them.

But you failed to consider that merely being convincing is not indicative that the position you hold is correct: rhetoric is not more important than logic

We've been through this before. I said that the empathy we see and feel is perceived as of the highest value in mankind without any contestation coming from you. But you err if you think there was no counter narrative to deal with to come to that conclusion.

Humility cannot possibly be pride except when it's a pretense of humility. Genuine humility is antithetical to pride and my admitting I could be wrong is not arrogant, you trying to essentially deflect any responsibility from your argument and make it about my claims, which is dishonest

I've taken full responsibility for my argument. Resorting to an ad hominem would be crossing the line where critical thinking turns into cynicism. For example, the proposition that it's arrogant to assume that the power that brought all things into existence including myself is not a Person but beneath me as a thing is a pretense of humility only made clear by following the implications of believing otherwise.

They can believe all they want, that doesn't make it true, you're going based on mere credulity again

Since it could be true as you say, it's not credulity to not want to count them as liars.
In our psycholinguistics the bad usurps from the good, not the other way around.

Except perfection entails completion and thus no progress, which is a whole other issue (see my signature for thoughts on perfection)

No, you cannot necessarily be beyond reproach of all people, that's like expecting you can satisfy and please everyone

Temporal terms are not well equipped to articulate eternal things. What does progress and perfection even mean if perfection is a concept of something corruptible (a rhetorical). So yes I believe that there is an attitude attainable where everyone is satisfied and pleased and at peace in doing so.

I don't take your experiences as truth, only that you believe them. That isn't substantive, that's pure subjectivism without any consideration and humility that you could be wrong. Do you really not think that your "hearing" God could be your own deluding of yourself in an emotionally vulnerable state?

I'm referring to events where there are self evident factors such as other witnesses to the event. Otherwise, yes of course I can wonder if I'm deluding myself and it has nothing to do with humility.

Not sure where you'd get the idea I've been abused, but I'm not obligated to tell you that anyway because I don't see the relevance

Well you projected a knowledge of abuse out of somewhere, and moreover you could have just typed 'No' in the definitive rather than type I'm not obligated to tell you that anyway because I don't see the relevance.

It isn't a contradiction to value empathy, but acknowledge that it must be in moderation or it is misusing the value the virtue possesses. Empathy in deficit is arrogance and aggression, empathy in excess is being submissive and passive.

I think I can understand where you're coming from, but I would need to evaluate an actual situation, to sort out the nuances of where your terms makes sense and where they don't. You need to consider that I reason that I'm carrying a cross that is about forgiving people their trespasses because we all start out in a blindness which requires mercy and understanding. I would assume you're referring to when mercy is not logical as being what you mean by empathy in excess, however I would not articulate it that way in thought or spoken words.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

William Crag on reasonablefaith.org addresses this question well, so I will quote him:

"The cause of the universe must be itself uncaused because an infinite series of causes is impossible.

What is your evidence for this claim? You believe God has existed eternally right? That is just as much impossible as an infinite causes.

It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.
Finally, the Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe. This is because if a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

The answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator."

This is mere assertion. Just because WLC cannot think of another reason for the universe to exist doe snot mean that His reason is true. There is no way to know what caused the universe to exist since there may be a cause that we cannot think of that is the answer.

Me again. In metaphysical discussions, we must remember that there's no such thing as absolute proof (anyone who demands it doesn't know what they're talking about.) All we can do is say that X is logically more probable than not. Based on the argument above and my previous comments, I think it is logically more probable than not that (1) the universe had a cause; and (2) that cause is God as described in the Bible.

We should not believe something because it is most probable. We should believe something is true when it has good evidence to be believed as true. I agree we cannot know anything with 100% certainty. But we can believe things with high levels of certainty. I believe the universe had a cause, I do not think we have the ability to believe what that cause is. So I remain at I don't know as my answer.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

We don't. The term we use is God, not 'a' god, which then differentiates the power that brought everything into existence the one universe, and not a superstition.

