Evidence for God from Science

I currently go to college and am constantly surrounded in my classes by the notion that there is no absolute truth and that everything is subjective, including morality. Of course I don't believe this, but eventually it got me thinking about God, His goodness, and how it is considered absolute. Thus, I'm asking this question because I'm curious what your answers are.

What makes God's goodness and holiness absolute and objective? How would you counter somebody if they said that God's goodness is only relative to Him?
If our morals contradict His, why is it that He is correct and we are wrong (aside from the fact that he is more powerful than us)?

Hey Seraph, this is a pretty big topic, and one I might not not be able to answer completely. I'll think on it for a little while before posting the majority of my thoughts, but a quick response I have for God's goodness being only relative to him is that it doesn't make sense anyways.

Man was created in God's image, we have an innate sense of what is good and what is bad. Our morals in the sense of right and wrong cannnot truly contradict or be different from God's own. Everyone sins, and goes against what they know to be right at some point. That is not a difference in morality, that is simply wishing to do evil and give in to temptation. Subjective morality assumes everyone actually has different intuitive truths that make them different from others. If we are all created in God's image, that's just not possible.

To me this is why arguments pointing out things in an atheist worldview like no true morality, thought, etc. are so effective. They go against our intuition.

Anyways those are just some of my thoughts, I haven't actually spent a ton of time looking over my ideas, hope they helped somewhat.

Seraph wrote:I currently go to college and am constantly surrounded in my classes by the notion that there is no absolute truth and that everything is subjective, including morality. Of course I don't believe this, but eventually it got me thinking about God, His goodness, and how it is considered absolute. Thus, I'm asking this question because I'm curious what your answers are.

What makes God's goodness and holiness absolute and objective? How would you counter somebody if they said that God's goodness is only relative to Him?
If our morals contradict His, why is it that He is correct and we are wrong (aside from the fact that he is more powerful than us)?

Good questions.

Re: the notion you are surrounded by, do those with this notion really believe there is no absolute truth? Are they absolutely sure there is no truth? If they are sure, then I guess they do believe in some absolutes. If they aren't, then why should we care to listen to them? It is just their opinion afterall.

Re: God's goodness, I see it comes down to inheritence and sovereignty. Why do we have any concept of good? Why are many repulsed by child abuse, annoyed when treated unfairly, or angered by injustice? If we really believe that child abuse is wrong, that we ought to be treated fairly and justice is good, then where did these seemingly common human characteristics come from?

If they evolved, then knowing they evolved why should we not ignore our moral intuition when it doesn't suit us and we can gain? Is there any real and valid reason we should maintain morality as though it is real, since at the end of the day it just evolved via natural means and has no ultimate purpose in our own lives? Morality could have evolved wrongly after all and it could have been otherwise. So lets discard those parts that don't suit us.

On the other hand, if our moral intuition comes from God, and we are created for God, then there we are obligated to God by our very own created nature. We belong to Him. But, God's given us all the freedom to not pay Him the sovereign respect and honour He naturally deserves, or to ignore our moral intuitions, or to reject and ignore Him. To such, their morality is their own. You could say morality in this respect is relative. Evidently, people set up their own and often selfish morality, particularly when they think noone is looking and will know any better.

Yet, if God exists, and we are created in His image and He imparted His standard of "goodness" into us, then in virtue of the order of things, we are obliged to such a Being whether we like to admit it or not. And quite frankly, I can't think otherwise... I can't think injustice is really good, or that child abuse is an excellent thing to do, or that it would be a really good thing for people to kill each other for kicks. I may try to disagree with my moral intuition, but I can't escape it. If I said it wasn't true some things really are wrong, then I'd show myself inconsistent everytime I cried foul or unfair. Such is two-mindedness and crazy.

So it makes good and practical sense to go along with God and the creature He designed me as. It would be stupid of me to try do otherwise... what good reason and meaning is there in doing otherwise, except to rebel and throw a hissy fit (or shake one's fist at the gods as some Atheists put it)? If that makes better sense for some, then God provides them with such an opportunity in this world. God even removes Himself enough from our temporary world so that people can ignore Him and deny His existence if they so choose. But at the end of the day, every knee will bow and come to love or dread their Lord.

All very good and insightful answers. Another side of the question is, is God goodness absolute to us or is He good in a metaphysically objective way, where He would be totally good whether any creatures existed to experience it or not. I'm not sure if that question even makes any sense...

Btw, I love the Hiei avatar echoside.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. So, His goodness was, is and will continue to be. It isn't dependent on our ability to experience it. If God's goodness were tied to us or other creatures, then who would be God in that situation?

Seraph, if you have not already, I would highly recommend studying Christian logic. That is really redundant, because logic itself is a by-product of the goodness of God. You simply can't have logic or reason apart from the Christian God. So, people like this that attempt to 'reason' away God are actually contradicting themselves in the process.

It is quite a liberating thing to see that the world's arguments are utterly futile. It is also quite rewarding to know that God has equipped us to tear down such arguments. Spotting logical fallacies will allow you to dismantle these ridiculous assertions and will provide you a powerful witness. Why? Because pride is the #1 thing preventing a person from finding God. Anytime a person claims there is no objective morality they are boasting in pride. Tear down the argument, tear down the pride, and thus tear down the worldview. Then you can more easily offer the gospel. People think they are safe in their own worldview. And so a person who thinks they are safe will not accept a savior. Spotting logical fallacies helps you to show them that there are holes in their boat, and they are taking on water fast. You can then throw them the life preserver.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

If our morals contradict His, why is it that He is correct and we are wrong (aside from the fact that he is more powerful than us)?

