Existential crisis? I don't even know.

[Jac3510]

csll, I didn't say that everyone came to faith that way. I noted that everyone has to have all three aspects of personhood to believe, being the will, the heart, and the intellect. Kioku's situation, by his own words, is fairly obvious. Yours may have been different.

Kioku,

I appreciate that you have begun to recognize the logical conclusion of atheism. There is no such thing as right and wrong. Let that really sink in and use the classical example: what Hitler did, if atheism is true, was simply not wrong. For you or me to say it was would be on the same level as saying he ought to have preferred our favorite flavor ice cream. And now make it more personal. Think of the person you love most. It would NOT be wrong for someone to rape, torture, and murder them.

That's atheim's world.

It also provides a first basis for belief in God. I'm not asking you if you WANT there to be right and wrong. Clearly, you do. We all do. It's human nature. I'm asking you if there really is such a thing as right and wrong, and I want to suggest to you that you believe there is. Further, I want to suggest to you that you have NO REASON to say there is no such thing as right or wrong. You would have to presume atheism, the very thing under discussion, which is bad logic. It's just circular. It's fallacious. So, if there really is such a thing as right and wrong, and there clearly is, then there must be such a thing as God.

But let's take it further than you did in your questioning.

Did you know that if there is no God, then there is no such thing as reason? My most recent blog post (see the link in my sig) deals with this in some detail, so I won't say too much here other than give a sketch of the argument. In short, as you noted, if there is no God, then everything is just chemical and physical reactions, including your thoughts. Thus, your thoughts are nothing more than the products of non-rational physical reactions. As such, even your thoughts are not rational. It turns out that there is no such thing as "rational" under atheism. It is impossible to think. It is impossible to "believe" anything at all. Everything, even your thoughts, is a simple matter of the universe acting the way that it does because that is just what it does.

Now, let me ask you a question: do you have any reason to believe that you can't think? Any argument you could give me to prove that you can't think would refute itself, because it would require your thinking. Thus, atheism rests on a self-contradiction. Thus, in order to embrace atheism, not only must you believe the absurdity that there is no such thing as right and wrong, you must embrace the absurdity that rational thought is impossible. Do you have any reason to believe either of those? You can't, by definition, because reasons themselves have been discredited.

On that, I notice you did not answer my question about Jesus' resurrection. I ask it specifically because there are lots of arguments that prove God exists, but we want to know if the CHRISTIAN God exists. Here's the bottom line: if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is true. If He didn't, Christianity is a lie. So here is a historical event you can study. Have you done so? If not, I invite you to start with one of my blog posts (The Existence of God, pt.4), then turn to William Lane Craig's papers (as they are longer and more detailed), and then turn to his debates. Finally, read a few books on the subject (The Case for Christ, Jesus Under Fire, and The Resurrection of the Son of God all immediately come to mind). In short, we can know that Jesus rose from the dead just as well as we can know any other fact in history. Thus, we can be sure that Christianity is true.

So, are you familiar with that evidence?

[cslewislover]

csll, I didn't say that everyone came to faith that way. I noted that everyone has to have all three aspects of personhood to believe, being the will, the heart, and the intellect. Kioku's situation, by his own words, is fairly obvious. Yours may have been different.

I don't think it's that obvious, actually. He says one thing, about "knowing" things, and then he talks a lot about feeling things. If a person is going into depression, intellectual things only go so far. Besides that, where does God's will come in? Where does the Holy Spirit come in? You make it sound as if it's all our own doing - our spiritual growth. I was just wondering.

[kioku]

I don't mean to be a heretic, but it's hard to answer. During trials, human testimony is usually the most fallible. I'm not saying the Bible is fallible, but I know Jesus existed. The historical evidence piles up a lot. Still, though, I worry. I know the actual testimonies would have no reason to lie, really, but humans are fallible. I don't dispute the historical documentation of the life of Jesus Christ, but I'm guessing the resurrection was possible. I don't know, though.

As for the bottom line, it's whether or not there's an afterlife and God. While I must agree ultimately, the greatest good Lord would be the one of Christianity and Judaism with the mercy of Jesus Christ.

While logic and reasoning certainly present themselves as proofs, I have to be completely honest and say I don't see how it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that's there's a God. I mean, the fact us human beings are far more advanced than anything else on Earth, have morals, and logic does mean something. It hints that it required a supernatural design to program and regulate these things.