So you call whatever brought the universe into existence God? How is this useful? It is just a name game.

 

[childeye 2]

So you call whatever brought the universe into existence God? How is this useful? It is just a name game.

No, we call 'Who' brought this universe into existence God. It's useful so we know Who we're talking about when someone asks why do you believe God exists. No it's not a Name game except to the devil.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, we call 'Who' brought this universe into existence God. It's useful so we know Who we're talking about when someone asks why do you believe God exists. No it's not a Name game except to the devil.

You said it was the energy that created the universe. So now it is a who. Ok, both need to be demonstrated to be true.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

You have offered statements. I declare they are unsupported. You could provide support.

You assert a connection between the statements. I dispute that there is any meaningful connection. You could demonstrate the connection.

Thus, there is plenty to discuss, but the onus is on you to respond.

I'll try this one more time, and then we're done. Which statement(s) (which are supported -- read what I wrote again) do you disagree with and why?

 

[Reasonable Christian]

What is your evidence for this claim? You believe God has existed eternally right? That is just as much impossible as an infinite causes.

For a discussion of some of the problems with infinite regresses, see The Logic of the Infinite Regress | Steve Patterson. You may still disagree, but these are my reasons and I stand by them.

There is no way to know what caused the universe to exist since there may be a cause that we cannot think of that is the answer.

This statement is also a mere assertion. Do you have a scientific or philosophical argument to back it up, other than appealing to mere speculation?

We should not believe something because it is most probable. We should believe something is true when it has good evidence to be believed as true. I agree we cannot know anything with 100% certainty. But we can believe things with high levels of certainty. I believe the universe had a cause, I do not think we have the ability to believe what that cause is. So I remain at I don't know as my answer.

If something is more likely than not, I choose to believe it, at least to the extent of saying it's more likely than not. You can always establish an unreachable threshold of "good enough" evidence (a favorite technique of atheists and agnostics on the internet). I'm not going to play that game with you.

 

[muichimotsu]

And yet Jesus substantiates scripture in his role as the Messiah.

Might want to check with the Jews on that, they vehemently disagree on that in terms of the supposedly "fulfillments". Again, confirmation bias, recognize you have it

Yes it does. I wasn't referring to you personally when I said "someone", but it's understandable how you could have taken it that way, because you said this in post #62: I never said being a Christian didn't mean you don't believe in God as Creator and such, that's a patent strawman.

I felt we were in agreement and had no reason to imply that you were that "someone" in post #60 because you had said this in post #58: Of course the scripture founded on the idea of God revealing it would have God as a presuppositional axiom...

Pretty sure I didn't claim you were referring to me when you said someone, I didn't take it personally. The problem is the broad nature of your statement and insinuating it must apply to everyone somehow even implicitly

Do you...not understand the circular logic you're invoking to quote the bible to prove your claims about the God it believes in? It's baffling and frankly a bit sad

I didn't say that God exists as a concept because of scripture, I said it's defined in scripture as meaning the Creator as in wind means air blowing. That's a Huge difference. And God by definition as the 'source' is being investigated on some level independently of scripture even when we investigate the source of the energy of anything which is included in everything.

Still circular and no there isn't a difference, you're taking the scripture as authoritative without substantiating it, so it's still appealing to the claim as evidence

That's not the same thing, you're stretching the metaphor beyond reason

This is the only universe we know of in whatever ability we have to know it, so monotheism is a constant in that regard. That's self evident to me.

No it really isn't, polytheism, animism, etc, predate monotheism by likely millennia, so try again. It's like you don't care when the facts disagree with you. People explaining the universe don't require monotheism necessarily, that's your false assertion that entirely ignores religious history otherwise

I understand that's how you see it, but you're mistaken. Yours is the circular logic in that you assume I appeal to scripture rather than verify the reality of the Spirit of Christ through personal observations.

