Philosophical discussion on Christianity

[2Thewaters]

Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.



That is the proof that there is a God

those who denie him ALWAYS sear and are really rude
Without the spirit there is no sympathy kindness love patience or tolernce

the meansest coldest hardest people I have ever met called themselves athiests

proof positive

 

[Spokenpassage]

Good job Atwood. You solved the problem. When one begins to doubt the self evident, then all things, even the simplest, come into question.

God is indeed Lord of logic and reason as well, and whoever is gifted with those will not be broken. Convert a thinker, and you convert a thousand thinkers, I think. The entire book of Job is Reason 101, if any thinker considers one's self worthy.

Book of Genesis is pretty much 101 as well...

 

[2Thewaters]

athiests usually think of themselves as intelligent yet they have no concept of true science

reproducible results in the laboratory

Evolution is a flase religion

the human cell has 13000 different proteins.
and millions of each.

if one protein is missing the cell dies and ceases to function

how is it that a cell was created, all 13000 proetiens needed to be present simultaneously or the potential would have collapsed the cell

and the cell takes constant power to keep the cell wall intact a microsecond without life power and the wall would collapse and all the proteins would mix and cancel out

its like lightning hitting a rock
and a cray suercompter appeard

totally a fools imagination of spontaneous life

people who say life came spontaneously
are really ignoratn of science.

 

[Spokenpassage]

Technically speaking God doesn't exist...

Let's examine what the word 'exist' means and comes from.

This English term comes from the Latin 'existere' which means 'to stand out' or 'to become'. Stand out of what? Out of being, what being? God. Thus, to exist is to become, to become is to be creation.

Ask me 'Is God real?' I will say 'yes He is.' But ask me 'does He exist?' No not in this sense. Because it would make Him dependant, weak, and a creature.

So if one wants to be technical, existence is something God is beyond. He is not part of existence, He's the Creator of it.

So for the atheists out there, don't use this argument because I just proved that God is eternal, yet He does not exist.

Now to the real question, is there evidence of God, yes there is. It is foolish to say otherwise.

 

[Patnubay]

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.

I started my faith with this:
Long time ago, I truly cannot understand the logic of faith. To believe in a God whose existence is obviously based on a man's need to be led or ruled over. To believe in the Book called the Bible, the content of which is a story of a race who at present time is famous for their shrewdness, was also very far away from me. I distrusted the Church who teaches rituals and beliefs which are actually a simple Philisophy 101. The teaching like if you're down, God is shaping you and if you're up, God loves you was quite a good example of never-wrong deductive logic. But I thought , if the world's most clever people believe why shouldn't I. And besides if I am going to err, I'd rather err on a safe side.

I didn't find my faith reasonable because I was worshipping a God who openly declares that His Chosen race does not include me. A God whose sense of justice is the destruction of others for the good of his own people. But again, majority of the people in this planet believe. It would be logically safer for me to have a God too.

True or false are subject to trend, power, numbers and marketing. Heck, it was true that you go to heaven if you could buy a certificate from Vatican and it was false to say the world is round. So all one can say is, everything is just perception. My knowledge of true or false is actually a product of my life story. But belief in common denomination is required to live in a community and I live in one.

But all these changed because of my personal experiences with God. So one asks me what is my reason to believe, the answer is simply because He is real . Do I have a solid reason to believe, heck yeah. The same reason I believe I have a mother from whom I came and lived with. And the standard of my true or false is my faith for my faith, the truth, in Jesus name, set me free.

 

[1daniel]

Hi Atwood,

and in reason the default position is dis-believe of both claims until they meet their burden.

How do you know that is true?

Actually, you use this reasoning too, as well as everyone here (well at least I hope you do). I am sure your default position on most claims is dis-believe until they meet their burden of proof. For example, I take it you don't believe in UFOs, you don't go around believing every claim before you can dis-prove each one, and therefore, your default position on most claims is dis-believe until they meet their burden of proof.

In fact, you can't go around dis-proving each one, because you can't prove a negative. (Before you say how do you know, it is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of: X is true because there is no proof that X is false.)

