Evidence For God (I'd love to hear feedback)

[Deavonreye]

Talking about the powers of darkness in men is not prohibited. Indeed it is the reason for the Gospel.

Do not be deceived that only "the powers of darkness" can "corrupt love". I can say no more on this.

 

[JustWondering]

And Why must the golden rule be followed?
(Don't think of me as being difficult - I'm only discussing the validity of this point.)

I don't think you're being difficult. I actually enjoy this type of discussion! Anyway, I suppose I wouldn't argue that the golden rule must be followed. Merely that it should be followed. Why should it be followed (I'll go ahead and anticipate your question)? Well, why shouldn't it be? Why can't common sense and common decency be enough? Why can't humans inherently know that it is the right way to treat their fellow human beings? Why must there be a supernatural cause making it so?

I take it that you consider divine input to be only external - in the form of some law given by God to be recorded and preserved by man. I especially consider the inner disposition to discern such things to be an input of God too, ie He is the causative source for our moral capacity.

Again, the problem with the "inner disposition to discern such things" is it's a very slippery slope, depending on the person who is doing the discerning. To re-hash my earlier examples, the Inquisitors "discerned" that God wanted them to torture and kill people, in the witch hunts people "discerned" that there were witches in their midst who must be killed (in this case they were correct, based on Exodus 22:18), and more recently the 9/11 terrorists had "discerned" that God wanted them to kill thousands of innocent Americans.

Why, I ask. Why OUGHT we to survive as a species? And if the answer is something to this effect - that it is because there IS a tendency in man to survive as a species - then that is logically fallacious. I think in this context, it does make sense that you cannot derive an OUGHT from an IS.

Now you sound like my favorite apologist, William Lane Craig, with all this "ought" and "is" talk. Why ought we survive as a species seems like a silly question? Species survive because each generation passes its genetic code on to the next generation. Both individuals and societies will adapt over time to modify behaviors in such a way as to enhance the probability that their offspring will survive and thrive. This type of pattern is seen in all living creatures, so humans are not unique in this regard. Survival of the species is not a question of "ought" vs. "is". Survival is just what species strive to do.

 

[ivdavid]

This society IS beneficial to the species.

I take it that this is a response to my question - "Why OUGHT man to conclude what's best for the society?"

Would you agree to the relevance of the is-ought problem here? 'The society IS beneficial to species' does not logically conclude that 'man OUGHT to benefit the society'. So, on what basis do you pass such imperatives?

Also, how do you define what's 'beneficial' to the species? You consider the destruction of a species to be non-beneficial and its progression to be beneficial - but Why and on what basis? In a purely materialistic world, you don't describe the combination/splitting of physical particles to be beneficial/non-beneficial - why do it in the case of life alone - given that life too is, for all practical purposes, only particular reactions.

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm uncertain as to where you are going with this, to be honest. "Society" is useless without humans involved. That involvement is what makes the society, and that work is beneficial to each person who involves him/herself. This shouldn't be a difficult concept.

 

[Deavonreye]

What IS of interest to me here is having the OP title question answered.

 

[childeye]

Do not be deceived that only "the powers of darkness" can "corrupt love". I can say no more on this.

Respecfully, Truth is forever. There is one Spirit that as Light can live in every man, but countless lies as darkness that can live in one man. Still all lies are darkness.

 

[childeye]

What IS of interest to me here is having the OP title question answered.

I've already answered it. There exists Truth.

 

[ivdavid]

I'm uncertain as to where you are going with this, to be honest.

Sorry, I presumed you were aware of the line of argument.

In short,

a materialistic world does not give rise to the concept of an objective imperative 'ought' - there is only the concept of an observational 'is'. But you keep stating objective 'oughts' - which you must either retract through redefinition or concede that there is some Mind beyond our materialistic world that is the source of these 'oughts'. This would constitute my evidence for God (OP agenda). Of course, this isn't a conclusive evidence if you do redefine your terms adequately - and I'm interested to see how you go about it.

Would my previous post addressed to you make enough sense now for you to give it some thought?

 

[Deavonreye]

I've already answered it. There exists Truth.

That is your opinion. It isn't evidence. If that is all you have, then fine, but it isn't going to convince most who are outside of your religion.

 

[childeye]

That is your opinion. It isn't evidence. If that is all you have, then fine, but it isn't going to convince most who are outside of your religion.

It is your opinion that it is my opinion. Be honest to yourself. Everybody believes in Truth. Remember 1+1=2. You don't believe that? You did not invent it nor is it opinion. It is self-evident. There is Truth and whatever Truth we reason upon becomes our god. Therefore you have a god though you for whatever reason despise the term. The only question is, is it the True God since Truth precedes our existence and we are therefore subject to ignorance. Otherwise it is just opinion. Love is the common good in man. This is true and self-evident for it is in man, that which feels compassion for others and tempers our own selfish desires so as not to inflict harm upon others. God is Love.