Your personal observations are even less reliable than the scripture you claim you're not appealing to, even though that's the basis for your taking revelation as evidence. Seriously, it's like you keep thinking you have some enlightened perspective when you're just suffering from major Dunning Kruger syndrome

That says nothing to negate the fact that I'm here and have an intellect.

Your intellect can be misused, I never claimed you didn't have an intellect, don't strawman while accusing me of the same thing

This is why the term God is an axiom. Otherwise I could not consider that it's a circular reasoning that is the cause of your concept that you conceived wherein it's Isaiah's concept that he conceived.

No, it isn't, because God doesn't have one meaning, which would be a requirement in it functioning as an axiom. Not just a concept that can be applied in terms of Deism, pantheism, monotheism, and transtheism, among others, even if we exclude polytheism, ditheism, etc.

There were witnesses.

Witnesses are not infallible, that's another ridiculous assertion that has no basis beyond you appealing to other people agreeing with your nonsense

Realizing that your using scripture to verify reality and that temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with eternal things, the issue whether taken as a metaphor or not, was about sowing distrust in a station of innocence, and thereby undermining the faith that God loved us as Himself.

So you just conveniently define some things as metaphorical while other things are likely literal? Or is everything then metaphorical, in which case, why can't your God also be a metaphor?

Realizing that temporal terms are not well equipped to deal with the Eternal, Empathy precedes in existence and will proceed after I am gone which is my faith. Empathy is experienced as the goodness in mankind that joins all people in one faith. The fact that Love is worth living for and dying for which gives life meaning that we should walk in it, is evidence of a purpose for our existence which would coincide with God's purpose of knowing Him and being worshipped in Spirit in relation to that experience.

Empathy necessarily requires a mind to experience it, it cannot exist in itself anymore than numbers, morality, etc

I don't share a faith, I don't HAVE a faith, so you're already on the wrong foot

More weaseling in of things that aren't self evident: love can make people insane, that's as much a fact as it making people willing to sacrifice for the sake of others. And you're engaging in post hoc rationalization no less to fit the idea of empathy with the scripture you still haven't defended as rational in itself versus your belief about it

Thank you for taking the time to explain your meaning. If I am understanding you correctly, I can safely agree with what you're saying in sentiment regardless of whether I agree with your terms. The term idea is faulty since empathy is not an idea. And subsequently I can point out that when I read Isaiah saying God creates good and evil I don't see that as in contradiction of your sentiments above. Nor does it conflict with good and evil being a knowledge that is realized by definition. Nor does it change the fact that a lie must usurp from the Truth even as distrust usurps from trust.

Except it definitively is an idea, like with anything, but the reality being experiential doesn't mean it is purely subjective

Where is good and evil defined in that way outside of your reading of scripture? Definitions are usage, they aren't set in stone

You don't appear to even understand what an idea is in the ontological sense, let alone the epistemological sense. An idea is the initial conceptualization of something, it isn't its substance in itself, like how we have the idea of a tree, but there are actually trees that exist regardless of our thinking about them and exist independently.

Empathy is a human concept, even if we can potentially observe it in animals to a degree that aren't human. The fact that it emerges from human thought does not undermine its value because we can see the impact it has and observe it has consistency in aiding human cooperation, etc

If we consider where the term Eternal must apply it would not apply to darkness, which is evidence of God.

Why must eternal apply only to light when darkness necessarily ties into light? You cannot logically separate them unless you try to claim darkness is a substance in itself, which is not really what anyone tends to claim, in my understanding

And no, this is more circular logic you're applying to tie back to God, which is confirmation bias as well. Do your research, I don't think I need to keep talking if you're not even willing to consider you might be wrong and continue to appeal to the one thing you find "comforting"

I don't believe evil is even reasonable because of empathy, hence I can comprehend that distrust could be sown by a lie and evil can be justified in action to the deceived.

Where did I claim evil was reasonable? It is something intelligible, that doesn't make it reasonable. You're really just trying to apply agency to these things which is superstitious twaddle with no basis to it. Am I just an agent of the devil to you now?

