"begging the question"

[Novum]

The hunter gatherers to whom you refer could have undoubtably created many many explanations rather than creating gods as the 'answer everything' source of ALL that they didn't understand.

Do you have an answer or no?

 

[Imagican]

Yes Novum, and so does much of science now days. The evidence of ID is obvious from the microscopic level on up. There is absolutely NO evidence that random chaos can form ANY kind of order. The fact that mathematics is not created but discovered goes a long way towards actual 'proof' of ID.

The answer is that what or who we call God is the Creator of life and everything pertaining to it. Perhaps the creating of life didn't happen as simply as many traditionalists would have you believe, but created it was and this becomes evident when we see that everything on the planet that wasn't created by the Creator is created by His ultimate creation, US.

Now how silly would I have to be to look around me at the perfectly balanced world in which we live and believe that this 'just happened'? And how vain would I have to be to believe that I could explain all this with evidence that I create and doesn't come close to a reasonable answer? I refer once again to NOTHING of order can come from chaos. The million monkey, million year thing is nothing but pure silliness.

So, not only do evolutionist or big bang folks believe that SOMETHING of order came from chaos, or better yet, that EVERYTHING came from NOTHING only proves how silly this avenue is. Not only is this 'not rocket science' but as far as I'm concerned, just a tad of common sense goes along way towards dispelling these science fiction fairy tales. That's just totally rediculous to think that EVERYTHING came from NOTHING. Unless of course there were a force CAPABLE of creating something from nothing.

So far, NOTHING indicates in the slightest that everything 'just happened'. And even if it did, what caused it? See what I mean? Totally silly.

So, we have certainly learned much of the environment in which we live. We have made many discoveries that have certainly allowed us that choose to believe so, that we are 'special'. But, what we have done is to just 'begin' to understand the power of God and the means by which He created EVERYTHING. Nothing 'random' about it.

Novum, as long as you have made up your mind that there is NO God, you'll have a difficult time allowing the proof to seep in. But, if you were to abandon your skepticism and open up your heart and ask, you too could KNOW that God exists. Christ specifically stated that if one knocks, it will be open, ask and you WILL receive. But first, you must be willing to accept what you are offered. Awful hard to accept things that one utterly denies. There are probably still people that believe that we haven't been to the moon, so God is kind of the same thing. If one chooses to deny or reject God, He will usually just let them be. Freedom can be a beautiful thing, but it can also destroy those that use it unwisely.

 

[Imagican]

First of all Novum, why do you 'think' that religion plays 'such a large role' in the affairs of mankind? Your answer will certainly play a large part in understanding your replies.

The one sentence answer? Because people have a tendency to seek explanations for things which they cannot explain themselves. and why is this do you reacon?

Ancient man saw the sun rise - he didn't know his planet was spherical or what a star was - and he suggested a sun god whose job it was to pull the sun across the sky. Gods were invented left and right across many different cultures to explain naturally occuring phenomena. Relatively recently, within the past two millennia or so, someone came up with the idea of a single, more powerful god. It makes sense - if I can combine the god of the sun and the god of the moon into a more powerful being, why not just roll them all together into one? Then we'll have a super-god!

And why gods? Why superior beings that we were unable to see hear taste feel? Why not invisible dogs or cats cows or fish? Why gods? Why not pick something that we DID already know and go from there. Why 'invent' a 'god' which had NEVER been seen or heard. Where would the concept come from to start with?

Since I didn't understand which question you kept referring to, I will go back and try to answer every one individually so that you think NOT that I am evading a one of them.

First of all, I can show you scripture that dates back a few thousand years ago that explains that the earth is a circle, (round), which is WAY beyond our ability at the time to prove it. And, how about the water cycle explained thousands of years before it could be understood.