 

[Free]

No, . . . people could NOT do "what they want to do" [without some "moral law giver"]. Society would not allow for it. In order for a society to work, certain rules must be abided by, else chaos is the result, and the society collapses. People assign that to a god, but it is the people that create these laws and enforce them. Nothing would have been different [hypothetically] if humanity never had a propensity to assign the unknown to "god". Bottom line is, social species must interact in a specific ways in order to keep homeostasis.

"Society would not allow for it." Have you studied much history? Do you know the types of things that have been socially acceptable in cultures that didn't know God?

We have cultures currently that, for the most part at the highest levels, don't believe in God and whose entire political system is based essentially on atheism. The leaders tell the people what they can and can't do. What is right and what is wrong isn't determined by society as a whole but by those with power. These people do what they want to other people with no regard and no consequence, in this life anyway.

So, yes, perhaps those people like ourselves wouldn't be able to do whatever they wanted, but those in power would.

But of course, if God didn't exist, there wouldn't be any objective moral standard, and we wouldn't see across cultures and times and places large groups of people that generally feel certain things are wrong.

I agree that human beings' code of morality would be essentially the same if humanity had never formed a belief in God or gods, except you could perhaps argue that the history of mankind would have been more peaceful with a strictly secular code of ethics. There would have been no Inquisition, witch hunts, and possibly no Holocaust (Hitler was apparently inspired by the anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther), and there would likely be peace in the Middle East today.

Oh my. More peaceful? Not by a long shot. First and foremost, let's put things in perspective. As I stated above, there are nations whose political ideologies are atheistic at the root. This political ideology is known as Communism. In the name of Communism, there have been millions upon millions more killed than those in the Crusades, witch hunts, etc.; more than in the name of religion. This is historical fact.

Having said that, this in no way justifies what has been done in the name of religion, especially Christianity. I am just trying to put into perspective the erroneous argument above.

As for Hitler, he is another story. To say only that Hitler was inspired by the writings of Martin Luther, regardless of whether or not he actually was inspired even in part, is misleading at best. His was a syncretistic belief system that was influenced by many writings, including Sir George Edward Bulwer-Lytton, who was in turn influenced by Darwin.

The interesting thing is, without God, you have no basis to pronounce any moral judgements on Hitler, religions or political ideologies.

 

[Mike]

What is the evidence for Truth? What if the truth is Christianity is false? Can you admit that as a possibility?

You are beginning to show your stripes here, which is why I questioned the motives a while back. Discussing is fine, but don't go there.

Christians are not here for your bidding, we should not be goaded into responding to such challenges. I had planned on getting involved with a Darwinian bend, but the last few posts take this thread into unnecessary waters.

 

[ivdavid]

I suppose I wouldn't argue that the golden rule must be followed. Merely that it should be followed.

Is there a tangible difference between 'must' and 'should' in the above context? I see them both amounting to the same effect as 'ought'. Unless of course, you are referring to 'should' as a kind of expected outcome of man's nature - which view becomes redundant in the larger scheme of materialism.

Why ought we survive as a species...... Survival is just what species strive to do.

Well, you've just answered to the following effect - hence the reason for repeating from my previous post -
ivdavid - "And if the answer is something to this effect - that it is because there IS a tendency in man to survive as a species - then that is logically fallacious. "

Why can't humans inherently know that it is the right way to treat their fellow human beings?

You see - you're stating here that humans can inherently and objectively know what they 'ought' to do concerning morality. Any 'moral ought' needs a source beyond this world, that imposed such an imperative upon man - since in the context of a strictly materialistic world, there would be no absolute meaning to such 'oughts'. That's why I find your position inconsistent as of now - perhaps I'll change my mind when you present me with additional knowledge or perspective that I do not possess at this moment.

the problem with the "inner disposition to discern such things" is it's a very slippery slope, depending on the person who is doing the discerning.

You're now describing the problem with corruption of the objective moral standards - that's a separate topic altogether. And such corruption is not limited to just religious people - so I don't exactly see its relevance here. We are more focused on seeing if there is such a thing as objective moral standards given by God or not. Corruption of such standards seems to have no bearing on this topic of focus.

I'd be interested to know your views on man's conscience too...

 

[childeye]

1+1=2. That is Truth with a capitol T. Need I prove it to you? 2-1=1. To answer your question about Christianity I will use from here on a capitol C for true Christianity and a small c for false christianity so as to elaborate accurately. True Christianity is the belief that Love is eternal so as to ascertain the conviction to perservere in the face of the doubt of that.