Let's stop returning to this strawman. I demonstrated why it's an axiom by examining the implications of not believing in it as good, not by using scripture.

You haven't shown that people believe in empathy because of scripture, you're trying to use your scripture to suggest that because it affirms something you think is axiomatic, that's correlation, not causation. Buddhism's writings affirm empathy and they predate the NT. And unless you're going to give credit to the Jews, you cannot claim that Christianity originates the idea of empathy if you're appealing to scripture, because most of that is not Christian, it's Jewish in its origin and usage historically

And let's not dismiss enlightenment through resorting to ad hominem attacks. Since humility is admitting you're wrong just admit you were wrong about this.

I wasn't wrong, you're selectively defining things and ignoring the fallacious reasoning you utilize to conclude God is an axiom by also fallaciously conflating it with empathy. You seem to think you can outthink me, but you're outthinking yourself with this nonsensical mental gymnastics to say that you aren't appealing to Scripture, but you clealry are in a post hoc fashion of saying empathy is axiomatic and thus scripture somehow justifies that even though it came AFTER empathy would've already been in human concepts. Or do you think empathy only came into being because of your scriptures?

I just said the good things in life to draw a distinction between bad things in life. No reason to read more into it than that.

We don't need your scripture to understand that, you can't appeal to it at all if the idea is that your god is self evident and doesn't need scripture in the slightest. Where's the natural theology here?

While Hope can be seen as optimistic one cannot be optimistic that empathy will fail.

More strawmanning: never claimed anything like that in regards to empathy failing, so try again

I don't know where you got the idea that I don't consider goodness to be a descriptive term for empathy. And I don't know how you can presume that I don't realize that it requires a mind to understand anything. I didn't say you said people invented goodness, I said that I don't need scripture to realize that there is a such thing as goodness which I didn't invent. This obviously means my mind didn't make it up.

Except your mind conceived of it, that's not the same as you making up whole cloth, which is not what I claimed. And if you don't need scripture, why appeal to it in any way, shape or form except to assume you've "proven" Christianity in particular true about their conception of God?

It's not even imaginary to begin with, empathy is real.

I didn't claim it was imaginary: you don't appear to understand my use of English words, which is baffling in terms of how much you've invested into this discussion. Empathy is real and I don't need your perspective that seems to suggest it's some independent substance to conclude that it is real and important.

If refuse to admit that God means the power that brings me into existence as an axiom in scripture that's arguing out of ignorance too. There's nothing wrong with appealing to others who speak of God before I was even born to understand what the term meant to them.

That's a false dichotomy and compounding with an argument from popularity: the amount of people who believe something does nothing for its credence. And I never said anything contradicting this definition, but the problem is you assume that scripture is the only thing valuable, but then simultaneously claim you aren't appealing to scripture. So why should scriptural axioms matter if god as an axiom transcends scripture?

We've been through this before. I said that the empathy we see and feel is perceived as of the highest value in mankind without any contestation coming from you. But you err if you think there was no counter narrative to deal with to come to that conclusion.

So what is this counter narrative? You keep talking like you have all this knowledge, yet can't even actually substantiate it, but keep speaking in vagaries

I've taken full responsibility for my argument. Resorting to an ad hominem would be crossing the line where critical thinking turns into cynicism. For example, the proposition that it's arrogant to assume that the power that brought all things into existence including myself is not a Person but beneath me as a thing is a pretense of humility only made clear by following the implications of believing otherwise.

I never engaged in ad hominem, first off, you're misunderstanding a criticism of ignorance with specifically attacking you

It doesn't have to be beneath you and not be a person, those aren't mutually exclusive.

And you still haven't argued why one must even take your argument seriously beyond appeal to popularity compounded with argument from ignorance, neither of which are an ad hominem. God as "axiom" is not something self evident when all you've suggested is that it must be so because it's been held commonly, except that's patently false by basic history of human religion

Since it could be true as you say, it's not credulity to not want to count them as liars.
In our psycholinguistics the bad usurps from the good, not the other way around.