To start with an answer to your, 'unanswered question' concept of the creation of gods. First, why question the sun or the moon to start with. Why? Why not just accept that they are there and go on with life without ANY thoughts about it whatsoever? I mean an understanding of the sun, moon, stars, etc....... is NOT a necessary part of life. Even as we've learned of their nature, we still can't change them. And life goes on the same with the knowledge that we now have as it did when we didn't understand them at all.

And what IF Novum, the REASON that each of these ancient people had some sort of religious leader, medicine man, etc, is that God HAD communicated with these ancients and they were simply unable to record this except through verbal tradition. What IF the entire concept of gods to start with was inspired by God Himself?

But, since it had less to do with explaining these things than 'where' they came from, I still offer that the reason for their ancient beliefs in gods was inherent. Since even the 'first' people on the planet were created, they too had an inherent need to know and understand the Creator. NO, not an explaination for their physical makeup, but their existence period was attributed to that which Created them.

Two thousand (or so) years later, we've got a number of competing single-god religions. The rest is history ;)

 

[Imagican]

In order to argue fairly, you cannot simply presume that the agnostic, even one who has heard the gospel, is turning his back on the truth. Hearing the gospel invites the further question: "Is it factually true?". So rejection of the gospel does not suffice to show that the person has rejected a real living God.

Well said, as always, Drew!

Folks, We ALL have an inherent NEED to know and understand the Creator.

I'm going to have to stop you right there, Imagican. Quite simply, in your very first sentence you assume your conclusion - that a god exists, that we were created by this god, and so forth. That is circular logic.

NO, my friend, I assume nothing. I KNOW that God exists and that He IS the Creator. Sorry that you assume that this is an assumption, but you are the one with the assumption that God does not exist. I am telling you right here and now that God DOES exist and you reject what I offer.

I do agree with you in that you can't meaningfully reject someone when you don't believe they exist. You're not rejecting an entity, you're rejecting the idea of an entity. Rejection demands acceptance of existence. When you reject the idea of God, you're accepting the existence of the idea of God for purposes of making that decision.

Also well said, ArtGuy.

I agree with everything up to this point. I tell you that their IS a God. I show you evidence that points in this direction. I offer you His Word. Now, the choice is yours. Either you accept or deny. And denial is CERTAINLY rejection. And God is NOT an idea, (unless you simply don't know Him), God is the MOST real thing in the Universe. So, either you accept or deny His existence. To deny is to openly reject what He has offered in place of your 'own' understanding.

You assume your conclusion once again. Come on, Imagican, we've been here before. If you're using the bible to provide the existence of your god, we must first establish that your bible is true.

No, again you are mistaken, I offer the Bible to offer evidence of the existence of God. All I have to do to show you God is ask that you step outside and look around you. The presence of God is KNOWN by me and therefore I am unable to deny or reject Him. That the Word is what first brought the understanding of His existence and will is all the proof needed to accept it as being 'truth'.

Now, study your history and you will soon find that atheism was almost NON-existent for most of the recorded and probably throughtout the history that has not been recorded. It seems that this way of thinking only came about through the 'freedom' to do so. While freedom is a 'good' thing, it can also be used to destroy oneself.

I find it more likely that historical atheists were killed or forced into silence than them not existing.

No, it is likely that atheist didn't exist to any significant numbers for it was against their nature to be such. Much like being a drug addict is contradictory to the prospect of a 'long life', denial of religion was most likely contradictory to the spiritual well being and thus was inherent.

Besides that, I'd agree with you entirely. As our scientific knowledge and understanding of the world increased - exponentially increased, in the past two or three centuries - I think it's likely that people have seen less and less of a need for a god to explain our world.

And funny how the prophets of the Bible predicted this very thing.

[quote:f849d]Now, isn't this kinda odd to the athiest? That religion has played SUCH a significant role in the HISTORY of mankind? I mean, if there were simply a few diverse groups that created religion on their own merits, it wouldn't seem so relevant. But when one takes into consideration the overwhelming popularity of 'religion', it takes on an even more interesting significance.