Daniel, how do you know that Pascal's Wager is terrible reasoning?

This is a long topic in itself, so I will just refer to this webpage: Pascal's wager - RationalWiki

How do you know (God) is not self-evident?

Lets deal with the two prongs of a dilemma separately; you are the one making the assertion 'God is self-evident', and I find this claim not to meet its burden of proof, (which it has because it is a positive claim). For the assertion 'God is not self-evident', I am not making this assertion; I wasn't making any assertion, just saying the assertion 'God(s) exist' has not met its burden of proof.

causation is very hard to prove.

How do you know that proof is possible?

We don't know if it is even possible, that is one of the strikes against belief.

 

[1daniel]

Let's examine what the word 'exist' means and comes from.

This English term comes from the Latin 'existere' which means 'to stand out' or 'to become'. Stand out of what? Out of being, what being? God. Thus, to exist is to become, to become is to be creation.

Ask me 'Is God real?' I will say 'yes He is.' But ask me 'does He exist?' No not in this sense. Because it would make Him dependant, weak, and a creature.

So if one wants to be technical, existence is something God is beyond. He is not part of existence, He's the Creator of it.

So for the atheists out there, don't use this argument because I just proved that God is eternal, yet He does not exist.

Now to the real question, is there evidence of God, yes there is. It is foolish to say otherwise.

Hello Spokenpassage,
I sorry, I don't agree that you have come to any reasonable conclusions. To start with, you are never going to conclude anything conclusive from the origin of terms. 'He is not part of existence' we haven't established that something can be outside of existence yet; some people would also see this as a statement which contradicts itself.

 

[1daniel]

In relation to Pascal's Wager, I have found a good rebuttal that I will paraphrase:

There are many problems with the reasoning in Pascal's Wager, as well as the theological assumptions it makes.

In order for this argument to be convincing, a theological argument must both prove that the god it argues for is the One True God and disprove all other possibilities (this is the catch). People lacking a belief can see the potential for multiple gods existing, but many believers are constrained by their view that there is their god or no god. Only in this latter case does the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager make any sense.

 

[1daniel]

Hello Patnubay, thanks for the reply,

Do I have a solid reason to believe, heck yeah.

I find this a bit confusing because in the rest of your post it seemed to be rejecting the idea of believing because of reason.

the answer is simply because He is real

This is just begging-the-question as it asserts the answer without applying any reason, which is fine if you are rejecting the idea of reason being the ground for believe, but you also tell us that you have solid reason(s) to believe.

The same reason I believe I have a mother from whom I came and lived with.

This is a false analogy fallacy. If your God was indeed as evident as mothers, why doesn't everyone believe in you God?
'from whom I came and lived with' yes, these are reasons why someone's mother is evident to them, but this again beggs-the-question is this also true for God.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Quite simply without there being a Creator there would be no creation. Thus God is real.

Atheists I don't believe exist because everyone has a theology lol. However for sake of that being a whole other argument, to just look maybe in some philosophical lens I'd say this;

Jesus certainly is provable. Look towards Jesus. For me Jesus has answered there is a God, a good God, and of course there is many questions after that, but again just go towards Jesus, because Christian means follower of Christ. Jesus fulfills being the Christ. This way so far I have seen many good things of Jesus and many things revealed simply. In terms of being maybe in philosophy I'd say if you want to leave pointless atheism behind and get started on Christianity then look at Jesus two commands, love God and love your neighbor. That's all there is to it to get started on the path to Jesus.

 

[1daniel]

Welcome to the discussion GodIsSalvation,

Quite simply without there being a Creator there would be no creation. Thus God is real

Lets put this into a more formal argument:
1. Without there being a Creator there would be no creation.
2. Thus God is real

This begs-the-question because it relies on the hidden assumption:
3. there was creation
Which would first needed demonstrated.

everyone has a theology

Do they, what do you mean by this?

 

[Dan_473]

[excerpt]
I have some questions...