It is a known fact that the temporal cannot prove the eternal since a man would die following a line that goes on forever trying to prove either it does not go on forever or it does. So it is God is invisible. This self-evident Truth means all temporal belief either for or against Love eternal must be an endeavour of faith in one or the other. This becomes your god. That which you believe to be true. Hypocrisy is the revealer to the temporal as to what is true. I would not say 1+1=2 and then say it isn't so because that would be hypocrisy.

As we are dealing with morality what we deem good for us we must deem good for others and comply or it is hypocrisy. But this is just rational explanation and God is Spirit. So it is that we who have God as Love in us, feel for others and know how to treat others, and recognize goodness. So Love is self-evident.

In Jesus we see a Love that does not stop for it takes upon itself a crucifixion that was undeserved and yet forgives on account of ignorance. Moreover this Jesus was foretold by a generation of people who are the only people in the known history of the earth that were both an ethnicity and a religion. They teach that they exist as such for only one reason, to bring forth the Christ. This Christ was prophesied by many as to what he would do, where he would be born, what he would say, how he would say it, how he would live , when he would live, and how he would die and why. He would be rejected by his own people who were waiting for him and yet received by the rest of the world in vast numbers. This is all 20\20 hindsight now so we have this as a given fact. For this Christ is the True Image of God seen as a man and sent as a man so that mankind might see the invisible God, believe and become changed moraly.

Now the powers of darkness operate upon a lie and so they seek to silence this Truth of love eternal and will kill those who preach it even though he was sent for their benefit. Those who know the Truth are willing to die, so as to preach it and set free those who would kill them. All of this is right in front of your nose. Do you believe Love is eternal or not? Because you will either kill or be killed depending upon which way you believe and you must believe one way or the other.

 

[Free]

I don't think you're being difficult. I actually enjoy this type of discussion! Anyway, I suppose I wouldn't argue that the golden rule must be followed. Merely that it should be followed. Why should it be followed (I'll go ahead and anticipate your question)? Well, why shouldn't it be? Why can't common sense and common decency be enough? Why can't humans inherently know that it is the right way to treat their fellow human beings? Why must there be a supernatural cause making it so?

If you truly think that is plausible, then you need to explain "how an impersonal, amoral, First Cause, through a non-moral process, produces a moral basis for life." (Ravi Zacharias)

 

[JustWondering]

Do you know the types of things that have been socially acceptable in cultures that didn't know God?

This statement could just as easily be re-phrased as, "Do you know the types of things that have been socially acceptable in cultures that did know God?"

What percentage of the German population in the 30's and 40's were Christian, yet it seems the vast majority either approved of the Holocaust or turned a blind eye to it. Likewise (and I hate to keep hammering the same examples, but...) in the days of the witch trials people would be burned alive at the stake, and the good, God-fearing Christians of the town would all come out and watch it as a spectator sport.

My point is that history has shown that people do have a tendency to form a "mob mentality", and this can be done either in the name of religion, nationalism, or any other sort of "in group/outgroup" type of division. I agree that history records numerous examples of atrocious acts committed by atheistic regimes. However, I believe these were done as a result of a political ideology, which at times becomes so dogmatic that it becomes to its adherents almost like a religion.

I don't think you can blame atheism for these atrocities any more than you can blame Christianity as a whole for the atrocities committed in its name. Any belief system is going to have some followers who are "bad apples", but it's unfair for either side to paint the other using a broad brush in this way.

So, while you can point to atheistic Communist regimes who certainly have abused their power, you can also point to numerous examples of Christian leaders who have done the same in the name of God. Likewise, you can look at many modern-day European and Scandinavian countries that are secular governments with a large proportion of atheists in the population, yet those nations manage to live quite peacefully. Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are among the highest atheist populations in the world (they are about 70-75% non-believers), but when was the last time you saw any of these nations causing any trouble on the world stage?

I stand by my earlier statement that a world without religion could potentially (note I use the word potentially, not certainly) be a more peaceful world. This is strictly my opinion, but it seems that most large-scale conflicts in history have been the result of "ingroup" vs. "outgroup" delineations. It also seems like the biggest causes of these delineations are almost always either religion or nationalism. Without religion, we would knock out one of the two major causes of global conflict. Think how much easier it would be to resolve the Middle East crisis if there weren't deeply ingrained religious issues at the heart of the conflict.

I'm not naive enough to think mankind wouldn't still find other things to wage war over, but I do think reaching a lasting peace would be more feasible in a world without major religious differences dividing us.

 

[jasoncran]

doubtful, sorry i have been to war, it taught me all to well how evil we humans are.

and that place was once occupied by the soviet union who order their own soldiers to kill children and then left the very soldiers who did that at the hands of the enemy as they officers were told to leave the base.

the soviet union used satellite nation citizens by force to fill slots as lower ranks in the red army.they were considered slaves by proxy. so much for equality in the communists state.

