Philosophical discussion on Christianity

[1daniel]

Hi Billyd, thanks for the reply. I thought of a few things while reading it:

Are my beliefs reasonable? Absolutely.

Ok now I know you think your beliefs are reasonable, but I'm asking you for the reasons that make them reasonable.

I believe that by "true or false" you want to know how do I discern right from wrong?

This is an interesting question in itself, however, I was instead asking how you determine whether a claim (such as God exists) is true or false (your Epistemology). Most people have some way of determining this?

Are you trying to convince yourself that there is no God or that something in your life is not wrong?

The first part of the sentence loads the question; it assumes God and then tries to imply I am trying to get away from Him. You will need to first demonstrated there is a God, before you can assert I am running away from said entity. You realise maybe there is nothing wrong with my life.

If there were no God, you wouldn't have to convince yourself.

Again this assumes I am trying to convince myself of something without demonstrating it.

I hope that you find what you are looking for.

Thank you, at least this last bit doesn't assume to know already what I am looking for.

 

[Atwood]

I have some questions about God and why people believe, as follows:

What is the main reason you believe?
Would you say your beliefs are reasonable, i.e. your faith is grounded in reason and you have good reason to believe?
What is your standard by which you judge things to be true or false?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Note to mods: wasn't sure where the best place to post this was, so I chose the closes topic I could find.

Why you believe, you mean why you are convinced. This is the question of epistemology.

People ask questions like
"How you KNOW that the Bible is true?
How do you KNOW that God exists?"

Such questions are part of the larger question:
"How do I KNOW anything at all?" How can I prove that a proposition is true?

Suppose that there is a proposition called "A."
The proof that proposition A is true is reason B.
But how do I know that reason B is true?
Well, I believe reason B, because of reason C.
But how do I know that reason C is true?

It can easily be seen that this process has no end, and thus there appears to be no ultimate proof of anything by this method.

All ultimate logical proof depends on tracing the assertion back to axioms, one or more self-evident facts, like "I exist"; or: "The sky is blue"; or
if A = B; then A + C = B + C.

BTW, having read the Bible many times myself, I cannot recall the Lord Jesus during his earthly ministry ever offering a proof that God exists or that the Scriptures were true. Instead, He uses to Scripture as an ultimate proof or as an axiom. "It is written" for Him settles all issues.

I agree with that approach. The fact that the God-of-the-Bible exists is self-evident. Humans are capable of directly perceiving this and using that axiom to prove other things. Likewise, the fact that the Bible is God's Word is also immediately evident to the reader.


Axiom 1: The God of the Bible exists.
Axiom 2: The Bible is God's Word.

It is up to each man to affirm or deny these axioms at his peril. Without these 2 truths one will have difficulty knowing much theology. Once these 2 truths are affirmed, one may proceed to do a lot of theology. Having affirmed these axioms, one may reason in a linear fashion from that starting point. One should not say that the Bible is true because the Bible is true, reasoning in a circle.

I present some epistemological scripture
to illustrate my points, not to prove them from scripture:

Proverbs 28:5b:
"But they who seek YHWH understand all things."

Compare Romans 10:14-20
". . . the word of Christ . . . Their sound went out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. . . . I became manifest to them who did not ask of Me."

< Acts 17:
24 "The God who made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth,…gives to all life, and breath, and all things; and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being …."

I put it to you then, that the task is yours; it is your homework to perceive God directly and to read the Bible (and find out if you perceive God talking to you). Affirm or deny at your own peril.

BTW, scripture tells us that

Romans 1:18-25
". . . men . . . that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, . . . that they may be without excuse; because that knowing God they did not glorify Him as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. . . . ."

An observation of nature is compelling evidence that God exists.

And scripture (particularly in Isaiah 40-50) offers evidence for the existence of YHWH via fulfilled prophecy; the ability to predict the future perfectly, distinguishes YHWH from idols who cannot do so.

Systematic consistency is also evidence that the Bible is God's Word, for the God of the Bible cannot lie. The fact that over many centuries of production, scripture never contradicts itself is evidence.

But let me emphasize that those 2 truths are self-evident. You must perceive and affirm God's existence for yourself. You must read the Bible and declare that you perceive God speaking or deny -- at your own peril.

 

[1daniel]

The standard is the same

Really glad to hear you say that.
So do you hold that *only* Christian prophecies have met their burden of proof?
How high is your standard of evidence that you apply to claims?

 

[dcontroversal]

Do you count the negatives, which would be the scientific way to observe it?

Yes I do recognize when the answer is no and sometimes I have had God take my blessings do to rebellion which goes to the chastisement that God levels at those who belong to him. Make no mistake 1daniel.....every gambit of God is experienced by those who belong to him such as.....

1. Answered prayers when right and serving faithfully
2. Unanswered prayer or no more than yes when not right or as faithful as you should be
3. Chastisement when a lifestyle of sin is chosen over being faithful
4. Conviction that cuts to the core and leaves one unsettled when one sins and it will remain until repentance and change of course
5. Blessings beyond belief when faithful and serving faithful out of pure motives
6. Peace when in tune and right with God
7. Health seems to be associated with faithfulness (not that believers don't get sick and or die from sicknesses)
8. The testing of your faith (from one end of the spectrum to the other)

etc.

