Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:When you have the likes of Hitchens and others, proclaiming that God is indeed a moral monster, I don't think that many of the arguments of the past hold much sway now.
Arguments like " It is God' right to punish those he sees fit" or "God shows mercy on who he chooses", or things along those lines, just don't work VS the modern skeptic that has been "armed" the the militant atheist rhetoric.
The "bible says so", doesn't work either ( since the bible is for them the problem of the matter in many cases).
Since we are speaking of this situation with Elisha, let me use this as an example:
A human is far more moral than God because, I for example, would NOT of sent bears to maul these misguide youths but would have showed my superiour moral by forgiving them or another line that could be taken is that God could have repayed their taunts in kind with all of them being struck BALD at that instant !
Etc, etc...

Paul, I guess different approaches work for different people. Why should we give up our starting point, which is God, and adhere to their starting point, which then becomes the default and God is in the dock being judged? No apologist should be saying things like "because the Bible says so" without establishing a foundation. But in the end we can say "the Bible says so" or, "man says so".

The modern skeptics have not brought a single new objection. Al they have done is changed the language to be more provocative. The likes of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are philosophical midgets, and their arguments are even ripped apart by the more intelligent atheists Like Ruse, so let's not give it any more credibility than is appropriate.

Speculating on what God should do or not do is a game that we should not play, as it implies we know better than Him. If they wish to play that game, then so be it, but then they should justify the basis for their morality, which is logically prior to them making any moral judgments.

It is a case of blaspheme most likely. This would not be the first time God kills over this.

Imagine when God first speaks to Moses in the cave. When God asks him to take off his sandles and if Moses curses him instead, Moses would have died. Ussually when one person curses another it does not warrent death, but in the case of extreme blaspheme it does. God is the only one justified in doing this.

Paul, I guess different approaches work for different people. Why should we give up our starting point, which is God, and adhere to their starting point, which then becomes the default and God is in the dock being judged? No apologist should be saying things like "because the Bible says so" without establishing a foundation. But in the end we can say "the Bible says so" or, "man says so".

If the question is God we really can't start AT God with a skeptic, you can't start from what doesn't exist.
At to that if what IS being question is God's character then simply saying " God's right or God says so" isn't good enough.

The modern skeptics have not brought a single new objection. Al they have done is changed the language to be more provocative. The likes of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are philosophical midgets, and their arguments are even ripped apart by the more intelligent atheists Like Ruse, so let's not give it any more credibility than is appropriate.

Well, theologicaly speaking they are ill-equippied BUT when they draw the moral card and apply it to the "OT GOD" then, well, it may SEEM that they have some points.

Speculating on what God should do or not do is a game that we should not play, as it implies we know better than Him. If they wish to play that game, then so be it, but then they should justify the basis for their morality, which is logically prior to them making any moral judgments.

That is the thing though, if the skeptic can "prove" a moral superiority to God then what we have is God being the "greatest possible good" or the "absolute moral" being called into question or even disproven.

wrain62 wrote:It is a case of blaspheme most likely. This would not be the first time God kills over this.

Imagine when God first speaks to Moses in the cave. When God asks him to take off his sandles and if Moses curses him instead, Moses would have died. Ussually when one person curses another it does not warrent death, but in the case of extreme blaspheme it does. God is the only one justified in doing this.

One can argue that there is no moral superiority in justifying punishing blasphemy.

PaulSacramento wrote:

wrain62 wrote:It is a case of blaspheme most likely. This would not be the first time God kills over this.

Imagine when God first speaks to Moses in the cave. When God asks him to take off his sandles and if Moses curses him instead, Moses would have died. Ussually when one person curses another it does not warrent death, but in the case of extreme blaspheme it does. God is the only one justified in doing this.

One can argue that there is no moral superiority in justifying punishing blasphemy.

To directly deny the Lord, the giver of life, is to directly deny [insert anything meaningful and good] and does deserve death. Although it is immoral to put it upon ourselves to the job of punishment, or to punish people for blasphemy against a human.

Why does it deserve death or can a man not repent from this? I don´t know there is something about absolute holiness that cannot be currupted. Why did God ask Moses to take off his sandles at all?

It may be out of our conprehension but I think blasphemy to God´s will like this does deserve strong justice.

PaulSacramento wrote:If the question is God we really can't start AT God with a skeptic, you can't start from what doesn't exist.
At to that if what IS being question is God's character then simply saying " God's right or God says so" isn't good enough.

That is why I say different approaches for different people, so how ever you feel best doing it, then do it that way.

However, why should I concede from the outset that the non-believer is right? Why should I accept his presuppositions, and agree to his terms? If he wants to prove the non-existence of God, he should go ahead and prove it from his own base principles. He needs to account for his ontology, epistemology and his use of the transcendental in such a case. If he wants to make arguments which assume for the sake of argument that God exists, like the argument from evil, then he should accept all of the premises that come with it, not just the ones he prefers. The problem is that it does not work then, and he has to employ a rhetorical sleight of hand to avoid the is/ought dilemma.

As a Christian I am not shy of invoking God in His defense. If a non-believer wants to question God's character, how do you propose defending it without invoking God, and using secular-humanist presuppositions? If I say that God is right, then it is up to the non-believer to establish a logical basis from which to attack that. Saying that he doesn't like it, or that God is mean or unfair or whatever is circular, he is assuming that which he needs to prove. When it comes to base arguments, one sometimes cannot avoid being circular, and while being circular is not always fallacious, that is exactly what needs to be investigated. They may equally charge that assuming God is circular, and that is the debate we should have then.

But there is no reason, logical or otherwise, that I concede any kind of ground to a non-believer. There is no neutral middle ground, you either start from God or you don't. If you want to use inductive reasoning with secular presuppositions it is your prerogative.

Well, theologicaly speaking they are ill-equippied BUT when they draw the moral card and apply it to the "OT GOD" then, well, it may SEEM that they have some points.

The problem is mostly an emotional problem, and those can be hard to address. No-one wants to think that there may be some moral justification in the death or suffering of innocents. That is why one needs to cut through the emotion, establish the base principles, and then look at it again.

That is the thing though, if the skeptic can "prove" a moral superiority to God then what we have is God being the "greatest possible good" or the "absolute moral" being called into question or even disproven.

Yep. That is why they should prove their case. Just be sure that the same logic and assumptions apply to both positions.