Is there a God?

[RickD]

Kurieuo wrote:
I feel for you. People here are not your enemy, nor you Audie.
Really, I never understand those self-professing Atheists who believe in nothing coming here to dog Christians.
What's the point? It doesn't follow, unless you religiously believe in no god -- or should I say the god of self?

K,

Could you clear this up for us? It seems to come across as an attack against Audie or Ken. And knowing you, it wasn't meant that way.

Thanks

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo wrote:
I feel for you. People here are not your enemy, nor you Audie.
Really, I never understand those self-professing Atheists who believe in nothing coming here to dog Christians.
What's the point? It doesn't follow, unless you religiously believe in no god -- or should I say the god of self?

K,

Could you clear this up for us? It seems to come across as an attack against Audie or Ken. And knowing you, it wasn't meant that way.

Thanks

Point out in what ways this was attacking?

[RickD]

Kurieuo wrote:
I feel for you. People here are not your enemy, nor you Audie.
Really, I never understand those self-professing Atheists who believe in nothing coming here to dog Christians.
What's the point? It doesn't follow, unless you religiously believe in no god -- or should I say the god of self?

K,

Could you clear this up for us? It seems to come across as an attack against Audie or Ken. And knowing you, it wasn't meant that way.

Thanks

Point out in what ways this was attacking?

Not sure, but Audie took it that way.

[Kenny]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, there has to be something perfect to compare it to.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I wanted to offer a perspective. Seems to me, in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, all you need is to be able to recognize flaws.

Ken

[RickD]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, there has to be something perfect to compare it to.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I wanted to offer a perspective. Seems to me, in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, all you need is to be able to recognize flaws.

Ken

Of course Kenny. But you're still seeing the smoke, while missing the fire. In order to recognize flaws, or to see something is imperfect, one has to have something perfect, to know the other something is imperfect/flawed.

For example, a counterfeit dollar bill is only recognized as counterfeit, because it differs from a genuine dollar bill. If there were no genuine bill, there would be no way to tell a counterfeit is fake. Understand?

[Squible]

Audie,

Yes I have thought about morality and evolution, I was taught in a secular school so that was the only game in town. As an interest only I also enjoy reading about biology in particular molecular biology fascinates me, but cosmology and astronomy fascinate me the most. I do not believe that morality can ultimately come from an amoral blind process, as such I have my reasons for this position. Audie, I came from an atheist home. My father was a scientist who worked in a lab doing hematology, histology, parasitology among other fields, throughout his life. I was raised with a keen respect for science and still keep to that today, while understanding its demarcations and materialistic undertones. And let me tell you since becoming a Christian a few years ago I have had to endure my fathers banter and criticism and be prepared to defend what I believe.

Now you raised altruism, I agree that It may be true that certain animals which belong to groups and that behave altruistically will have some survival advantage. However, moral beliefs are not required in order to produce such behavior. It seems evident that there are many species of animals that are naturally inclined to help others of their species, and do not have moral beliefs.

You also denied your position was a "faith" based position by saying "As one can see it in various stages, its a reasonable thing to think, no faith needed.".
Interesting. It's reasonable to think that, yet you do not have absolute evidence for your own position, to then say it is not a "faith" based position. Not one doubt huh? No leap at all in trusting that position? Interesting.. that..
Ironically, I think its also reasonable to conclude that God exists as one sees it in various stages. And I am honest enough to admit there's a level of uncertainty with any position. Then again the Christian definition of faith doesn't have the same meaning as used before. The Greek being pistis meaning trust or reliability, in that we can trust God.


As for the reality of moral existence it seems that you do not understand the ontological, I tried explaining it with illustrations but without success.

I see you are still looking at the tap.  As such I see all of your examples are put in terms of the tap being the cause/source. You see the perfect explanation you accepted in an earlier exchange where morality exists because it gives an advantage is no different to saying that the water exists because it gives the tap an advantage by keeping the hole clear, sounds perfect but the reality is the water doesn't come from the tap now does it?

I also notice you went off to argue against design, by uncharitably using the worst case you could in order to prove your point. It's easy to attack a straw man Audie and jump up an down claiming victory. How about you get the best case scenarios from academia and attack them instead.

But we were not talking about design itself were we? For it was an example about dogmatism and that we all can be dogmatic.

