Existential crisis? I don't even know.

[Byblos]

I've been raised Lutheran and my grandfather was a Catholic.

Well there you go, that's the source of 90% of your problems .

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

I'm most certainly not a closet atheist who came here to pick fun.

Jac said that to illustrate a point. He so much as said that he personally didn't believe it. You certainly haven't come across as such (otherwise you would have been called on it by now, believe me ).

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.

Then you have come to the right place. Please continue asking questions and searching and seeking guidance. You'll be surprised when and in what form you'll get it.

[Jac3510]

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.

I'm hardly excited, csll . . . just posting here at work.

In any case, you and I simply have a fundamental difference in the nature of belief. You think it is a choice. I don't. I have a huge, massive problem with the idea that submission of our will to God has anything to do with faith or salvation. That's a human work, and we aren't saved by works. We're saved by faith. Faith, as I defined it in the other thread, is trust in someone or something else's ability to perform according their nature, and that, usually, based on evidence. There must be, then, persuasion along with the will to rely. But persuasion is passive, and thus, I can't "muster up" faith. I just don't believe it works that way. If I could just change my mind about belief, I would. But that's part of the problem with belief. It is what it is, regardless of what we want it to be.

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.

Forgive those of us who are just a bit gunshy, Kioku. I'm sure you can imagine the number of people we get who say that they are real questioners but really have an agenda. In any case, I thoroughly believe, as does pretty much everyone else here, I bet, that you mean what you say and aren't out just to pull a debate.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think it's clear--and it has been acknowledged in this thread--that you have been introduced to some of the material. No one thinks you are ignorant. My central point, the one I keep on returning to over and over again, is that you need to grapple with the hard evidence. I know you have not exhausted it because men who have spent their entire lives explaining it have not exhausted it. Further, from your brief comments about the resurrection (and the fact you have not yet read the books I suggested, which are absolutely standard) tells me that you haven't yet thoroughly investigated the HISTORICAL evidence for its reality. There is nothing wrong with that. It just gives you a place to go looking.

Finally, let's take this statement:

I have to agree that morals do in fact exist.

Now, this is a huge place to start from. Let's forget the argument about whose morals are right. The very fact that you believe morals exist will require you to acknowledge that a MORAL God exists (which, ultimately, will require you to believe in an afterlife).

The reason is simple: if God does not exist, then morals don't actually exist. There would be no such thing as right or wrong. There would only be personal preference. I could not even say, "Well I think that so and so is wrong." The problem there is that while, yes, it does deal with personal preference, it is still a personal preference about reality itself. But what would it mean for something to be right or wrong in reality itself, outside of what someone thinks? Such a notion is meaningless. So we must agree that no one human being is the source of morality.

Who, then, is?

It must be God. More specifically, for reality itself to have a moral aspect, then morality must be embedded into existence itself. But what would you call a pure moral existence except God? Existence cannot cease to exist, and thus, such a being would be eternal and would be the support of all beings in the universe.

So, it is, again, evident, that if you believe that morals are real--that they are a part of reality in itself--the next logical and necessary step is to acknowledge the existence of a MORAL God. That is, a God who actually cares about Right and Wrong. C. S. Lewis ably demonstrates that such a Being would Himself be Morally Perfect, the very notion of Righteousness, Goodness, and Holiness in itself. And against that, are you perfectly righteous, good, or holy? No, and I'm sure you are aware of that. Before such Goodness, your faults are magnified.

Further, such Goodness would be forced to judge and condemn your evil (for Justice is Good, and perfect Goodness would be perfect Justice, and Justice demands the punishment of evil). You and I and everyone on this board, then, stand condemned before such a God. Nothing you can do would make up for the fact that you have done evil, that you are infinitely more evil than it is Good, no matter how good you think you are. Thus, you, me, and everyone else on this board, stands condemned.

How to resolve that problem???

Christianity says that this God, because He is also Love (love is Good, remember!), became a man and took that condemnation for us. "God so love the world that He gave His only Son, that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but will have everlasting life." Jesus' death on the cross took that punishment; His resurrection gives us life in this perfect God.

So, your belief in morals, if taken to their proper conclusion, will actually take you all the way to Christ.

[kioku]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but couldn't morals come from what we're taught? In areas where laws aren't enforced, a lot of people do what's morally wrong. The concepts do indeed exist, though. I'm pretty sure even those doing wrong could agree on Good and Evil. There's no real line blurred, but it's a little unclear if they exist supernaturally or if we're taught them and they came from somewhere else. Moral laws really serve no benefit to people, as it tells people to go out of their way to do what's right.