[Jac3510]

I don't think it's that obvious, actually. He says one thing, about "knowing" things, and then he talks a lot about feeling things.

Haven't you ever known something was true but had conflicting emotions about it? Or, the other way, have you not ever wanted something very much but knew it was not true?

There is not always a direct correlation between what we know and what we feel. Christianity is built on truth, not emotion, and truth is propositional, not emotional.

If a person is going into depression, intellectual things only go so far.

I have no problem with that. Yet I am sure you would agree that any treatment for an emotional problem must be based on truth.

Besides that, where does God's will come in? Where does the Holy Spirit come in? You make it sound as if it's all our own doing - our spiritual growth. I was just wondering.

I'm not sure what you mean by these questions. You tell me where God and the HS come in. I hope you don't believe that it is God's will for people to flounder in emotional distress and disbelief.

God wants us to know the truth. KNOW the truth. The sooner we quit pussyfooting around with emotions and get back to reality the better. There is such a thing as reality, and reality is what it is regardless of how we feel about it. Forgive me for being cold, but I'm of the mind that we should bend our emotions to be in conformity with reality, not vice-versa. Jesus strongly WANTED to avoid the Cross, but He KNEW reality, and as such, He still more strongly desired to do God's will.

If someone's emotions prompt them to search for answers, then great. That is what they are there for. Emotions are not the basis for belief. If someone's emotions prompt them to discard any answers, then they need to be addressed. In short, emotions that spur us on to search for truth should be embraced. Those emotions that hinder us from searching for truth should be dealt with.

So concerning God's will -- I believe it is God's will for people to know and seek the Truth. He has provided that for people to find. Concerning the HS -- I believe that the HS draws people to God as they come in contact with the Truth. The more Truth they accept, the more strongly the HS draws them. Remember, csll, God doesn't force Himself on anyone, not even someone who wants Him to.

[Jac3510]

I don't mean to be a heretic, but it's hard to answer. During trials, human testimony is usually the most fallible. I'm not saying the Bible is fallible, but I know Jesus existed. The historical evidence piles up a lot. Still, though, I worry. I know the actual testimonies would have no reason to lie, really, but humans are fallible. I don't dispute the historical documentation of the life of Jesus Christ, but I'm guessing the resurrection was possible. I don't know, though.

As for the bottom line, it's whether or not there's an afterlife and God. While I must agree ultimately, the greatest good Lord would be the one of Christianity and Judaism with the mercy of Jesus Christ.

While logic and reasoning certainly present themselves as proofs, I have to be completely honest and say I don't see how it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that's there's a God. I mean, the fact us human beings are far more advanced than anything else on Earth, have morals, and logic does mean something. It hints that it required a supernatural design to program and regulate these things.

You stil didn't answer the question, Kioku. If you think that all we have is testimony (I'm assuming you are thinking of the Gospel accounts), then your non-answer tells me that you haven't looked at all at the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

You keep telling me you want to believe. I am telling you what information you need. The historicity of the resurrection is the best place to start other than the traditional arguments in favor of theism (i.e., the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, the arguments for morality, reason, and being, etc.). I won't ask again:

What EVIDENCE are you aware of in favor of the resurrection of Jesus? I've pointed you, now, to three specific resources:

1. My most recent blog post;
2. William Lane Craig's online papers and debates;
3. Three specific books on the subject (Strobel's Case fo Christ, Wilkin's Jesus Under Fire, and Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God).

And, of course, we can talk details here as well. But we can't talk details until you are familiar with the arguments. It's your choice if you want to examine the evidence or not. I've told you exactly where you can find it. The answer to your questions are available.

So here's the emotional question: do you want to know, or would you rather be in a place where you just want to want to know (not a typo)?

[kioku]

I do want to know the absolute truth.

As for the evidence for Jesus Christ's life and resurrection, I'm not entirely sure of the evidence for it aside from the historical accounts of what happened. So, that's all I can really say I'm aware of. I will try to read what you suggested, though.

I apologize if I'm overlooking words and sentences, I'm just a bit shaken up.

[Jac3510]

No apologies necessary, Kioku. Let's start with the resurrection. Any of us here could very likely walk you through the evidences, so we can talk about it. That being said, Craig's papers and debates are available online for your immediate viewing. Thus, I would suggest you go ahead and do that, and then let's have a conversation about what you find.