Not really. Religion has been studied by some scholars as a mere social phenomenon in a culture, kind of like music or dance. I don't think it suggests anything odd when we see that religion has been prevalent everywhere - as I said in my previous post, it just seems to suggest that people everywhere perceive a need to explain their surroundings.

But decided to universally adopt religions as their means to explain these things. Don't you get it? Just as those that studied the mind and body of men in the past realized that we have certain basic needs, religion seems to be another one of these. And 'this' is what diverse people creating separate religions all over the planet would suggest. That not only did they have a need to explain that which they didn't understand, but that they universally attribute IT to God/gods.

There are certainly those that have supposed that religion was created by an ignorant mankind that needed explanations for their surroundings. Rediculous. It wouldn't take religion to 'make up' stories to explain things. Yet religion is Univeral in cultures. No, not the 'same' religions, but religions that were universal in that in some form or another I have yet to hear of ANY that had NO religion. Curiouser, and cureouser, to say the least.

All right, Imagican. Try this:

1. You are a hunter-gatherer in a prehistoric tribe. OK
2. You see the sun appear to move across the sky. OK
3. You desire to explain this movement. OK, but first I would like to know what would make me feel a 'need' to explain this movement?

And now, we'll assume:

1. You do not have any knowledge of astronomy. OK
2. Your explanation will not involve religion, gods, deities, spirits, ghosts, and so forth. OK

What's your explanation? I can't conceive of anything you could possibly respond. And right here you have partially answered your own question. And I can honestly say that the answer that you have offered is much more realistic and makes much more sense than what has otherwise been offered.

First of all the question of 'where' the idea of deity came from? The concept itself? If men had never known of a god, what inspired him to create something that he knew ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT. I mean, these pre-historic men certainly knew what a rabbit was, or a tree, or water, or a rock. But where would this idea of an invisible god come from?

But lets say that instead of religion formed around a central god or gods, they simply attributed everything to their ancestors. Or, an alien race that visited this galaxy and created the earth and life upon it. Or let's say that they believed that there was a great beaver that had created everything and the sun was just a ball of fire that was caused by lightening. Or that the sun was a Big shinny marble chasing the smaller marble, (the moon), around and around in circles. As you can see, I'm not very good at this for I believe that I don't need to make anything up. I believe that the answer to these questions is obvious.

And these peoples were 'serious' about their religions. Oftentimes to the point of human sacrifices and such. The use of wealth and objects that were most dear used to create impliments and adornments to honor their gods. I often wonder in amazment at the lengths some of these would go to in order to please their gods.

Are you suggesting that this is something we don't see anymore? :roll:

NOT at all, I'm asking for you to explain why they would have started it. What would inspire them to offer such devotion to something that you say doesn't even exist.

And I guess to the atheist that these were just 'stupid' people that 'made up' stuff because they had 'nothing better to do'? Highly unlikely. These were people that may not have know the 'true' God, but were still willing to follow another.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. Come on Imagican, you should know better.

NO, I guess I don't. I come here to exchange information with those that we call brothers and sisters. You are the one that chooses to ignore it or reject it. So for you to come to a Christian web site and argue 'against' the concept or understanding of God is a strawman of the utmost type to start with.

And all you have to offer is your rejection of God. You have NOTHING that can refute the Creator except empty words. You have allowed self to blind you to the 'truth' and would try your best to bring others down with you.

Do you know what evil is my friend. NO, it's not serial killers, for these can only kill the body. NO, not satanist that worship another god. But evil is pure rebellion against the Creator. Deciding that one is 'too good' to accept and worship God and rather chooses to BE God. This my friend is EVIL.

They "made up stuff" because they had no better explanations. Today, we do have better explanations. Hence, it follows that fewer people are looking to gods for answers.[/quote:f849d]

Not good enough. This refuses to acknowledge WHERE the concept came from. NO, the ease with which people like you are allowed to influence others is a more fitting reason for the lack of respect offered to God. Satan is working over-time trying to destroy the souls of those on this planet. He WILL succeed, (mostly), but there WILL be a remnant no matter how hard he or his minions try.

