Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:
The atheist argument is invalid because the Christian viewpoint, that as you say is under attack here, says that God may indeed have a reason for suffering, as such, God being omnipotent and suffering existing do indeed logically fit together.
God's omnipotents is defined by God doing anything the is logicaly possible for God, God can't make a round square or a married bachelor for example, but that in no way dimenishes his omnipotence.

So we are in agreement that the arguments validity (or lack thereof) rests upon reasonings that are not tied whatsoever to the challenger's own morality, rather you check the consistencies of biblical teachings with God.

PaulSacramento wrote:If I read you correctly, you are evaluating Christian morals based on Christian morals, correct?

Well yes, holding Christianity to some other standard would completely defeat the purpose of the argument. It would be invalid before any serious thought could even be put forth.

Jlay wrote:
Maybe you should tell that to the atheist. It seems you are proposing a challenge to believers that is actually a problem for the atheist.

Are you saying when you hear this argument from an atheist he/she is trying to tell you that God is REALLY, objectively wrong and not simply logically incompatible with a specific set of standards?

So we are in agreement that the arguments validity (or lack thereof) rests upon reasonings that are not tied whatsoever to the challenger's own morality, rather you check the consistencies of biblical teachings with God.

No, I don't think we are because if the issue is a MORAL one then the morals of the person posing the question are relevant because it is THEIR perspective that is causing the issue/question.

Well yes, holding Christianity to some other standard would completely defeat the purpose of the argument. It would be invalid before any serious thought could even be put forth

.

One can most certainly compare "moral compasses", but one must state WHAT they are and WHERE they come from or else, what exactly are you comparing?
But if one is question Christian morality based on what christian morality teaches then one must KNOW what it teaches.

PaulSacramento wrote:

So we are in agreement that the arguments validity (or lack thereof) rests upon reasonings that are not tied whatsoever to the challenger's own morality, rather you check the consistencies of biblical teachings with God.

No, I don't think we are because if the issue is a MORAL one then the morals of the person posing the question are relevant because it is THEIR perspective that is causing the issue/question.

I disagree, one does not need to have issue with how God acted in the old testament (widely used example) morally in order to make the argument. If the bible claims God is X , and he's actually Y, then obviously there's an incosistency. To make that logical claim does not require any concept of morality on the questioner's part.

If the issue becomes truly moral in nature (which it shouldn't, confining myself to simply the argument) then the atheist has no grounds to call something else OBJECTIVELY immoral, only SUBJECTIVELY immoral based off the bible's teachings. And since God is described as the epitome of good, obviously there's a contradiction. The objection is not a moral one, by definition morality to an atheist cannot be more than preference. The argument, properly carried out can only attempt to show a logical flaw with the bible at best.

Well yes, holding Christianity to some other standard would completely defeat the purpose of the argument. It would be invalid before any serious thought could even be put forth

.

One can most certainly compare "moral compasses", but one must state WHAT they are and WHERE they come from or else, what exactly are you comparing?

But if one is question Christian morality based on what christian morality teaches then one must KNOW what it teaches.

While the first part of this is true, this is not an objective for the "problem" of evil. An atheist has no grounds to call another system worse or better, so comparing moral compasses is a subjective matter at best for them.

Of course you would need to Know what it teaches to make a convincing argument, which is exactly the point. You don't need your own system of morality to argue.

I think you may be confusing what God IS to how someone may INTERPRET God being from actions ATTRIBUTED to God.

When we do this we must be careful because God is NOT revealed SOLELY in the OT but also in the universe He created, the world we live in and personally in His Son.
The bible is a progressive revelation of God's dealings with Man and how man interpreted them and passed them on to future generations and as such, the context and genre must be taken into account, and aslo such passages liek Jeremiahs warnings about the scribes lying about what God has said, and so forth.
If one wants to make a moral judgment on God SOLELY based on what is written in the bible, One MUST take the WHOLE of it in context.
Even if one wants to make that judgment based on ONE act or one passage, that also must be taken into context.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think you may be confusing what God IS to how someone may INTERPRET God being from actions ATTRIBUTED to God.