Aside from that, human beings do have free will and are sentient. We're able to tell right from wrong deep down, I think.

[Jac3510]

Sure they could come from what we are taught. They could come from evolution. They could come from aliens in outer space. Their origin doesn't affect the argument.

Let me explain with an analogy.

Were you born knowing that London, Paris, and Washington, D.C. were all cities, or that they were the capitols of countries called Great Britain, France, and The Unite States of America, respectively? I'll wager the answer is no. You were probably taught that by your parents or school teachers. Does the fact that you were taught that negate the fact that they really are cities and capitols of really existing countries? Nope. Note this: they existed in reality long before you knew about them, and they will continue to do so long after you've forgotten about them.

In other words, when you say you were taught them, you are telling me that you gained knowledge ABOUT reality.

Now, morals are either in reality or not. If when your parents taught you your morality, you gained knowledge about REALITY, then God must exist by the arguments described. If, on the other hand, when your parents taught you your morality, they were not teaching you anything about reality, but they were instead simply guiding you to certain preferences that are in you but not in reality, then there simply is no such thing as right or wrong.

Let me give you another example.

I like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. There is someone here who likes chocolate more (any volunteers?). Now, when I say, "Vanilla is better," and someone else says, "No, chocolate is better," are we saying anything about reality itself? No. We are saying something about our preferences. Nothing more. All I am actually saying is, "I prefer the taste of vanilla to chocolate ice cream" and my counterpart says the opposite. Both statements are true. If, on the other hand, I say, "George Washington was the third president of the United States," then you can point out that I am WRONG. I am not making a statement about preference. I am making a statement (and false, at that) about reality.

Now, preferences can't be true or false. They are just descriptions of me. I can prefer vanilla. I might wish (prefer) that Washington was the third president, and that could be true, but in no case do my preferences say anything about reality itself. If, then, you say that morality is nothing more than preferences, then you are saying that they have nothing to do with reality itself. And thus, it turns out that morality does NOT exist, because you CANNOT say, "I think murder is wrong." That would be false. All you could actually say is, "I prefer that people don't murder."

Well, bluntly, if morality is just a matter of personal preference, who cares about your morality? Why should I? Because it is "right"? That's just another preference.

So, regardless of who taught you your morals, the question is, are your morals right? Are they reflections of reality, or are they just personal preferences? If the former, then God exists as discussed above. If the latter, then there is no such thing as morality, no such thing as right or wrong (i.e., what Hitler did would not, then, be wrong, any more than torture or rape or murder).

So, which is it? You seem to believe that there really is right and wrong, which means that morality is just a part of nature (whether we were taught rightly or wrongly about that nature). In that case, logically, it MUST be true that God--a MORAL God at that--exists. There is no logical alternative. It is a truth no less necessary than your own existence.

[kioku]

I don't mean to sound as confused and missing the point as the philosophers in that soccer match, but I really can't think of a good answer. I don't know if ultimately, people will atone the consequences for what they do. I don't know if it's a law of reality.

However, I don't mean to dance around the topic. When in the face of things and actually confronted with it, I think differently. For instance, one thing that instantly convinced me evil does in fact exist was abortion. The murder of infants, who are innocent. It drove me to tears when I thought about it and I knew right away.

Since it's personal experience, I can't say that it's an aspect of reality. Personally, I find good and evil morally exist. I don't know if they are aspects of reality, but I might just be a little foolish on the terminology here.

When I think about it, though, the traits of being in the moral right or wrong can't be explained by science in conventional means. They are philosophical points which would have to exist outside of material if they are reality. If they aren't reality, it'd just be ideals passed down and ultimately it wouldn't matter. I agree with you on that, though. Therein lies the problem. Ultimately: I don't know.

According to moral right and wrong, the Holocaust was wrong. Are these ideals or an aspect of reality? I don't know. Else wise, it would have just happened and nobody pays the price for doing it.

It may sound like I'm rambling, but I have to keep thinking about it. Something can ultimately be a correct or incorrect statement, though. Morally? I suppose things can be good or evil, but it requires a conscious observer who is able to judge. I'm guessing I agree that there are good and evil, but post is just construant rambling. I do agree there are moral constants, but they require an observer to be.

I know I missed the point, went off-topic, and wound up with a conclusion of "If nobody's in a forest, can they hear a tree fall?". Without somebody to say it's wrong, I don't know. So, I'll just say regardless, moral right and wrong do exist.

For some reason, though, humans seem to follow these moral codes. Other animals do not. They have not even began to.