Again to answer....I do take note of the negative and thank God for his will, because at the end of the day I deserve nothing from God, so as a believer I will take the crumbs that fall from the master's table and it will be most appreciated!

 

[1daniel]

Thank you the more Philosophical answer, as I was reading I disagreed with the following:

All ultimate logical proof depends on tracing the assertion back to axioms

In my understanding, logical proof in Philosophy are just tools and without the input of reality (from science) you can't come to any conclusions from them alone. In this sense they are not stacked on each other but on the data we gather from the real world.

The fact that the God-of-the-Bible exists is self-evident. Humans are capable of directly perceiving this and using that axiom to prove other things. Likewise, the fact that the Bible is God's Word is also immediately evident to the reader.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, this just seems to be a use-mention error. It is self-evident that the concept of 'God' and the 'Bible exist', but this still begs-the-question does God exist and is the bible divinely inspired.

 

[1daniel]

Hey dcontroversal,

Yes I do recognize when the answer is no and sometimes I have had God take my blessings do to rebellion which goes to the chastisement that God levels at those who belong to him.

Would you accept a result that found praying had an (or no) influence on the external world when a double-blind experiment was carried out under scientific conditions?

 

[dcontroversal]

Hey dcontroversal,



Would you accept a result that found praying had an (or no) influence on the external world when a double-blind experiment was carried out under scientific conditions?

I would not need an experiment to know that praying has an influence on the external world as I have seen it in action....case in point....

I plant food plots for deer and turkeys and I always get on my face to pray for rain if it is within the will of God so as to cause the seed to sprout, take root and grow....when I am right it rains and my food plots are green like (Ireland) HAH....when I have been wrong in the past it would rain all around my food plots and with hardly any on the plot itself.....now once or twice equals coincidence......consistently for the last 22 years...numbers too high to be coincidence!

 

[1daniel]

I would not need an experiment to know that praying has an influence on the external world as I have seen it in action....case in point....

However, what about a scientific result that showed prayer had no influence on the external world; there is a reason science doesn't rely on individual testimony, because it is often mislead.

 

[Butch5]

Really glad to hear you say that.
So do you hold that *only* Christian prophecies have met their burden of proof?
How high is your standard of evidence that you apply to claims?

What "other" prophecies are there to consider?

I don't know what you mean by how high is my standard. It is truth, a prophecy is either true, not fulfilled, or false.

 

[dcontroversal]

However, what about a scientific result that showed prayer had no influence on the external world; there is a reason science doesn't rely on individual testimony, because it is often mislead.

The problem with scientific results are three fold in my eyes.....

1. Most scientists will be biased to the opinions and or doctrines of the men/women who taught them.
2. Results in many tests are specifically bias to error as to admit truth would undermine the validity of scientists who preach the religion of evolution
3. The wisdom of the world and the worlds means to obtain results end with (proclaimed truths) that cannot be known by modern research....God has made foolish the wisdom of the world.

If you were walking down the road and found a $100,000 and went and put it in the bank would you accept (scientific) results that prove that you did not find a $100,000?

 

[p_rehbein]

[h=5]About 1daniel[/h]Gender:maleMarital Status:not marriedSpiritual Status:unsureCountry Flag/Nationality:United KingdomCountry (Location):United KingdomState/Province/Region:England [UK]


.........just so you guys know.........sigh......

 

[1daniel]

About 1daniel

Gender:maleMarital Status:not marriedSpiritual Status:unsureCountry Flag/Nationality:United KingdomCountry (Location):United KingdomState/Province/Region:England [UK]


.........just so you guys know.........sigh......

What's wrong with being unsure? I'm not trying to hind that I am open to different faiths. I'm here because I enjoy philosophical discussion and it great way to work out what you think about something.

Also the phrase Atheist to a lot of Christians mean 'a belief that God(s) do not exist' which is not the position I hold.

 

[Atwood]

The problem with scientific results are three fold in my eyes.....

1. Most scientists will be biased to the opinions and or doctrines of the men/women who taught them.
2. Results in many tests are specifically bias to error as to admit truth would undermine the validity of scientists who preach the religion of evolution
3. The wisdom of the world and the worlds means to obtain results end with (proclaimed truths) that cannot be known by modern research....God has made foolish the wisdom of the world.

If you were walking down the road and found a $100,000 and went and put it in the bank would you accept (scientific) results that prove that you did not find a $100,000?

When it all boils down to it, physical science is just man's knowledge about matter and energy, fallible and ever changing, if amazing as man is made in God's image. The Tower of Babel slowed the Adamic race down, but ahead it has charged in knowledge.

It was not many years ago that Pluto was a planet, but now they say no.

It is dangerous to try to prove theology by human physical science. If you crow about how the latest hotshot sci theory "proves" the Bible, you are likely very soon to have egg on your face when science tosses out that theory.

 

[Atwood]

What's wrong with being unsure? I'm not trying to hind that I am open to different faiths. I'm here because I enjoy philosophical discussion and it great way to work out what you think about something.