How are you not being dogmatic when you continue to attack philosophy in the way you are? By claiming philosopher's don't go outside their field. Audie, I suggest you go outside your field because this is merely an opinion, based on bad or little evidence, or a minority case (which means they're not doing proper critical thinking). If you knew anything about the topic you would know that a true philosopher (especially academic) researches their position for and against very thoroughly. (They even preempt possible objections to their position and respond to any they didn't think of, or clear up misunderstandings etc, Academically they also have a peer review process) . Have you ever read any books written by academic philosophers? I have and the funny thing you will notice is that about 10-25% of each book at the back  is full of references, many depending on the topic from other fields of inquiry (ie: science).No one expects 100% certainty, it comes down to plausibility on each premise of an argument that leads to it's conclusion. There's Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Reasoning.

I believe given what I know and understand from a cumulative set of arguments that it is more plausible that God exists then its negation. Then again I also I have my personal experience to draw from as well like my prayer life and the day I came to know Christ. And the day I came to know Christ and the following two weeks was an intense alteration of how I saw reality as if my eyes were opened from a deep sleep or that I was blind to this new reality. It has stayed that way ever since. You can put up all the intellectual barriers you want but ultimately I believe it is a spiritual, moral and relational issue.

Anyway, I have better things to do. I feel like I am wasting my time sharing this. Since, I think you will come back mocking it by tearing it apart with glib rhetorical devices, rather then actually thinking on it.

It also seems you are not prepared to at least think upon the tap illustration given the response you gave.

I am dropping out of this discussion for a while.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo wrote:
I feel for you. People here are not your enemy, nor you Audie.
Really, I never understand those self-professing Atheists who believe in nothing coming here to dog Christians.
What's the point? It doesn't follow, unless you religiously believe in no god -- or should I say the god of self?

K,

Could you clear this up for us? It seems to come across as an attack against Audie or Ken. And knowing you, it wasn't meant that way.

Thanks

Point out in what ways this was attacking?

Not sure, but Audie took it that way.

I see. Well... I did not intend it that way.

I did say some harsher comments out of frustration that were removed within a minute of posting. Perhaps she caught them?
I'm not sure discussions like this can be had without there being some heat.

I do not see that "people here" are their enemy, and by that I mean us Christians.
If we asked just about any Christian here, I'm sure they'd want the very best for Kenny and Min.
It's just our beliefs grain so against each other -- this fact often gets buried.

And "I feel" for them, because what I believe I see as seriously true -- not just a debate for a "who's right" and "who's wrong" which clouds the truth of the matter in smoke.
The veil is so thick on many who are not Christian and that pains and frustrates me. Especially when the grace is so amazing. And most of us were blind once too.
I just want to help them see, but I know I can't. And they just think me crazy or deluded. I'll tolerate that back if they can tolerate that I think they're blinded.

Finally, I just don't get why Atheists come to the board and start defending their beliefs and attacking ours.
Logically, as I see it, an Atheist shouldn't care either way about God's existence. And yet, they frequent forums like these.
God doesn't exist, just be done with it and move on. Obviously, there is some inner need they're trying to meet by being here.

Hence my question, "What's the point?" In other words, why are they here?
I really like Audie being here mind you, and I did enjoy my own exchanges with Kenny where I took a more laid back approach, but I'm nonetheless perplexed.
Unless they so "religiously" believe in their non-belief that they can't stand the thought of something other. But, then we're told over and over that it's not really a belief.

Finally, the "god of self" is essentially what I see Atheism boils down to.
For example, it is interesting that Kenny roots "morality" in humanity.
In what "he" identifies as the prime value -- to live peacefully with one another. "God of self".
If God does not exist, then given our evolutionary supremacy we really are the gods of the world.
So...

Hope that clarifies my meaning.

As for my earlier comments in that same post, I think I'm entitled to call a discussion as I see it.
I can't help the way I feel on that there. I just really don't think a lot of what Squible offered was countered.
Just lots of smoke and mirrors. But, such is the blindness that I see in them, just like the delusion they perhaps see in me.

[Kenny]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, there has to be something perfect to compare it to.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I wanted to offer a perspective. Seems to me, in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, all you need is to be able to recognize flaws.

Ken

Of course Kenny. But you're still seeing the smoke, while missing the fire. In order to recognize flaws, or to see something is imperfect, one has to have something perfect, to know the other something is imperfect/flawed.

For example, a counterfeit dollar bill is only recognized as counterfeit, because it differs from a genuine dollar bill. If there were no genuine bill, there would be no way to tell a counterfeit is fake. Understand?