I have to say there are moral constants in all, but some aspects of morality are up to preference. I think all cultures opposed murder without any justification, for instance.

I haven't slept in a while, so I may be mentally fatigued. There are moral laws when I think about it, though. Killing somebody for no reason, in truth, is wrong.

[jlay]

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

That's not my point. But assuming a sign is going to suddenly fix all of Kioku's doubts is not sound reasoning.

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,

Joined April 15, 2009 ???????

Kioku is saying some things that contradict.

How a person can believe that unbelief is a sign that God is working will always be beyond me.

unbelief? what? Where did I say that unbelief is a sign of belief. Come on man, you are reading something into it, that isn't there.

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?

I am not apealing to experiences. In fact, I think I am doing the opposite. The formula is John 14:21.
I think we really have to heed Jesus admonishions about wanting a sign. When I got my sign, I wasn't wanting a sign. It was probably the most humble, repentant moment in my life, and then I got my sign. I wasn't seeking the sign, I was seeking Christ. In Kioku's case he is claiming experiences and yet in essence denying them. He claims to have had a Christian experience, since he claims to be a Christian, no?

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?

I agree.

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.

I agree. Where did you get the idea I though otherwise.

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.

[/quote] Agree 100%. So why is that not true with Kioku?

[Jac3510]

You aren't rambling. You are thinking through the issues, and that is fine.

Let me hone in on one thing you said:

Since it's personal experience, I can't say that it's an aspect of reality. Personally, I find good and evil morally exist. I don't know if they are aspects of reality, but I might just be a little foolish on the terminology here.

So let's talk about this a bit.

Go step on a scale. Look how much you weight. When I do, it says ~160 lbs. Now, is my weight a part of reality in itself? Yes. Here's a little terminology to help you out: is my weight an ontological reality or an epistemological reality? Ontology deals with something in and of itself, apart from what people think about it. Epistemology deals with what we know about something. Therefore, is the fact that I way about 160 pounds something real about my body, or is it only something that is "real in my head"?

Clearly, the former. It is ontological. It is reality in itself. And here is a test. If I think I weigh 165 and I get on the scale and see I am 160, then I correct my thinking (epistemological statement!) to put it in line with reality (ontological statement!). Notice this: I was WRONG about my weight before I stepped on the scale.

With that in mind, let's move to the next point of this: my knowing my weight--how did I get that knowledge? Through my personal experience. In fact, there is no way at all for me to know my weight except through my experience with the scale. All knowledge comes through experience (even the knowledge that all knowledge comes through experience itself came by experience!). More specifically, everything we know about reality comes from experience.

So--look at your morals. You cite, correctly, that abortion is wrong. The fact that your experience tells you that says nothing about whether or not it is just a preference or an actual reality in itself (i.e., my favorite ice cream flavor vs. my weight). So hw do you know which it is? Simple test: can someone be WRONG about it?

In the case of ice cream, no one can be WRONG about the best flavor. Everyone has their own, and everyone is right. I CAN be wrong about my weight, which means that while the best flavor of ice cream is a preference, my weight is objective. Can, then, someone be wrong about morals? Can they do something WRONG? Can they be incorrect about what is wrong? Clearly, the answer is yes. People are wrong all the time about both their actions and which actions are right and wrong. The fact that we can have debates to try to find out if something is right and wrong proves that something can be right and wrong.

That means that morality is objective--part of the fabric of reality itself, and thus of God Himself--and thus, God exists. A Moral God exists.

Thoughts?

[waynepii]

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 believe in God. I also would believe that Hitler's actions were wrong even if I didn't believe in God - Hitler was a major factor in the deaths of millions of innocent people and I don't need God to point that out, I'm fully capable of coming to that conclusion on my own. (see "moral compass" reference in my previous post).

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.

Does there have to be a waterfall for there to be water in a stream? Virtually all species of social animals have "rules of conduct" (ie morality) that control and moderate their interpersonal relations. Relatively few conflicts over food, hierarchy, mating, ... result in serious injury, even in species that are fully capable of easily killing one another. It's in the species' best interests to "pull their punches" and avoid needless bloodshed. We humans are the only species I am aware of that kills one another almost routinely.

[jlay]

Jac,
don't know how much that last post will help Kioku, but I am digging it. That's some good stuff on morality. Thanks

[Jac3510]

That's not my point. But assuming a sign is going to suddenly fix all of Kioku's doubts is not sound reasoning.

I agree. That's why I've been arguing that he needs sound arguments, not a sign.