You offer nothing other than the seed of doubt to any that may not be strong enough to withstand your temptation. But Novum, I will do my personal best to expose you for what you are. You are admitted anti-Christ. You could be here for no other reason than to try and plant seeds of doubt in the hearts of those too weak to finish the race. Woe unto you and the spirit you lust after.

You remind me of a character in a movie, that when confronted about his 'not believing in God', states simply, 'oh no holy man, you got it all wrong. You think I don't know God. Oh but I DO know Him, and I 'hate his guts'. No offense intended. Lot's of folks now days find it 'chic' to behave in such a manner. Heck, that's why it was portrayed in the movie to which I refer.

You use words to try and mask your contempt, but the truth is that you don't simply deny the existence of God, but reject Him and His will. And what's worse, you would try and take others down with you.

Instead of wasting your time here, why not pick up a guitar, make IT your God, and put your subversive ideas and thoughts into lyrics. The subtlety of your music may mask your contempt and lead others in the same direction. There is much material wealth to gain in this way. Don't sell out so cheap. At least get 'paid' for your folly.

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and Novum, you remind me of a current event. You act like an illegal immigrant who when faced with the 'illegal' part wants to stand up in a country in which their statis IS illegal and protest the law.

You come on a Christian web site and want to argue against Christianity. Either you MUST be bored or you must be on a mission. And to simply deny the existence of God would be no incentive to be on such a mission. To attempt to subvert others would be the only other alternative that I can see.

 

[thessalonian]

Nope, I reject Zues. 100% true. I must be missing your point but I don't feel that I need to play with and change the english language to say that I don't reject him. I'll take my chances on ourright rejection of him. It is true that the girl in africa does not reject him. But I don't think that's a problem for her eternal destiny either.

Now you put the one true God in the category of Zues. But only in twisting the English language can you say you don't reject him. It is true that one who has never heard of him cannot be said to reject him, though we should be able to come to a conclusion about God from nature which cries out to the glory of him. If you want to take your chances in rejecting the one true God, that is your choice and he won't violate your will. But like the brick wall their is going to be consequences when you meet up with him. I'm not going to sugar coat it or get relativist on you. Sorry.

Blessings

Who's sugar-coating or "twisting the English language"? I have no idea what you mean.

And, incidentally, we can still substitute "Zeus" for every instance of "God" in this post and it would still be just as valid.

And I would still say I reject him without fear or thinking I have to justify my rejection as something else. The one true God on the other hand cannot be rejected without fear. In your heart you know this.

 

[Imagican]

Hey Nov, I have found that you insist on getting involved in a number of issues that have absolutely NOTHING to do with one who does NOT accept Christ or God. I mean, of what concern could it possibly be to you whether Christ IS the Son or God Himself when you have already admitted that you believe in neither.

I mean there are other threads that you would fit into much more nicely. I don't mind your silly comments, but I do wonder why you would even waste your time trying to communicate with such silly people as these that believe in fictitious Gods and such.

So, Nov, please fill us in. What are you doing here if you do NOT accept that there is a God? Simply trolling for lost souls are we?

 

[JM]

I asked him the same thing not too long ago.

 

[thessalonian]

You would think he might have the humility to admit that he does not know everything and could be wrong about this God thing. That the Christians could possibly be right and if they are he would not want to be responsible for the soul that ended up in hell next to him that he convinced there was no God. Just a thought.

 

[Novum]

You would think he might have the humility to admit that he does not know everything and could be wrong about this God thing. That the Christians could possibly be right and if they are he would not want to be responsible for the soul that ended up in hell next to him that he convinced there was no God. Just a thought.

That's the very definition of agnostic atheism - to be able to admit that you might be wrong. I have repeatedly made it very clear that I am open to the possibility that god exists; moreover, I have never claimed otherwise. You are misrepresenting me.