Also the phrase Atheist to a lot of Christians mean 'a belief that God(s) do not exist' which is not the position I hold.

Nothing wrong in many cases with being unsure. Often those who know the least know the most. But he who denies the obvious & self-evident is a fool. How long would you stand under the hot sun and argue with a fool that the sky is blue? The credulous and gullible believe too easily; the paranoid fail to trust when any normal person trusts.

un sorry, my illustration may be invalid for someone living on the misty isles. I speak of an American sky.

 

[p_rehbein]

What's wrong with being unsure? I'm not trying to hind that I am open to different faiths. I'm here because I enjoy philosophical discussion and it great way to work out what you think about something.

Also the phrase Atheist to a lot of Christians mean 'a belief that God(s) do not exist' which is not the position I hold.

What's wrong with being "unsure" is the danger one faces in eternal damnation...........now, not for nothing, but if a person possesses enough intellect to enjoy philosophical discussions........they should possess enough intellect to BE VERY SURE of their Spiritual status.........given the danger of being "unsure."

Being "open" to different faiths...........is to invite damnation into one's life........that should be clear to any of such intellect.

Atheist or Agnostic..........I don't believe in either of those "labels." Personally, I think they are a cop-out so folks don't have to exercise the necessary intellect to take a stance one way or the other..........

Either one is a believer in and a disciple of Jesus Christ, or they are not.........

Joshua 24:14) Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
15 .) And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Now, why did I post your Profile Info? Folks need to know when unbelievers come here and begin to wish to "logically" discuss the Holy Word of God..........

 

[Atwood]

However, what about a scientific result that showed prayer had no influence on the external world; there is a reason science doesn't rely on individual testimony, because it is often mislead.

Who is this personified "science"? Does such a being exist? If it did, it would be a chameleon, a plastic man, ever changing with time, contradicting itself with time. I put it to you that over 90 percent of what you regard as scientific truth, you have no reason for believing except someone said so, individuals testifying in an atmosphere of political correctness. You were not in the lab, you didn't do the experiments, the results of the experiments varied. You believe it becs some people said so, mostly.

To say, "science doesn't rely" means "human knowledge doesn't rely," but in fact most of our human knowledge is taken on somebody's word.

 

[nl]

Spiritual Status:unsure

IMHO, I welcome all who are honestly unsure and seeking for something good by being here. I don't seek a "Christian bubble" insulated and isolated from all outside influences. Jesus wants us to reach out.

I saw this in the Christian Chat rules...We like to welcome all to Christian Chat.

 

[Atwood]

Thank you the more Philosophical answer, as I was reading I disagreed with the following:

In my understanding, logical proof in Philosophy are just tools and without the input of reality (from science) you can't come to any conclusions from them alone. In this sense they are not stacked on each other but on the data we gather from the real world.

How do you know that is true, what you just wrote?
If you don't accept logic, then there is no point in discussing anything with you.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, this just seems to be a use-mention error.

What is your proof of that?

It is self-evident that the concept of 'God' and the 'Bible exist', but this still begs-the-question does God exist and is the bible divinely inspired.

You have changed what I wrote.

I said
1) it is self-evident that the God of the Bible exists and that
2) it is self-evident that the Bible is God's word.
Axioms 1 & 2.

Affirming the self-evident is not begging a question.
You cannot prove anything without axioms logically.
The self-evident is not in question.
I exist. (axiomatic, self-evident to me).

Now what is your proof that I beg the question?
How do you know that I beg the question?

You have to affirm or deny the axioms for yourself.
Can you perceive directly that God exists?
Have you read the Bible? Can you perceive God speaking.

Now if you make any assertions back to me,
would you mind proving them, instead of just saying them?
I don't recall any solid proof for anything you wrote to me on this.

 

[Atwood]

What's wrong with being unsure? I'm not trying to hind that I am open to different faiths. I'm here because I enjoy philosophical discussion and it great way to work out what you think about something.

Also the phrase Atheist to a lot of Christians mean 'a belief that God(s) do not exist' which is not the position I hold.

How do you know that a philosophical discussion is a great way to work out what you think about something?

You say that your POV is not that "God(s) do not exist."
So how does your life reflect that you do not adopt the POV that "God(s) do not exist"? How would your life be different if your POV was that "God(s) do not exist"?

 

[p_rehbein]

IMHO, I welcome all who are honestly unsure and seeking for something good by being here. I don't seek a "Christian bubble" insulated and isolated from all outside influences. Jesus wants us to reach out.

I saw this in the Christian Chat rules...We like to welcome all to Christian Chat.

and that is a good thing........however, do you always review a new posters "Profile Page" to know who you are communicating with? Should we not know?

Then there is this point..........you said: welcome all who are honestly unsure and seeking for something good by being here.............and I say Amen!

problem is........there are those others who are not here "honestly" seeking for something good by being here.......and we are charged to try the spirits are we not?

And then there are some here who don't provide any information on their Profile Page........so it becomes a wait and see game to know if they are "honestly seeking."

In any event.............the Info was FYI..........and my response to him was surely Biblical was it not?