Joined April 15, 2009 ???????

Kioku is saying some things that contradict.

You must have misread my join date. Besides that, there used to be an old board here of which I was a member. I was actually one of the mods at the time who was part of the decision to go to the present format.

As far as Kioku saying things that contradict, he sounds to me like he is just struggling to figure out exactly what he believes and why. He's being honest enough to talk about his difficulties, even if they are not completely consistent. That's why, I imagine, he is having problems--because he sees the inconsistencies and wants to resolve them one way or the other. Who better to talk to than people who have studied this and talk about it on a regular basis?

What I am saying to you is that you need to be just a little more careful about who you are ready to label a fake . . .

unbelief? what? Where did I say that unbelief is a sign of belief. Come on man, you are reading something into it, that isn't there.

If someone says, "I am doubting God. Am I really saved?!?" and someone replies, "Hey, the very fact that you are worried about your doubt is proof that God is working with you/proof that you really are saved because it points to the Spirit's ministry" is using unbelief as a sign of belief. Now, perhaps you don't hold to that theology. I was speaking more generally in my statements in that regard. If they don't apply to you, then so much the better.

I am not apealing to experiences. In fact, I think I am doing the opposite. The formula is John 14:21.
I think we really have to heed Jesus admonishions about wanting a sign. When I got my sign, I wasn't wanting a sign. It was probably the most humble, repentant moment in my life, and then I got my sign. I wasn't seeking the sign, I was seeking Christ. In Kioku's case he is claiming experiences and yet in essence denying them. He claims to have had a Christian experience, since he claims to be a Christian, no?

Ask him about his personal experiences, not me. What I am saying is that doubt are an issue of the intellect, not the emotion or the will. It doesn't do any good to preach at people who are experiecing genuine doubt about their need to repent or submit or any of that. Remember your apologetics, man!

I agree. Where did you get the idea I though otherwise.

I don't necessarily. I'm just pointing out that just because you got a sign doesn't mean he will or that he needs one.

Agree 100%. So why is that not true with Kioku?

It is. But he needs to look at the facts of history, which we haven't gotten to, yet. Perhaps you'd like to present those facts with some relevant sources for his convenience? I gave him some sources, but there is nothing stopping you from providing the data here.

[kioku]

Does there have to be a waterfall for there to be water in a stream? Virtually all species of social animals have "rules of conduct" (ie morality) that control and moderate their interpersonal relations. Relatively few conflicts over food, hierarchy, mating, ... result in serious injury, even in species that are fully capable of easily killing one another. It's in the species' best interests to "pull their punches" and avoid needless bloodshed. We humans are the only species I am aware of that kills one another almost routinely.

While I don't think I have ground to chime in and the topic could drive this thread off its own topic, human beings are morally superior to animals with pack behavior like dogs. For instance, if I left a human infant near a wild dog, I'd expect the dog to violently attack the child. If I left a wild human near a wild baby dog, I don't think its initial reaction would be to kill it. Human beings have more advanced brains and minds. In fact, we choose to save species from extinction and wield that power frequently. In fact, a lot of places plant two trees for each one they cut down.

Back on topic however, I suppose humans can observe objective morality on the fundamentals. So I suppose I am making progress, at least.

[Jac3510]

I believe in God. I also would believe that Hitler's actions were wrong even if I didn't believe in God - Hitler was a major factor in the deaths of millions of innocent people and I don't need God to point that out, I'm fully capable of coming to that conclusion on my own. (see "moral compass" reference in my previous post).

Yes, I agree completely. I've argued exactly for that point.

Does there have to be a waterfall for there to be water in a stream? Virtually all species of social animals have "rules of conduct" (ie morality) that control and moderate their interpersonal relations. Relatively few conflicts over food, hierarchy, mating, ... result in serious injury, even in species that are fully capable of easily killing one another. It's in the species' best interests to "pull their punches" and avoid needless bloodshed. We humans are the only species I am aware of that kills one another almost routinely.

You missed the point of my example. If I am at a stream that is being fed by a waterfall, do I have to acknowledge its source to enjoy the benefits of it? Of course not. Likewise, I do not have to acknowledge the benefits of morality (God) to enjoy their benefits.

This is why I keep saying that morality is part of the fabric of reality itself. Do I need to believe in God to know how much I weigh? No. Why not? Because my weight is a part of reality itself. It is precisely the same thing with reality. However, if God did not exist, would my weight exist? No. Why not? Because if God did not exist, then the Universe would not exist for the reason that it would have no Cause.