Not at all, the above two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It may be that the problem of evil is a misinterpreted version of God, but that's exactly what I'd argue for regardless.

PaulSacramento wrote: When we do this we must be careful because God is NOT revealed SOLELY in the OT but also in the universe He created, the world we live in and personally in His Son.
The bible is a progressive revelation of God's dealings with Man and how man interpreted them and passed them on to future generations and as such, the context and genre must be taken into account, and aslo such passages liek Jeremiahs warnings about the scribes lying about what God has said, and so forth.
If one wants to make a moral judgment on God SOLELY based on what is written in the bible, One MUST take the WHOLE of it in context.
Even if one wants to make that judgment based on ONE act or one passage, that also must be taken into context.

Where did you get the indication I thought otherwise

The only thing I've defended in this entire thread was that questioning the atheist's moral background does nothing to his argument. One does not need to hold that morality exists at all, as I've said before the argument puts Christianity on trial, not the other way around.

Echoside wrote: Where did you get the indication I thought otherwise

The only thing I've defended in this entire thread was that questioning the atheist's moral background does nothing to his argument. One does not need to hold that morality exists at all, as I've said before the argument puts Christianity on trial, not the other way around.

Uh, not to but in but that's actually incorrect. Bringing up a moral argument for the apologetic is a part of their evidence for the existence of God.

If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist
Objective moral values and duties exist
therefore, God exists

This argument is as strong as they come. To deny objective moral values and duties is basically admitting to the subjective moral landscape which leads to Nihilism and nobody who isn't an idiot will take that route. Atheists often have tried to come up with methods to prove objective morals exist on their own without God with very little success. There is a reason why these new age atheists refuse to debate morals with apologetics and theologians, you know? Its often one of their conditions before they agree to participate in a debate.

Do you have a good argument for the existence of objective moral values and duties independent of theism belief? I would love to refute it.

Let's hear it. I really want to hear how a non theist can say that murder, rape, theft, etc is objectively wrong and what obligations do you have to not do those actions.

The only thing I've defended in this entire thread was that questioning the atheist's moral background does nothing to his argument. One does not need to hold that morality exists at all, as I've said before the argument puts Christianity on trial, not the other way around.

If that is the argument, and Christianity is put on trial within its own terms, then the whole argument from evil is a non-starter. If one accepts Christianity as true for the sake of argument, then all of it should be accepted as true and valid, not just parts of it. In those terms, and it is also the Christian answer to the argument from evil, the fact is simply that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing bad things to happen. Since we are finite humans, and our understanding cannot transcend or comprehend the complete plan or will of God, we may not always understand His reasons.

For the atheist to question that, he needs to invoke a moral system outside of Christianity.

August wrote: If that is the argument, and Christianity is put on trial within its own terms, then the whole argument from evil is a non-starter. If one accepts Christianity as true for the sake of argument, then all of it should be accepted as true and valid, not just parts of it. In those terms, and it is also the Christian answer to the argument from evil, the fact is simply that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing bad things to happen. Since we are finite humans, and our understanding cannot transcend or comprehend the complete plan or will of God, we may not always understand His reasons.

For the atheist to question that, he needs to invoke a moral system outside of Christianity.

Honestly that really depends. If there was an entire book in the bible devoted to God slaughtering innocents for no given reason whatsoever, would you simply shrug your shoulders and say "well I'm sure I just can't comprehend the reasoning".

I'm no advocate of the problem of evil, but the Christian answer to the argument is the ONLY answer to the argument. Showing context, moral justifications, etc. within the Bible to demonstrate that it is not incompatible with itself is the whole point. Does every single thing need to be explained 100%? I do not think so, on the whole some things you may have to take on faith and God's word and wisdom. But to completely deny any word against God because he is "beyond our comprehension" is irresponsible at best when determining if the Bible is valid.

domokunrox wrote: Uh, not to but in but that's actually incorrect. Bringing up a moral argument for the apologetic is a part of their evidence for the existence of God.