We use tools of measurement all the time. How do we know 2+2=5? Would it be reasonable to say that the more powerful person determines truth in this matter. In these matters we have no problem accepting that there is an objective standard. The problem with this argument is it misses that point. It isn't that God is correct and we are wrong. That would state that God is subject to a moral standard. That simply isn't the case. God is the moral standard. The source. If God were subject to a moral standard, then what is the source of that standard? We should find it, because the source of it is the actual God. It is actually a self-defeating argument.
Paul points this out when he says, all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. One translation says, fallen short of the glorious standard.

Half the things you're dismissing as "self-defeating" are only self defeating to you because you are assuming that at least one premise is true. An assumption which has no grounds whatsoever. That premise might not be true, you don't know with certainty that it is. I am asking WHY God is the moral standard. "Because he is the moral standard" is not a satisfactory answer. That is called a circular arguement. It just goes around and around justifying itself with no grounds in reality.

Are you under the impression that I am an Atheist parading around as a Christian or something? Can't I ask a hypothetical philosophical question without being accused of rejecting the truth of God? I'm not denying that God is absolutely good by asking what makes Him absolutely good. It is possible to question the grounds and premises of an idea without rejecting the conclusion.

You make astonishing claims to knowledge with no evidence and you say you know these things because God is the source of truth. What makes you think God gives you that truth? Does God enlighten you on a daily basis? Does God tell you that 2+2=4? Are you a prophet?

I'm not going to erase all critical thinking skills just because you say that there is no value to it. Your idea of reasoning basically sounds to me like nothing more than pretending from the start that you are correct. You aren't "seeing" that the world's arguements are futile, you're simply pretending they are. You don't know that God is giving you your knowledge. It is coming from you.

Seraph wrote:Half the things you're dismissing as "self-defeating" are only self defeating to you because you are assuming that at least one premise is true. An assumption which has no grounds whatsoever. That premise might not be true, you don't know with certainty that it is. I am asking WHY God is the moral standard. "Because he is the moral standard" is not a satisfactory answer. That is called a circular arguement. It just goes around and around justifying itself with no grounds in reality.

.

Based off my own thinking, I feel it is kind of like free will and how that is limited. For example, I do not see it as an infringement upon my free will that I can't turn into a dragon right now and fly out my window. Perhaps it is the same for morality in the sense that I cannot "choose" what is right and what is wrong. Like I said before, we are all created in God's image, so there are no "other" moralities. It's not possible for you to have your own subjective morality. It is possible for you to SAY you do in an attempt to justify to others evil acts, but it is not possible for you to actually believe what you are doing is right.

I can see what you mean by the circular reasoning though, to me it feels like the best thing God could have done to make us all in his image, therefore knowing and feeling obligated to the same moral standards. But it's almost as if for me to say that I am using the standards right? But we all agree on them anyway!

It's an interesting philosophical question to ponder, and it might seem silly to dismiss it as "just something you might never know" but that might just be the case. I cannot fathom how God has always existed, but that doesn't help me if I was an atheist either because everything still had to happen anyway.


Just my 2c

Seraph wrote:I currently go to college and am constantly surrounded in my classes by the notion that there is no absolute truth and that everything is subjective, including morality. Of course I don't believe this, but eventually it got me thinking about God, His goodness, and how it is considered absolute. Thus, I'm asking this question because I'm curious what your answers are.

What makes God's goodness and holiness absolute and objective? How would you counter somebody if they said that God's goodness is only relative to Him?
If our morals contradict His, why is it that He is correct and we are wrong (aside from the fact that he is more powerful than us)?

This is actually a pretty widespread argument called the Euthyphro dilemma, I think Socrates first formulated it when he asked the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because he is pious, or is he pious because he is loved by the gods?" Although Greek mythology and Christian theology are vastly different beliefs, the atheist can apply the same reasoning to Yahweh in the question, "Is what is morally good so because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?"
The argument may at first seem to be intimidating, because the first horn of the dilemma leaves us with the implication that moral goodness is entirely arbitrary, i.e. God could have chosen either "kill" or "do not kill" to be morally right, and the second horn with the implication that there is a standard superior to God, external to Him and more powerful, a standard to which God appeals.
The second option is self-evidently absurd, because Christian theology dictates that absolutely nothing can possibly be higher than God. We are left with the option that "what is morally good is morally good because God commands it."
The atheist will say, "How then is morality objective if it is merely God's random choosing?" The answer is simply that objectivity comes from God. We are so accustomed to our mere subjective opinion being of no authority that we apply that to God, but we must remember God's power which is so much higher than ours. He has the authority to dictate what is right and wrong, and we, being his creation, obey that law because it is to God that we owe our existence.
Now does this leave us with the quite unappealing concept that moral goodness and moral wickedness are interchangeable because God could have assigned either moral value to any action? Certainly not. It is my personal theory that God chose moral values that were good for humanity. For example, if He were to create us with "kill" and "rape" as part of our inherent moral obligation, then His creation would quickly crumble due to civil strife. But if he were to choose "do not kill" and "be pure" to be morally exemplary, then our societies would last, and human well-being would be perpetuated.
It is like a father who says to his son, "Son, I am making it household law that you cannot play with the stove." Then someone comes along and says, "That's completely random and completely valueless because you could have either chosen "play with stove" or "don't play with stove" to be household law! You wicked and arbitrary tyrant!"
Well we can all see the absurdity in that. The father chose "do not play with the stove" to be law because he understands better than his son that playing with the stove will probably lead to injury.
So that's my response for you... I hope I helped a little.