 

[thessalonian]

You would think he might have the humility to admit that he does not know everything and could be wrong about this God thing. That the Christians could possibly be right and if they are he would not want to be responsible for the soul that ended up in hell next to him that he convinced there was no God. Just a thought.

That's the very definition of agnostic atheism - to be able to admit that you might be wrong. I have repeatedly made it very clear that I am open to the possibility that god exists; moreover, I have never claimed otherwise. You are misrepresenting me.

If that is the true spirit of your posting then I apologize for my comment. I will pray that God opens your mind to who he is.

 

[Vic C.]

Disregarding anyone's intentions at the moment, I feel this thread has strayed a bit from the OP. Bear with me as I lock and clean up.

brb.

Done! 8-)

 

[DivineNames]

And, incidentally, we can still substitute "Zeus" for every instance of "God" in this post and it would still be just as valid.

And I would still say I reject him without fear or thinking I have to justify my rejection as something else. The one true God on the other hand cannot be rejected without fear. In your heart you know this.

It is worth making a distinction here between the possibility of a God existing, and the possibility of the Bible God existing. I imagine that many skeptics - whatever they think about the possibility of a God existing - would consider the Bible God to be in basically the same category as Zeus. They would just consider it to be myth.

 

[Novum]

It is worth making a distinction here between the possibility of a God existing, and the possibility of the Bible God existing. I imagine that many skeptics - whatever they think about the possibility of a God existing - would consider the Bible God to be in basically the same category as Zeus. They would just consider it to be myth.

I agree wholeheartedly. Here's one of my favorite quotes:

I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, You will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts

 

[Imagican]

And this being a statement that could ONLY be made by one who rejects God and places himself upon His throne.

Nov, the main reason that we NEED God is that He IS our Father. Like any child, we too NEED the guidance of the Father in order to grow in the direction in which we were intended. For without His guidance, we, left to our own design, can only fail miserably at 'growing up'. Much like the selfish child that lacks proper upbringing from it's parents, those that reject God are throwing away the opportunity to understand and KNOW the truth.

Any two year old given the opportunity would be 'his OWN boss'. The problem with this being allowed is that the two year old, with his limited understanding could ONLY do that which was unproductive as far as what he 'should do'. Like eating for instance, given the 'choice' of eating what one wants verses eating what is healthy, what do you suppose the two year old would 'choose' to eat if given the choice with his limited understanding of nutrition? Of course, that which was least likely to induce health and rigor and instead choose that which pleased the senses, (tasted good).

No different than those that reject the authority of God and instead choose to 'do it their way'. Without the proper guidance of the Father, one is bound to choose that which pleases their senses rather than that which is most healthy to ones spirit and soul.

Oh, and about that morality issue. There is NO such thing as a morally fit athiest. This would be a contradiction in terms. For even those that struggle against the flesh would be hard pressed to claim morality, those that are not even able to join the struggle couldn't stand a chance.

 

[reznwerks]

guidance

And this being a statement that could ONLY be made by one who rejects God and places himself upon His throne.
I don't think he was doing that. He was just stating history as it has evolved. Do you believe in Zeus , and Zoeroaster for examples. Many people did at one time. Why is there belief any less important than yours?

Nov, the main reason that we NEED God is that He IS our Father. Like any child, we too NEED the guidance of the Father in order to grow in the direction in which we were intended. For without His guidance, we, left to our own design, can only fail miserably at 'growing up'. Much like the selfish child that lacks proper upbringing from it's parents, those that reject God are throwing away the opportunity to understand and KNOW the truth.
What guidance are we missing that wasn't in existance before the bible and Christianity?

Any two year old given the opportunity would be 'his OWN boss'. The problem with this being allowed is that the two year old, with his limited understanding could ONLY do that which was unproductive as far as what he 'should do'. Like eating for instance, given the 'choice' of eating what one wants verses eating what is healthy, what do you suppose the two year old would 'choose' to eat if given the choice with his limited understanding of nutrition? Of course, that which was least likely to induce health and rigor and instead choose that which pleased the senses, (tasted good).
Yet the bible begs us and implores us to become like little children.