I gotta disagree with you again my friend! The only way you would not be able to notice a counterfeit is if it were nearly perfect. If the flaws in the counterfeit were obvious, you would not need a genuine dollar bill to compare, you would notice the flaws by looking at it.

Ken

[RickD]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, there has to be something perfect to compare it to.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I wanted to offer a perspective. Seems to me, in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, all you need is to be able to recognize flaws.

Ken

Of course Kenny. But you're still seeing the smoke, while missing the fire. In order to recognize flaws, or to see something is imperfect, one has to have something perfect, to know the other something is imperfect/flawed.

For example, a counterfeit dollar bill is only recognized as counterfeit, because it differs from a genuine dollar bill. If there were no genuine bill, there would be no way to tell a counterfeit is fake. Understand?

I gotta disagree with you again my friend! The only way you would not be able to notice a counterfeit is if it were nearly perfect. If the flaws in the counterfeit were obvious, you would not need a genuine dollar bill to compare, you would notice the flaws by looking at it.

Ken

Kenny,

You're still not getting it. This is not some super spiritual biblical mystery. It's really just simple logic. Look, on a good day, I have slightly above average intelligence. If I can grasp this, you certainly can too.

You said, "The only way you would not be able to notice a counterfeit is if it were nearly perfect."
I agree. But again, by what are you judging "perfect"? You'd have to know something perfect to say something is almost perfect. Just like saying humans are flawed/imperfect, there has to be something perfect, a "standard" to judge the imperfect as imperfect.

[Kenny]

Kuriuo
I just want to help them see, but I know I can't. And they just think me crazy or deluded. I'll tolerate that back if they can tolerate that I think they're blinded.
Ken
I don’t think you are crazy or deluded. If I had such hostility towards everybody I disagree with, I would be calling everybody crazy and deluded. And you know what they say when you think the entire world is crazy but you.....(LOL)

Kuriuo
Finally, I just don't get why Atheists come to the board and start defending their beliefs and attacking ours.
Logically, as I see it, an Atheist shouldn't care either way about God's existence. And yet, they frequent forums like these.
God doesn't exist, just be done with it and move on. Obviously, there is some inner need they're trying to meet by being here.

Hence my question, "What's the point?" In other words, why are they here?
Ken
My initial reason for coming here is..... (I am trying to say this without being offensive because that is not my intent) because when I saw this site, I saw some comments and claims about Atheists that I found offensive and bigoted, and they were expressed unchallenged. I joined because I felt a need to offer an opposing point of view. I realize to the Christian the comments will probably be seen as direct and to the point, or maybe even backed up by the bible! But to me the non-believer, they were offensive. I figured if I could talk to some of the people, maybe I could change some hearts and there won’t be so much hatred and hostility expressed against us.
If I happened upon a site that I felt was expressing offensive and bigoted POV minorities, the rich, the poor conservatives, liberals, or whatever group, and they were expressing such bigotry unchallenged; I would join that site to offer an opposing point of view as well. (not that I am making a comparison)

Ken

[Kenny]

RickD
Kenny,

You're still not getting it. This is not some super spiritual biblical mystery. It's really just simple logic. Look, on a good day, I have slightly above average intelligence. If I can grasp this, you certainly can too.

You said, "The only way you would not be able to notice a counterfeit is if it were nearly perfect."
I agree. But again, by what are you judging "perfect"?
Ken
When it comes to dollar bills, there is such a thing as perfect; there are millions of them around to compare it to.

RickD
You'd have to know something perfect to say something is almost perfect. Just like saying humans are flawed/imperfect, there has to be something perfect, a "standard" to judge the imperfect as imperfect.
Ken
So unless you are perfect, (I am assuming you are not) how would you recognize perfection when you see it? In other words; how does a flawed person verify another person is perfect? (assuming you are not using blind faith)

Ken

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Kenny.

Apologies for hostilities coming my end.

Kuriuo
I just want to help them see, but I know I can't. And they just think me crazy or deluded. I'll tolerate that back if they can tolerate that I think they're blinded.
Ken
I don’t think you are crazy or deluded. If I had such hostility towards everybody I disagree with, I would be calling everybody crazy and deluded. And you know what they say when you think the entire world is crazy but you.....(LOL)

Saying I'm crazy or deluded re: Christian beliefs and beliefs in God, I really don't see that as hostility.

In the past I was offended by an Atheist who said as much, but since seen it comes through Freud, Kant and many others like them.
At the same time, I don't mean any hostility when I say Atheists are blinded to the truth through a heart disposition of sorts that is antithetical to God.