If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist
Objective moral values and duties exist
therefore, God exists

This argument is as strong as they come. To deny objective moral values and duties is basically admitting to the subjective moral landscape which leads to Nihilism and nobody who isn't an idiot will take that route. Atheists often have tried to come up with methods to prove objective morals exist on their own without God with very little success. There is a reason why these new age atheists refuse to debate morals with apologetics and theologians, you know? Its often one of their conditions before they agree to participate in a debate.

Not sure exactly how all of this relates to what I'm talking about, but ok.

The argument is not "as strong as they come". You have no way to demonstrate objectivity in morality, outside of thought experiments like "don't you think it is REALLY wrong to go kill someone".

Could you give me something inherently wrong with the idea of subjective morals, outside of an appeal to consequences or assertions like "nobody who isn't an idiot will take that route"? I'm sure atheists have come up with methods to try to prove objectivity, they are dishonest. But once again, I've not said one thing in this thread about the atheist himself, simply the argument of the problem of evil.

domokunrox wrote: Do you have a good argument for the existence of objective moral values and duties independent of theism belief? I would love to refute it.

Let's hear it. I really want to hear how a non theist can say that murder, rape, theft, etc is objectively wrong and what obligations do you have to not do those actions.

If you had actually read this thread, you would have seen this:

Echoside wrote:If the issue becomes truly moral in nature (which it shouldn't, confining myself to simply the argument) then the atheist has no grounds to call something else OBJECTIVELY immoral, only SUBJECTIVELY immoral based off the bible's teachings. And since God is described as the epitome of good, obviously there's a contradiction. The objection is not a moral one, by definition morality to an atheist cannot be more than preference. The argument, properly carried out can only attempt to show a logical flaw with the bible at best.

Next time you butt into a conversation I'm sure you will take the time to get caught up.

Honestly that really depends. If there was an entire book in the bible devoted to God slaughtering innocents for no given reason whatsoever, would you simply shrug your shoulders and say "well I'm sure I just can't comprehend the reasoning".

That is a straw-man. No-one is shrugging their shoulders. Christians believe God when He says, and demonstrates, that He has morally sufficient reasons for bad things that happen, because Christians believe in the whole Word, and not just parts.

I'm no advocate of the problem of evil, but the Christian answer to the argument is the ONLY answer to the argument. Showing context, moral justifications, etc. within the Bible to demonstrate that it is not incompatible with itself is the whole point. Does every single thing need to be explained 100%? I do not think so, on the whole some things you may have to take on faith and God's word and wisdom.

Also, this is not what has been argued up to now. This is exactly the subtle type of goal-post shifting one normally sees when this comes up. If we measure the Word against itself, there is no internal inconsistency. But what is inserted is the ability or willingness of both the Christian and non-Christian to take God at His word. It is simply impossible for inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions that are absolute, as you rightly remark.

But to completely deny any word against God because he is "beyond our comprehension" is irresponsible at best when determining if the Bible is valid.

And there we have the logical conclusion of the goal-posts moving, and the insertion of some authority or measure higher than the Word, against which it must be judged. The issue is addressed multiple times in the Bible, for example in Romans 8, and there is no ambiguity. It is clear and understandable.

I also take issue with your accusation of being irresponsible. One starts with God and believe what He says or you don't. You choose what is responsible or not.

August wrote: That is a straw-man. No-one is shrugging their shoulders. Christians believe God when He says, and demonstrates, that He has morally sufficient reasons for bad things that happen, because Christians believe in the whole Word, and not just parts.

The key word here is "demonstrates", if that is shown by the Christian then I'm fine with it.

August wrote: If we measure the Word against itself, there is no internal inconsistency

That's what should be demonstrated, and it's what I've been arguing for the entire time. There's been no moving of goal posts, I'm sorry if anything I've said struck you as otherwise.

August wrote:And there we have the logical conclusion of the goal-posts moving, and the insertion of some authority or measure higher than the Word, against which it must be judged. The issue is addressed multiple times in the Bible, for example in Romans 8, and there is no ambiguity. It is clear and understandable.