Further, I think that think more you study it, the more you will find yourself not being able to justify your doubt, and sooner or later, you'll suddenly realize the fact that you have actually been believing for a while (not saying you are now, just through the process). In other words, if I am right and persuasion is passive and not something you choose, then there are actually two issues: first, being persuaded, and second, you realizing it.

In any case, the answer to both of those is more exposure to evidence and arguments, as well as just being around people who do know why they believe. It just so happens to be true that being around really confident people can rub off on you. That's not to say that is a good logical argument, but it's just the way people work. When everyone around us holds to a belief without question, we are inclined to do the same.

So stick around. I look forward to talking with you and seeing your conversations with others. In the meantime, work on this principles: IF God exists (and He does) and IF Christianity is true (and it is), then God wants you to know about it. Further, He understands your heart, that you want to believe, and He understands your struggle. He will be there on your journey the whole way, and eventually, when you finally do come to your place of belief (which I have no doubt will happen, because that is the destination of the road all of us are suggesting you take), you will look back and see what you cannot see now: that God was with you the entire time.

[waynepii]

csll, I didn't say that everyone came to faith that way. I noted that everyone has to have all three aspects of personhood to believe, being the will, the heart, and the intellect. Kioku's situation, by his own words, is fairly obvious. Yours may have been different.

Kioku,

I appreciate that you have begun to recognize the logical conclusion of atheism. There is no such thing as right and wrong. Let that really sink in and use the classical example: what Hitler did, if atheism is true, was simply not wrong. For you or me to say it was would be on the same level as saying he ought to have preferred our favorite flavor ice cream. And now make it more personal. Think of the person you love most. It would NOT be wrong for someone to rape, torture, and murder them.

That's atheim's world.

Why do Christians assume that atheists are immoral? The "Golden Rule" is a fine "moral compass" and is not dependent upon God's law (yes, I am familiar with Matt. 7:12, Luke 6:31, etc).

BTW Hitler professed to be Roman Catholic.

[Jac3510]

Why do people read into other people's words what they didn't explicitly say?

I didn't say that atheists are immoral. I said that there is no such thing as immorality if God does not exist. If God does exist, then right and wrong have meaning whether you believe in Him or not. If God does not exist, then right and wrong has NO meaning whether you believe in Him or not.

Thus, if there is no God, then what Hitler did was not wrong. If there is a God, then what Hitler did was wrong.

I absolutely believe that atheists can be moral. In fact, I believe many are. I believe they are because morality is an objective part of reality that ALL people have direct access to. But they only have access to it because God exists. I can deny that there is a waterfall upstream, but that doesn't mean that just because I do I can't take advantage of the water in the stream.

[jlay]

What you need, Kioku, is hard evidence.

You mean like the kind that Judas had. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Is anyone here starting to feel played, or is it just me?

Further, this is precisely why I can't stand that theology that says that being worried about your doubt is a real sign that you are actually saved.

not saying that is the REAL sign of being saved. I'm saying it is evidence that God is at work. An unsaved person can also feel remorse and make moral decisions because of the prevenient grace of God that is at work. But I would feel safe in saying they can't feel godly sorrow that worketh repentance unless the work of salvation is being exercised. I said that is evidence of a heart that is sensative towards God, not of salvation.

I had an encounter that took away certain doubts as to whether God exist. I know because of my experience that God exist. But, this is not salvation. Paul getting knocked off the horse was not salvation, but an encounter. He could have headed back to Jerusalem and rejected what he saw. How many who witnessed the miracles of Christ, had been crying out to God for revelation, and then rejected Him.

How many of the Pharisees had seen His miracles only to demand a sign.

[Byblos]

1. My most recent blog post;

I just read through all 5 points. Great stuff Jac (is there more?). I copied it and saved it, please let me know if that's ok with you.

[Jac3510]

You mean like the kind that Judas had. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Does the fact that Judas rejected the evidence he received mean that others, then, don't need evidence?

Is anyone here starting to feel played, or is it just me?

Why are you feeling played by someone who is asking legitimate questions? There are different personality types. Perhaps Kioku is a closet atheist who has come to pick fun--I don't think so, because, having been here for probably longer than anyone except Kurieuo, I've read enough that I feel I can say he doesn't write as if that is the case (while admitting I could be wrong)--in any case, do you think it is wise to imply that what could be a genuine questioner is actually a hoax? Not very good PR, my friend . . .

not saying that is the REAL sign of being saved. I'm saying it is evidence that God is at work. An unsaved person can also feel remorse and make moral decisions because of the prevenient grace of God that is at work. But I would feel safe in saying they can't feel godly sorrow that worketh repentance unless the work of salvation is being exercised. I said that is evidence of a heart that is sensative towards God, not of salvation.