Both of these responses I feel a valid from an Atheist or Theist perspective, whichever you fall down on.
That is, they are valid responses to this question:

• Why is it we have persons on both sides of the God debate, each presumably as equally intelligent and understanding the majority of arguments for/against God's existence, and yet they reach such polar opposite conclusions?

It cannot be reason itself, or a lack of facts... unless we wish to discredit everyone on the other side as being irrational and uneducated. That to me, seems a bit much to swallow. I'm sure there are equally rational and educated Atheists as there are Theists.

So it seems something else is at play? Influencing our judgment on these matters.

For Atheists, Theists have to be deluded or believe in an illusion. For example, perhaps its something biological in the brain that we're just wired to see "Design" which those who do not believe in God are missing?

For Theists, Atheists have to be blind. Their hardened hearts or a wrong disposition of sorts blinding them to the reality of God, which to us absolutely saturates everything we see. Forget fine tuning arguments, one just needs to take a stroll outside and gaze up of the stars. Look at the design of the sexes, the amount of harmonious symbiosis that occurs on the macro and micro levels -- it's just everywhere for us.

So, I don't believe these are hostile responses even if they might sound arrogant.
But, they're responses that are trying to be real when answering a rather difficult question.

Kuriuo
Finally, I just don't get why Atheists come to the board and start defending their beliefs and attacking ours.
Logically, as I see it, an Atheist shouldn't care either way about God's existence. And yet, they frequent forums like these.
God doesn't exist, just be done with it and move on. Obviously, there is some inner need they're trying to meet by being here.

Hence my question, "What's the point?" In other words, why are they here?
Ken
My initial reason for coming here is..... (I am trying to say this without being offensive because that is not my intent) because when I saw this site, I saw some comments and claims about Atheists that I found offensive and bigoted, and they were expressed unchallenged. I joined because I felt a need to offer an opposing point of view. I realize to the Christian the comments will probably be seen as direct and to the point, or maybe even backed up by the bible! But to me the non-believer, they were offensive. I figured if I could talk to some of the people, maybe I could change some hearts and there won’t be so much hatred and hostility expressed against us.
If I happened upon a site that I felt was expressing offensive and bigoted POV minorities, the rich, the poor conservatives, liberals, or whatever group, and they were expressing such bigotry unchallenged; I would join that site to offer an opposing point of view as well. (not that I am making a comparison)

Thanks Ken. It's good to have greater insight into why you're here.
And for what it's worth, many Christians here also don't agree with everything onsite.

I can tell from your initial posts here you were very ruffled, such that I avoided you to a large degree.
I'm sure a lot of my comments were some you found offensive and bigoted, but understand we get our fair share of arrogant Atheists.
So a lot is intended to put Atheists in their place, at least as I see it. Whether or not that makes me bigoted etc I don't know.
We all strongly believe what we do.

Anyway, glad to have a bit more insight into what made you start posting.
And I must say you have thick skin and always seem to maintain a cool demeanor.

[Kenny]

Thanks Kenny.

Apologies for hostilities coming my end.

Kuriuo
I just want to help them see, but I know I can't. And they just think me crazy or deluded. I'll tolerate that back if they can tolerate that I think they're blinded.
Ken
I don’t think you are crazy or deluded. If I had such hostility towards everybody I disagree with, I would be calling everybody crazy and deluded. And you know what they say when you think the entire world is crazy but you.....(LOL)

Saying I'm crazy or deluded re: Christian beliefs and beliefs in God, I really don't see that as hostility.

In the past I was offended by an Atheist who said as much, but since seen it comes through Freud, Kant and many others like them.
At the same time, I don't mean any hostility when I say Atheists are blinded to the truth through a heart disposition of sorts that is antithetical to God.

Both of these responses I feel a valid from an Atheist or Theist perspective, whichever you fall down on.
That is, they are valid responses to this question:

• Why is it we have persons on both sides of the God debate, each presumably as equally intelligent and understanding the majority of arguments for/against God's existence, and yet they reach such polar opposite conclusions?

It cannot be reason itself, or a lack of facts... unless we wish to discredit everyone on the other side as being irrational and uneducated. That to me, seems a bit much to swallow. I'm sure there are equally rational and educated Atheists as there are Theists.

So it seems something else is at play? Influencing our judgment on these matters.