Hey, 1daniel...

i'm glad you're here, and that you started this thread... i love this kind of discussion!

let's start with where we agree ( if anywhere... ), and go from there...

i once heard a mormon apologist (i'm not pushing mormonism, just saying my sources... also i don't think that person was the first to think of it...) say that to believe in anything outside of the existence of one's own consciousness requires faith... do you agree with that?

 

[nl]

...This is a form of Pascal's Wager, and Pascal's Wager is terrible reasoning.

Arguments related to Pascal's Wager should also consider the potential worthiness of God's person and the time value of the eternal state.

If there is a God and He is holy and infinite and righteous and knowable, then transgressions against Him are an infinite transgression and sufferings in the after-life can be eternal and just. On the other hand, right relationship with a holy and infinite and righteous God would be a great and infinite delight of great value and worth. The time value of eternity is also infinitely great. A penny invested at a low non-zero interest rate would become a great fortune given an eternity of time. The worth of a right relationship with a holy and infinite and righteous God is great. The time value of an eternal state approaches infinity in its greatness.

 

[1daniel]

Arguments related to Pascal's Wager should also consider the potential worthiness of God's person and the time value of the eternal state.

If there is a God and He is holy and infinite and righteous and knowable, then transgressions against Him are an infinite transgression and sufferings in the after-life can be eternal and just. On the other hand, right relationship with a holy and infinite and righteous God would be a great and infinite delight of great value and worth. The time value of eternity is also infinitely great. A penny invested at a low non-zero interest rate would become a great fortune given an eternity of time. The worth of a right relationship with a holy and infinite and righteous God is great. The time value of an eternal state approaches infinity in its greatness.

As already mention in my rebuttal to Pascal's Wager, it only makes sense if can also disprove all other possibilities. You also need to prove that Pascal's Wager is arguing for only your God. And therefore, it doesn't matter how good the reward is or how bad the punishment would be, because you have no way, within the augment, of discerning whether you have a correct God.

The wager also does not involve proofs, but instead probability; do you really feel comfortable saying I believe in God because it is probable I will be tortured if I don't (without ever knowing if God is real)? I don't.

 

[1daniel]

Hey, 1daniel...

i'm glad you're here, and that you started this thread... i love this kind of discussion!

let's start with where we agree ( if anywhere... ), and go from there...

i once heard a mormon apologist (i'm not pushing mormonism, just saying my sources... also i don't think that person was the first to think of it...) say that to believe in anything outside of the existence of one's own consciousness requires faith... do you agree with that?

Hi Dan,
I too enjoy debating.

Well firstly I am not exactly sure what you mean by the phrase 'anything outside of the existence of one's own consciousness'. If you mean, outside of my own reality as it appears to my consciousness, then yes, but I wouldn't use the word faith. I have reasonable assumptions based on my past experiences.

 

[Simona25]

Let's examine what the word 'exist' means and comes from.

This English term comes from the Latin 'existere' which means 'to stand out' or 'to become'. Stand out of what? Out of being, what being? God. Thus, to exist is to become, to become is to be creation.

Ask me 'Is God real?' I will say 'yes He is.' But ask me 'does He exist?' No not in this sense. Because it would make Him dependant, weak, and a creature.

So if one wants to be technical, existence is something God is beyond. He is not part of existence, He's the Creator of it.

So for the atheists out there, don't use this argument because I just proved that God is eternal, yet He does not exist.

Now to the real question, is there evidence of God, yes there is. It is foolish to say otherwise.

Interesting.

 

[nl]

As already mention in my rebuttal to Pascal's Wager, it only makes sense if can also disprove all other possibilities. You also need to prove that Pascal's Wager is arguing for only your God. And therefore, it doesn't matter how good the reward is or how bad the punishment would be, because you have no way, within the augment, of discerning whether you have a correct God.

The wager also does not involve proofs, but instead probability; do you really feel comfortable saying I believe in God because it is probable I will be tortured if I don't (without ever knowing if God is real)? I don't.

Wagering is related to probabilities and not proofs. Risk assessment is based on estimates and probabilities. Ignoring God and neglecting God's Sovereign prerogatives to receive honor and compliance is risky.