I also take issue with your accusation of being irresponsible. One starts with God and believe what He says or you don't. You choose what is responsible or not.

You misunderstand my intent, I'm merely pointing out how dangerous thought without reason is. I would rather reason completely logically and find God than take short cuts to justify belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.

You misunderstand my intent, I'm merely pointing out how dangerous thought without reason is. I would rather reason completely logically and find God than take short cuts to justify belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I apologize if I misunderstood you. I agree with you fully. The argument of evil is often times portrayed as an emotional argument when it is a logical argument, and we should always ask the non-believer for his syllogism to demonstrate his argument. It falls down in various places, even if we accept his fallacious premises.

August wrote: I apologize if I misunderstood you. I agree with you fully. The argument of evil is often times portrayed as an emotional argument when it is a logical argument, and we should always ask the non-believer for his syllogism to demonstrate his argument. It falls down in various places, even if we accept his fallacious premises.

Completely right

Echoside,

I didn't need to read the whole thread to read and disagree with your statement as follows
"Questioning the atheist moral background does nothing to his argument" and
"One does not need to hold that morality exists at all"

In otherwords, you're saying that atheists don't need to explain their worldview and morals are simply an illusion.
It is simply intellectually dishonest to have a worldview, call it logic or evidence, and refuse to have it critisized. Its not even a discussion! This is simply 1 way communication and when they get a message they don't like its like return to sender. What's the point to that?
Also, anytime you start to believe in illusions in the observable universe (like morals), then you are admitting that you believe you are a Boltzmann brain.
Let me clear something up for you. Anytime you want to prove the existence of God or anytime they want to prove God does not exist, the argument needs to be done outside of the text. If the atheist does not believe the bible, then why are they using it as evidence in the first place? If they have a problem with the text, that's a separate issue. As an apologetic, my goal is to turn the atheist or agnostic to shed the labels they have given themselves, and then allow the evangelists to their job.
So let me clear something up about the moral argument.
if God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist?
The question is NOT about the necessity of belief of God for objective morality, but rather about the necessity of the EXISTENCE of God for objective morality.
There really only is 3 options.
Either you believe you are a Boltzmann brain
Or NO objective morality exist (Nihilism, all is permitted)
Or objective morality exists

If you do believe in objective morals then explain how those morals are independent of opinions of people.

I have a question in regards to your other question. The problem of evil (suffering is caused by evil)
Are you saying that its IMPOSSIBLE for God and evil (suffering) to both exist or is it just improbable for both to exist?
The optional question is, is the problem emotional and not an intellectual inquiry?

The only thing I've defended in this entire thread was that questioning the atheist's moral background does nothing to his argument. One does not need to hold that morality exists at all, as I've said before the argument puts Christianity on trial, not the other way around.

Yes, you defend this but, in all honesty, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Why?
Well, IF the atheist is using Christianity as a "moral background" then God and evil CAN and DO exist, and suffering is explained ( whether you care for or agree with the explanation is irrelevant).
IF the atheist doesn't use Christianity as a moral background then WHAT is he/she using to base their view that Suffering and God can't both exist?
The very notion of suffering requires a sense of "that ought not to be" and that requires a sense of morals ( what ought to be and what ought not to be).

PaulSacramento wrote:

The only thing I've defended in this entire thread was that questioning the atheist's moral background does nothing to his argument. One does not need to hold that morality exists at all, as I've said before the argument puts Christianity on trial, not the other way around.

Yes, you defend this but, in all honesty, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Why?
Well, IF the atheist is using Christianity as a "moral background" then God and evil CAN and DO exist, and suffering is explained ( whether you care for or agree with the explanation is irrelevant).
IF the atheist doesn't use Christianity as a moral background then WHAT is he/she using to base their view that Suffering and God can't both exist?
The very notion of suffering requires a sense of "that ought not to be" and that requires a sense of morals ( what ought to be and what ought not to be).

Exactly. Accept Christianity on its own terms. Be consistent. And besides, the whole 'argument' betrays an indignation which the proponent cannot account for.