How a person can believe that unbelief is a sign that God is working will always be beyond me. In any case, the verse you alluded to was written to Christians. I hardly think that the Corinthians needed to get saved again.

I had an encounter that took away certain doubts as to whether God exist. I know because of my experience that God exist. But, this is not salvation. Paul getting knocked off the horse was not salvation, but an encounter. He could have headed back to Jerusalem and rejected what he saw. How many who witnessed the miracles of Christ, had been crying out to God for revelation, and then rejected Him.

As I said in my original reply here, there are both experiential proofs and intellectual proofs. But your experience is never enough to prove reality to someone else without hard intellectual proof to back it up. Unless you can give Kioku a formula for getting an experience from God, I don't think appeals to experience are very useful. Do you?

How many of the Pharisees had seen His miracles only to demand a sign.

And everyone today has the same sign the Pharisees ultimately got: the resurrection of Jesus. Why should anyone, you, me, Kioku, ANYONE, get anything more than the greatest sign ever given? If God so chooses to grant a person such a sign, then that is a matter of His grace, but to suggest that such signs are necessary is absurd.

The resurrection is a fact. It is sufficient evidence to believe when coupled with general revelation. And all of those things are part of objective reality, reality that we can intellectually discuss.

[Jac3510]

1. My most recent blog post;

I just read through all 5 points. Great stuff Jac (is there more?). I copied it and saved it, please let me if that's ok with you.

Thanks, Byblos. You can copy and paste and do anything else with anything you read from me you like. There will be more. I'm working on two more points that will be up over the next week. 1) The existence of God through a study of the nature of being, and 2) The existence of God through a study of fulfilled prophecy.

After that, I'll move on to other subjects. I'm just laying a lot of ground work now for what I ultimately want to do with the blog, which is to discuss issues from a perspective of Christian philosophy.

[cslewislover]

Jac, you seem to be getting a little overly excited by my posts. What I'm getting at is, there is a certain point where a person knows enough, I think, and has to come to terms with what they know and make a choice. But at the same time, it is not just up to us, God's will is involved too. Just as you said at the end of your last post. To me, Kioku seems to actually know a lot already. If he wants to know more, of course that's great and wonderful. But where is his will in this, and God's will? When does submission of the will and the intellect to the Lord happen? I'm thinking of these things.

[kioku]

Perhaps Kioku is a closet atheist who has come to pick fun

I've been raised Lutheran and my grandfather was a Catholic. I'm most certainly not a closet atheist who came here to pick fun. In fact, this was the only place I felt safe enough to ask these questions. Especially since the topic of the site addressed exactly what I was looking for, but there are still inklings of doubt in my heart like I said. I'm bordering on agnosticism if I had to put my finger on it. I'm just having worries and my faith isn't exactly strong, in fact, it's just not there.

I've went over a lot of debates and reading material on the matter as it is, but I'll continue reading. I'm not completely oblivious to the subject matter. I just haven't made a decision yet and it feels foolish of me to do so headfirst and recklessly. I mean, life is on the line here. I have to agree that morals do in fact exist. Although, are they divine or taught? Would a person who was never taught anything feel remorse killing? Would a person who was never taught it was wrong feel remorse from rape, and so on? I don't know, but part of my believes they would.

As well, my main concern doesn't really have any specifications. I mean, is there God? A God. Is there an afterlife? If only I could nail that one down, I think figuring out which would be a lot easier. The whole thing I struggle with is, "Are they present?".

I am a person of strong Judeo-Christian values. I know a lot of these morals are constant in all society. Some have seemed to take a more flexible approach to murder, rape, etc. but I still believe they may hold it ultimately morally wrong and feel guilty or condemn it somehow if they are of sound mind. Then again, that raises the entire question if it is based on the brain if their mental illness could be to blame.

The entire debate seems like a spiral of uncertainty to me and it's not going anywhere. Given, I know it won't be immediate, but the past few days I've had off and I've done nothing, but watch debates on the matter and read up on arguments for and against. There's not a lot I can do, but keep on that.