For Atheists, Theists have to be deluded or believe in an illusion. For example, perhaps its something biological in the brain that we're just wired to see "Design" which those who do not believe in God are missing?

For Theists, Atheists have to be blind. Their hardened hearts or a wrong disposition of sorts blinding them to the reality of God, which to us absolutely saturates everything we see. Forget fine tuning arguments, one just needs to take a stroll outside and gaze up of the stars. Look at the design of the sexes, the amount of harmonious symbiosis that occurs on the macro and micro levels -- it's just everywhere for us.

So, I don't believe these are hostile responses even if they might sound arrogant.
But, they're responses that are trying to be real when answering a rather difficult question.

Kuriuo
Finally, I just don't get why Atheists come to the board and start defending their beliefs and attacking ours.
Logically, as I see it, an Atheist shouldn't care either way about God's existence. And yet, they frequent forums like these.
God doesn't exist, just be done with it and move on. Obviously, there is some inner need they're trying to meet by being here.

Hence my question, "What's the point?" In other words, why are they here?
Ken
My initial reason for coming here is..... (I am trying to say this without being offensive because that is not my intent) because when I saw this site, I saw some comments and claims about Atheists that I found offensive and bigoted, and they were expressed unchallenged. I joined because I felt a need to offer an opposing point of view. I realize to the Christian the comments will probably be seen as direct and to the point, or maybe even backed up by the bible! But to me the non-believer, they were offensive. I figured if I could talk to some of the people, maybe I could change some hearts and there won’t be so much hatred and hostility expressed against us.
If I happened upon a site that I felt was expressing offensive and bigoted POV minorities, the rich, the poor conservatives, liberals, or whatever group, and they were expressing such bigotry unchallenged; I would join that site to offer an opposing point of view as well. (not that I am making a comparison)

Thanks Ken. It's good to have greater insight into why you're here.
And for what it's worth, many Christians here also don't agree with everything onsite.

I can tell from your initial posts here you were very ruffled, such that I avoided you to a large degree.
I'm sure a lot of my comments were some you found offensive and bigoted, but understand we get our fair share of arrogant Atheists.
So a lot is intended to put Atheists in their place, at least as I see it. Whether or not that makes me bigoted etc I don't know.
We all strongly believe what we do.

Anyway, glad to have a bit more insight into what made you start posting.
And I must say you have thick skin and always seem to maintain a cool demeanor.

Thank-you

K

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
Whether human behaviour came from evolution or a god, we are a flawed species, too smart for our own good, and behave very badly at times. What about human behaviour indicates that there is a god who showed the way?

Audie,

Could you possibly offer some clarity on the underlined part? If God exists, I can certainly understand how you can say we are a flawed species. But if God doesn't exist, and Godless evolution is true, how can you say we are a flawed species? If something is flawed, it is imperfect in some way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, there has to be something perfect to compare it to.

Interesting differences of point of view! To me, if there were a God who made us in His image, then we should not be so flawed. ( I do not at all accept the idea that disease, war, etc are the result of original sin)

I wonder why you call it "Godless evolution"? Evolution is the same whether there is a god or not. Its like the gas laws that way. Of course, the various creation stories of various religions are not in technical keeping with the way that life seems to have actually developed, but that does not address the reality / non reality of any god.
Its just about the literal or technical accuracy of the stories people tell eachother about those gods.

I see where you are coming from with the philosophical thing about the Platonic ideal, iI guess it is. But its a lot simpler than that.

We have no examples of perfect cars, but we can spot flaws in them.

Evolution could not produce perfection. I think that is an obvious given, and it can be illustrated with countless examples.

[Squible]

RickD,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, there has to be something perfect to compare it to.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I wanted to offer a perspective. Seems to me, in order to know something is flawed or imperfect, all you need is to be able to recognize flaws.

Ken

Of course Kenny. But you're still seeing the smoke, while missing the fire. In order to recognize flaws, or to see something is imperfect, one has to have something perfect, to know the other something is imperfect/flawed.

For example, a counterfeit dollar bill is only recognized as counterfeit, because it differs from a genuine dollar bill. If there were no genuine bill, there would be no way to tell a counterfeit is fake. Understand?

I gotta disagree with you again my friend! The only way you would not be able to notice a counterfeit is if it were nearly perfect. If the flaws in the counterfeit were obvious, you would not need a genuine dollar bill to compare, you would notice the flaws by looking at it.

Ken

We see the point of the illustration and Kenny sees money!

I wonder now, what if the flaws were actually not flaws?

Cheers.