 

[JustWondering]

I'd be interested to know your views on man's conscience too...

Ok, if God exists and Christianity is true, then yes, man's conscience could be the inward expression of the Holy Spirit or something like that. But I'm asking is it really impossible for man to have a conscience if there was no God? Like not possible in any way whatsoever?

Assume you have good parents and you learn from a very early age not to hit your classmates in pre-school, not to steal their toys, not to talk back to your teachers, not to lie, not to make fun of other kids, etc.. Then assume as you grow up these lessons are reinforced over and over again. Then, as you mature, you begin to understand why your parents taught you these things, and you internalize them, so you are no longer following a prescribed set of rules, but you are behaving in a way that makes sense to you because you know the consequences of your actions, and you know how you would like to be treated yourself. Would this not create a pretty well-balanced person? Could a conscience be shaped in this way? If a person was raised in this way, and had a very solid ethical system, would you trust this person? Would you trust them less if you knew they were an atheist? A Muslim? A Mormon? A Christian?

In my original post, I addressed the idea of "memes", which are self-replicating ideas and can be thought of similar to genes. It seems to me like morals could be "memes" which are passed down from one generation to the next. The ones that make sense and lead to a happy life survive, and ones that cause havoc or despair will not be passed on.

Perhaps I am over-simplifying the issue, but this makes sense to me, and I wonder if you would acknowledge that it is at least possible?

 

[childeye]

This is a topic asking for EVIDENCE for god, not concepts that are your opinion. "Truth" for you isn't the "truth" for Islam, for example. . . or Hinduism, Pagan beliefs, etc. To say "what it true for a person becomes their god", that statement is fallacious and I would completely disagree with that. You are coming from a religion that states it having "absolute truth", but that doesn't make it "evidence for god".

I have to leave the computer now, . . . but will rejoin the topic tomorrow evening.


Before I go, however, . . . for ME, . . . I only want to spend time on the OP topic. Perhaps another topic could be started to debate political systems. Just my 2 cents. Later.

I know you have left your computer but I would address this. Your reasoning is hypocritical. You say this post is about evidence of God and when given evidence you call it opinion when in fact you cannot prove it is not your opinion that my evidence is in fact my opinion.

I pointed out that Truth is God for we are ruled by what we believe to be true. I have proved that Truth precedes us in existence 1+1=2. It is therefore proven that it can not exist upon opinion. You now claim my Truth is not the truth of Islam or hinduism etc... as if they do not agree that 1+1=2 and as if I made up 1+1=2. There is no my Truth.

Moreover I have stated that God is the Spirit of Love which all of these religions do also. I have stated you have an aversion to the term god and so also reject that we are all subject to what we believe to be true. So you disagree with yourself because you conclude it is true there is no Truth and give credence only to opinion. This also is proof of God that your unbelief ends in hypocrisy denying your own belief. If there is no God there is no absolute by which we reason and so this is why it is simple for me to point out your hypocrisy for you are lost and I am not. Simply because I believe in an absolute.

 

[ivdavid]

Could a conscience be shaped in this way?

If you're talking about the process in which moral standards are formed - yes, I too believe one learns them through social factors. But I'm not asking how one learns that this is right and that is wrong - I'm asking why he agrees to that. If the social factors teaching him alone were responsible for a man's conscience, then we must never see any social reformation at all - for that goes against what was formulated in the members of the society and hence against their conscience. There should then be no concept of "appeal to conscience" - as if we expected an objective universal ideal to be contained within each of us independent of the social factors influencing us. Since we don't observe this to be true, we must conclude that the moral sense itself is independent of the process of learning moral standards. So the question arises - what's the source of such an independent moral sense that imposes imperatives on us?

This would also take us right back to how one could know what he should/must/ought to be doing in a strictly materialistic world. In the context of morality - I do believe that an imperative 'ought' cannot be derived from a descriptive 'is'. And if you do find this silly, please share on what grounds you feel so, so I may evaluate the same in that perspective.

The ones[memes] that make sense and lead to a happy life survive, and ones that cause havoc or despair will not be passed on.

You're still describing the process - from an observational stance. How do you go from saying that "these memes that make sense and lead to a happy life are passed on" to "these memes ought to be upheld by all"?

And if you're arguing for a materialistic world, then your language should reflect it accordingly. You must be technically saying - "the memes that get passed on are defined as ones that would lead to a happy life and the ones that don't get passed on are defined as those creating havoc". That way, you cannot morally hold responsible any person for creating havoc since you can't blame the non-transmission of memes in a person.