I didn't claim them as liars, but the alternative is not just that they were correct, because that's a false dichotomy. They could be wrong, you refuse to consider that third option at all, seemingly.

Never made a claim about the good or bad in regards to that, so not sure why that's relevant

Temporal terms are not well equipped to articulate eternal things. What does progress and perfection even mean if perfection is a concept of something corruptible (a rhetorical). So yes I believe that there is an attitude attainable where everyone is satisfied and pleased and at peace in doing so.

You can't just claim they're eternal, that's begging the question

How is perfection a concept of something corruptible? I seriously am questioning whether you really understand English at all

There's seeking an ideal and seeking perfection, they aren't the same at all, which is your confusion

I'm referring to events where there are self evident factors such as other witnesses to the event. Otherwise, yes of course I can wonder if I'm deluding myself and it has nothing to do with humility.

That still doesn't make it true, people can be mistaken in their eyewitness accounts, that's why we seek more information beyond just their accounts in themselves

Well you projected a knowledge of abuse out of somewhere, and moreover you could have just typed 'No' in the definitive rather than type I'm not obligated to tell you that anyway because I don't see the relevance.

You mistakenly insinuated abuse and haven't substantiated it. Admit you were mistaken or I'm done with this conversation, because you are just dealing in credulous assertions and expecting people to take you seriously because you sound smart

I think I can understand where you're coming from, but I would need to evaluate an actual situation, to sort out the nuances of where your terms makes sense and where they don't. You need to consider that I reason that I'm carrying a cross that is about forgiving people their trespasses because we all start out in a blindness which requires mercy and understanding. I would assume you're referring to when mercy is not logical as being what you mean by empathy in excess, however I would not articulate it that way in thought or spoken words.

I didn't claim we started out perfect, so you're barking up the wrong tree yet again.

Empathy in excess would be being a doormat because you refuse to assert yourself in any sense and focus purely on others, it's a legitimate thing in psychology

 

[muichimotsu]

If something is more likely than not, I choose to believe it, at least to the extent of saying it's more likely than not. You can always establish an unreachable threshold of "good enough" evidence (a favorite technique of atheists and agnostics on the internet). I'm not going to play that game with you.

Likelihood is not defined merely by credulity or popularity, but actual demonstrable factors for something being the case or not. There could be leprechauns in my backyard, but it's highly unlikely, especially because I don't think we have gold and I don't think my ancestry goes back to Ireland at all. If I see a bunch of holes, I could assume pixies or some fairy subset that does that, but more likely would be a bunch of moles and such.

The universe's existence and its etiology are two fundamentally different subjects, because we can observe the universe, we can't observe the universe coming into being to even begin to investigate the factors there. Quantum mechanics factor in so that the infinite regress isn't necessarily an issue, even if that also makes things confusing to the extent that the universe could be constantly resetting and not really continuing in any kind of infinite linear progression, so that the idea of a prime mover is unnecessary: at best, you'd demand a ground of being, but that doesn't require 1) it to be personal and 2) certainly doesn't warrant worship unless you think power means it is worthy as such, which is dangerous.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

Likelihood is not defined merely by credulity or popularity, but actual demonstrable factors for something being the case or not.

Well, at least we agree on something.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

For a discussion of some of the problems with infinite regresses, see The Logic of the Infinite Regress | Steve Patterson. You may still disagree, but these are my reasons and I stand by them.

You misunderstand. I am not saying an infinite regress is the answer. I am saying jumping to a god is the answer to the problem of infinite regress is not sound reasoning. Also, if an infinite regress is impossible then an infinite god is impossible as well.

This statement is also a mere assertion. Do you have a scientific or philosophical argument to back it up, other than appealing to mere speculation?