No different than those that reject the authority of God and instead choose to 'do it their way'. Without the proper guidance of the Father, one is bound to choose that which pleases their senses rather than that which is most healthy to ones spirit and soul.
What guidance? What authority? Where does God enforce his authority? Can you give examples?

Oh, and about that morality issue. There is NO such thing as a morally fit athiest.
Based on whose definition? We have gone over this before and shown that as a "percentage" atheists take up less space in prison than theists and stay married longer than theists.

This would be a contradiction in terms. For even those that struggle against the flesh would be hard pressed to claim morality, those that are not even able to join the struggle couldn't stand a chance.

It might be a contradiction but they are facts. You don't need a God to do the right thing.

 

[Drew]

Oh, and about that morality issue. There is NO such thing as a morally fit athiest. This would be a contradiction in terms. For even those that struggle against the flesh would be hard pressed to claim morality, those that are not even able to join the struggle couldn't stand a chance.

The evidence of day to day living shows that atheists are indeed capable of exhibiting moral behaviour. It happens all the time, right under our very noses. To deny this manifest fact of life shows how carried away we can get with doctrinal ideas and forget that they need to be tested in reality.

 

[Novum]

Imagican, you sound like a broken record. We've gone over, many times before, the exact issues you're raising here yet again. I've lost the patience to deal with your seeming inability to absorb new information.

Drew and reznwerks, however, have not yet lost their patience with you. I will state that I agree completely with their responses and leave it at that.

 

[Drew]

The Christian theist takes the biblical definitions and descriptions of God to be true at face value. The atheist rejects these. Both are cases of begging the question. There isn't a justifiable argument for either belief. The atheist simply has nothing to argue against the God of the Bible, though. The Bible is an infallible and inerrant foundation, which is the sole source of knowledge for men. This is presupposed by the Christian theist. As a result, his definition of God cannot be challenged except from Scripture. I reject any natural theological propositions concerning God, and the atheist rejects any biblical propositions concerning God. It's a total impasse until the Holy Spirit regenerates his heart and makes him believe the truth.

I agree [and couldn't have posted it better so I quoted it], do you agree?

Returning to the OP....

I do not agree with the essence of this quote - at least in the sense that I do not see myself as the kind of Christian who "rejects any natural theological propositions" (I will explain shortly). Nor do I accept the notion that all atheists reject outright biblical propositions concerning God - some of them consider the biblical propositions and reject them after some consideration. There is no justification to presume, as I think the quote suggests, that all atheists reject the Bible without giving it any consideration at all.

The quote sets up a false choice in that it implies that the content of Biblical propositions are not testable in reality when some (perhaps most) of them obviously are. The world is not split into two separate domains - the world of Biblical propositions and the world of "natural theoligical propositions". I sense that the author wants to argue that Biblical propositions are immune from testing against the "data of life". If the propositions are not "falsifiable" then they are unassailbable.

This might be true for a claim such as "there are other universes totally disconnected from ours". Such a claim cannot be tested so it cannot be judged as true or false. It is really only an item of speculation.

However, the Scriptures are chock full of propositions that can be tested against the "data of life". It would be a very bizarre position indeed to accept a Biblical proposition if it were to be shown to be obviously incorrect by the data of life. An example of this is the notion that unbelievers do not act morally (JM - I know you do not hold this position, so I am not arguing against you on this point). The data of life shows such a claim to be obviously incorrect. To deny that atheists sometimes act morally is like denying the nose on your face. Same thing re the idea of a 10,000 year old universe. And so on.

The world of the atheist and the Christians are not as separate as the quote seems to suggest. They have the "data of life" in common - the vast ensemble of observations and regularities that make up, in large measure, our basic understanding of the world.

One can only expect both to approach such information objectively and rework any "theological presuppositions", Christian or "natural", to be consistent with the facts.