So, AGAIN, I am telling you plainly: human beings do not need to BELIEVE in God to be moral. However, God does not exist, then human beings can neither be moral nor immoral, regardless of whether they believe in Him or not, because there would be no such thing as morality or immorality. Kioku seems gets that.

Perhaps, Kioku, you would like to help me explain that to waynepii if I've still been unclear?

don't know how much that last post will help Kioku, but I am digging it. That's some good stuff on morality. Thanks

Hopefully it'll help. Complete package answer? No. We'll need to go a bit further into other issues, but it should help him on the terminology side of things. But glad you are getting something out of it. It helps me to write it all out, anyway, because, as you know, every time you explain something, you get a little better at getting to the heart of the matter.

[Jac3510]

Back on topic however, I suppose humans can observe objective morality on the fundamentals. So I suppose I am making progress, at least.

I'd say that's progress. So let me be an annoying bulldog and not let go of a point:

If humans can observe objective morality, then you are telling me that objective morality exists whether humans observe it or not (if it didn't exist, then no one could observe it!).

That's great. Now, if that is the case, then it MUST be true that God exists, because that would make morality part of the fabric of reality itself. Further, that means that existence itself has a moral aspect to it.

What, then, would you call a moral being that provides existence to reality? I would call it God. You?

[cslewislover]

In any case, you and I simply have a fundamental difference in the nature of belief. You think it is a choice. I don't. I have a huge, massive problem with the idea that submission of our will to God has anything to do with faith or salvation. That's a human work, and we aren't saved by works. We're saved by faith. Faith, as I defined it in the other thread, is trust in someone or something else's ability to perform according their nature, and that, usually, based on evidence. There must be, then, persuasion along with the will to rely. But persuasion is passive, and thus, I can't "muster up" faith. I just don't believe it works that way. If I could just change my mind about belief, I would. But that's part of the problem with belief. It is what it is, regardless of what we want it to be.

Jac, you completely misunderstand me; I keep talking about God's will and the Holy Spirit (how is their will and work our choice?). Lol. If you knew how I came to faith, you probably wouldn't believe me, so I'm not even going to post it here. I was saved by Jesus, without works. Why do you think I believe it is by works??? I was going by all your postings on finding out more and more, but ulitmately it isn't about that. There are many professors who know all these things, and still do not believe. So to me, it looked like you were saying that he could make a choice based simply on the right amount of intellectual knowledge. In Acts 3:16, it is said that faith comes through Jesus; Hebrews 12:2 says that Jesus is the author and perfector of our faith; there's another verse that I can't find right now about God giving each a measure of faith. You seem to be excited to me since you are taking my posts in ways I didn't intend and creating controversy where I don't see it.

[Jac3510]

In any case, you and I simply have a fundamental difference in the nature of belief. You think it is a choice. I don't. I have a huge, massive problem with the idea that submission of our will to God has anything to do with faith or salvation. That's a human work, and we aren't saved by works. We're saved by faith. Faith, as I defined it in the other thread, is trust in someone or something else's ability to perform according their nature, and that, usually, based on evidence. There must be, then, persuasion along with the will to rely. But persuasion is passive, and thus, I can't "muster up" faith. I just don't believe it works that way. If I could just change my mind about belief, I would. But that's part of the problem with belief. It is what it is, regardless of what we want it to be.

Jac, you completely misunderstand me; I keep talking about God's will and the Holy Spirit (how is their will and work our choice?). Lol. If you knew how I came to faith, you probably wouldn't believe me, so I'm not even going to post it here. I was saved by Jesus, without works. Why do you think I believe it is by works??? I was going by all your postings on finding out more and more, but ulitmately it isn't about that. There are many professors who know all these things, and still do not believe. So to me, it looked like you were saying that he could make a choice based simply on the right amount of intellectual knowledge. In Acts 3:16, it is said that faith comes through Jesus; Hebrews 12:2 says that Jesus is the author and perfector of our faith; there's another verse that I can't find right now about God giving each a measure of faith. You seem to be excited to me since you are taking my posts in ways I didn't intend and creating controversy where I don't see it.

Tell ya what, so as not to derail this thread too much . . . forgive me if I misunderstood you. Based on your citations of those verses, I don't think I did (it is very typical of people who I have not misunderstood who hold to the view I have gotten the impression that you do), but if you'd like to talk about the nature of belief, I'd be more than happy to. I'm sure it would be an interesting and useful discussion for us both.

Anyway, I am out for the evening. I have a Bible study to go teach. God bless, and I look forward to seeing lots of progress in this thread when I get back!

Been fun.