No it is how sound reasoning works. I cannot conclude A because I cannot think of another reason it could not be A. How do you know there is no other reason that you don't know about?

If something is more likely than not, I choose to believe it, at least to the extent of saying it's more likely than not. You can always establish an unreachable threshold of "good enough" evidence (a favorite technique of atheists and agnostics on the internet). I'm not going to play that game with you.

Ok, I missed the more probable than not. My mistake. How do you determine what is more likely than not? With this, you will not believe true things just because they are not likely. We should have good evidence for something before we believe it. Not just if it more likely than not. That is not a reliable method to determine truth. There are true things that we think are less likely than not to be true.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well, at least we agree on something.

So where is the reasoning beyond human credulity and anthropomorphism or the like that the universe must have an agency behind its existence instead of it being a brute fact that we must accept because the world, like it or not, doesn't follow our inferences in terms of how it works, especially with our tendency to try and see teleologically when teleonomic thinking may be more prudent and warranted.

We don't, to my knowledge, conclude that bees or ants have intelligence of comparison to humans because of complex structures that they build: at best they have a hive mind that grants something impressive, but not human ingenuity or innovation.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

So where is the reasoning beyond human credulity and anthropomorphism or the like that the universe must have an agency behind its existence instead of it being a brute fact that we must accept because the world, like it or not, doesn't follow our inferences in terms of how it works, especially with our tendency to try and see teleologically when teleonomic thinking may be more prudent and warranted.

I have provided some of the reasons why I believe that an agent caused the universe. What are your reasons for believing that the universe is just a brute fact? In any event, what we are both doing is engaging in abductive reasoning, i.e. reasoning to what we consider the best explanation based what what we know. We obviously disagree on the best explanation for the universe. We could go around and around on this, but I see little point. Atheists/agnostics tend to conveniently presuppose their position as the default unless theists can prove their position to the atheist's/agnostic's satisfaction. The atheist/agnostic then continually moves the goal posts so that never happens. That's not going to work with me.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

You misunderstand. I am not saying an infinite regress is the answer. I am saying jumping to a god is the answer to the problem of infinite regress is not sound reasoning. Also, if an infinite regress is impossible then an infinite god is impossible as well.

Then what are you saying is the answer? And I'm not "jumping to God" as the answer; I'm saying that, based on what we know, God is the BEST – although not the only possible – explanation of the universe. (The logical problems with infinite regress have to do with an infinite regress of mechanistic, naturalistic causes and effects, not a supernatural being.)

More to the point, if you think there's better explanation for the universe, what is it? Take a position and defend it instead of just trying to poke holes in someone else's, which I've noticed is what you tend to do in this forum. I've provided reasons for my explanation of the universe. If you continue to refuse to provide reasons for yours, I see little point in continuing this conversation.

No it is how sound reasoning works. I cannot conclude A because I cannot think of another reason it could not be A. How do you know there is no other reason that you don't know about?

Again, I'm concluding A because I think A is true, not because I can't think of another reason it could not be A. You always claim, without evidence, that there's a better unknown explanation for something. For example, how do you know the sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than other colors? Maybe there's some other reason we don't know about. Do you see how that's a recipe for not believing anything? We reason to the best explanation based on the evidence we have. So, if you have thought of a better reason for the universe than God, based on the evidence we have, state your case.

Ok, I missed the more probable than not. My mistake. How do you determine what is more likely than not? With this, you will not believe true things just because they are not likely. We should have good evidence for something before we believe it. Not just if it more likely than not. That is not a reliable method to determine truth. There are true things that we think are less likely than not to be true.

I agree that we should have good evidence for something before we believe it. If we have good evidence for something, then by definition we get that something past the 50% probability mark – i.e. it's more probable than not. That's what good evidence is. Obviously something we think is less than 50% probable could still be true, but we tend not to believe those things – indeed, we tend to believe the opposite – because that's the most practical and logical thing to do in most situations. But you know all this, so I really fail to see your point here.