Believe in God because He is worthy of your faith and confidence. Trust and obey because you do it freely and willingly and not under compulsion.

Life on earth depends on the sun. If the sun were larger or smaller or closer or farther away, our lives would not exist as they do. The sun and earth relationship is one of many gifts of God and one of many inter-dependencies that are observable in nature.

 

[Patnubay]

Hi 1daniel,
Let me try to explain myself.

Do I have a solid reason to believe, heck yeah.

I find this a bit confusing because in the rest of your post it seemed to be rejecting the idea of believing because of reason.

Sorry if I confused you. Everything I did was for a reason. Let me quote myself: "To err on the safe side" was my reason. "Logically safer for me" was again another reason. But what I was actually saying is,

Try to give yourself a reason to believe. Whatever it may be. I'm sure the Holy Spirit will take over after you do that.

Originally Posted by Patnubay

the answer is simply because He is real



This is just begging-the-question as it asserts the answer without applying any reason, which is fine if you are rejecting the idea of reason being the ground for believe, but you also tell us that you have solid reason(s) to believe.


The key, my friend, is this, let me quote myself again "But all these changed because of my personal experiences with God."

Try to give yourself a reason to believe. I'm sure the Holy Spirit will take over after you do that.
And you will soon have personal experiences only you would understand why you have faith in HIM.

Originally Posted by Patnubay

The same reason I believe I have a mother from whom I came and lived with.



This is a false analogy fallacy. If your God was indeed as evident as mothers, why doesn't everyone believe in you God?
'from whom I came and lived with' yes, these are reasons why someone's mother is evident to them, but this again beggs-the-question is this also true for God.

It is sad that you missed it. I was not saying God is as evident as mothers to everybody. To me, yes, but I wouldn't dare to say, it applies to everyone. As I said" Personal experience"; meaning I experienced God's presence in my life as real as I experienced my mother's presence in my life. Honestly, I am not trying to give you a "false analogy fallacy". Just trying my best to give an idea.

Just a bit of advice: Don't play the devil's advocate ( Definitely not literally ) on this issue. Give yourself a chance. Alone in your room, call on Jesus, open your heart to Him and let the Holy Spirit do the job. It will be a very good experience.

 

[Dan_473]

Hi Dan,
I too enjoy debating.

Well firstly I am not exactly sure what you mean by the phrase 'anything outside of the existence of one's own consciousness'. If you mean, outside of my own reality as it appears to my consciousness, then yes, but I wouldn't use the word faith. I have reasonable assumptions based on my past experiences.

let's see if we're talking about the same thing... if you're reading this, you're looking at a computer screen... is the screen really there, or are your eyes feeding your mind information that comes from some source other than light from the screen?
i think this might be called the 'brain in the vat' idea... but that seems so cliche... so how about, are you actually an alien who decided to play the 'life on earth' virtual reality game...

 

[Atwood]

As already mention in my rebuttal to Pascal's Wager, it only makes sense if can also disprove all other possibilities. You also need to prove that Pascal's Wager is arguing for only your God. And therefore, it doesn't matter how good the reward is or how bad the punishment would be, because you have no way, within the augment, of discerning whether you have a correct God.

The wager also does not involve proofs, but instead probability; do you really feel comfortable saying I believe in God because it is probable I will be tortured if I don't (without ever knowing if God is real)? I don't.

Good day, Daniel.
Am I correct that nothing should be believed without evidence?
You have made a number of assertions and implications. Would mind giving us the proof for them?

How do you know that

1) the wager does not involve proofs?
(Does "involve" = consist?)
(How do you exclude involvement so as to be sure there is none?)
3) it only makes sense if can also disprove all other possibilities?
(How does disproof yield make sense?)
4) he needs to prove that P's W is arguing only for his God?
5) he has such a need?
6) He has no way within the augment to discern?
7) Confining the discernment to that "within the augment" is necessary? Why not go outside the augment.
8) Having no way (within the augment) to discern proves the goodness of the reward & punishment do not matter?
9) The comfort of the sayer is relevant?
10) People do not ever know if God is real?