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

[JustWondering]

So just wondering is an atheist?

For about 20 years I was a hard core, fully convinced believer, just like most of you on this forum. For the past couple years, however, I have had nagging doubts which have grown into severe doubts. Part of the reason I am so frustrated by Christian apologists is I have read or listened to so much of their material, and I've found many of their arguments to be so weak (like the William Lane Craig example in my original post.). I sincerely wanted them to satisfy my doubts intellectually, but that just didn't happen. Now I'm finding it practically impossible to "turn off" the doubts. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from...

 

[ivdavid]

Just wondering..... can a fully convinced person have doubts in what he's fully convinced of?

And I don't perceive myself to be an apologist by any standard and yet, seeing that you believe in objective moral standards, I feel that's compelling 'intellectual' evidence for God. I mean, I usually come across people who question God's existence while simultaneously denying objective moral standards. Since you're not of such conviction, I think you should be dispelling your doubts soon - assuming the evidence factor is your only stumbling block.

Did you give my line of questioning in my previous post a shot? I'd be interested to know where you reached finally....

 

[childeye]

For about 20 years I was a hard core, fully convinced believer, just like most of you on this forum. For the past couple years, however, I have had nagging doubts which have grown into severe doubts. Part of the reason I am so frustrated by Christian apologists is I have read or listened to so much of their material, and I've found many of their arguments to be so weak (like the William Lane Craig example in my original post.). I sincerely wanted them to satisfy my doubts intellectually, but that just didn't happen. Now I'm finding it practically impossible to "turn off" the doubts. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from...

I see. Well, let me say that regardless of what anybody might say and there are many different things said, I will tell you that either you believe Love is eternal or you don't and that is what Christianity is in a nutshell. A battle in the spiritual realm with Truth on one side and lies on the other. The ones speaking the Truth are killed by those decieved by lies thinking the are the keepers of the Truth. All men have an absolute by which they reason, a Truth they believe. What they believe to be true is their image of God even if they believe there is no God. The Christ is the True Image of God not manufactured by men's imaginations but sent by the True invisible God. If anyone believes in him they become like him. Love is eternal. So what's so bad about that?

 

[Mike]

Mike, I do not mean to be offensive. I don't even really have an end goal or ulterior motive for posting something like this. I just honestly enjoy the discussion, and I truly enjoy and appreciate hearing all the different perspectives, whether I agree with them or not. Again, I apologize if my tone has come across as derisive or offensive. That was not my intent at all.

You have not been offensive, and there is nothing wrong with what you're doing. I was just asking why non-believers do this, and you answered that, briefly. Although, I'm confident that there's more to it than you're letting on. Rarely do people discuss things for any other purposes than:

1. convince others of their POV
2. learn more so that one can evaluate both sides and make a decision

Since you (and other non-believers) often do not allow for the possibility of what we experience; since you are convinced the Resurrected Christ is not true, this leaves 1 as the most likely reason for this.

 

[Eventide]

The road to Emmaus..

All you need to do is take a walk to Emmaus... and listen to the countless OT stories telling the story over and over again... for in the volume of the book it is written of ME saith the LORD..

When Lazarus asked if somebody would go back from the dead and warn his brothers, the answer was that if they didn't believe the OT prophets.. then it wouldn't matter even if a person was raised from the dead..

FAITH is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.. and conviction comes from evidence..

All of the OT stories foretell the same story over and over again... it's literally undeniable that Jesus of Nazareth is exactly who He claimed to be.. because again.. in the volume of the book it is written of HIM..

 

[JustWondering]

Just wondering..... can a fully convinced person have doubts in what he's fully convinced of?

And I don't perceive myself to be an apologist by any standard and yet, seeing that you believe in objective moral standards, I feel that's compelling 'intellectual' evidence for God. I mean, I usually come across people who question God's existence while simultaneously denying objective moral standards. Since you're not of such conviction, I think you should be dispelling your doubts soon - assuming the evidence factor is your only stumbling block.

Did you give my line of questioning in my previous post a shot? I'd be interested to know where you reached finally....

Ivdavid, sorry to ignore your previous question. I got sidetracked. To answer your questions, yes, a person can have doubts of something he was once fully convinced of. It happened to me (and to many other people if you go read some other forums on the internet). It's not something I'm happy about, and I wish I could go back to the way I was. I will freely admit I was happier then.

With regards to your question about my view of morals, I guess the reason I still hold to "objective" moral standards is there are so many things that just seem plainly wrong by any person's standards (with the exception of psychopaths or outliers like that) in any society, and just plain common sense. To use your example of killing kids, is there really any scenario where killing an innocent child is justified? Is there anyone, whether theist or atheist, that would think this is okay? I would ask you, is your belief in God the only thing holding you back from killing kids? If for some reason it was indisputably proven that God doesn't exist today, would you start killing kids tomorrow? Obviously not.

One problem I have with religion is it takes something like killing kids, which would normally be universally condemned, and it makes it okay if viewed as a Divine Command. Whether that command comes from Allah (9/11) or Jehovah (Old Testament), it causes people who would presumably never harm a child and makes them killers because they view it as a divine edict, which would then make it immoral not to kill the kids. William Lane Craig even makes this argument himself.

So... if killing kids is wrong, except when God tells you to kill kids, then which view is really objective, and which is subjective?

 

[childeye]

Ivdavid, sorry to ignore your previous question. I got sidetracked. To answer your questions, yes, a person can have doubts of something he was once fully convinced of. It happened to me (and to many other people if you go read some other forums on the internet). It's not something I'm happy about, and I wish I could go back to the way I was. I will freely admit I was happier then.

With regards to your question about my view of morals, I guess the reason I still hold to "objective" moral standards is there are so many things that just seem plainly wrong by any person's standards (with the exception of psychopaths or outliers like that) in any society, and just plain common sense. To use your example of killing kids, is there really any scenario where killing an innocent child is justified? Is there anyone, whether theist or atheist, that would think this is okay? I would ask you, is your belief in God the only thing holding you back from killing kids? If for some reason it was indisputably proven that God doesn't exist today, would you start killing kids tomorrow? Obviously not.

One problem I have with religion is it takes something like killing kids, which would normally be universally condemned, and it makes it okay if viewed as a Divine Command. Whether that command comes from Allah (9/11) or Jehovah (Old Testament), it causes people who would presumably never harm a child and makes them killers because they view it as a divine edict, which would then make it immoral not to kill the kids. William Lane Craig even makes this argument himself.

So... if killing kids is wrong, except when God tells you to kill kids, then which view is really objective, and which is subjective?

Sorry for intruding and I am sure Ivdavid can handle this adequately, but I am here and bored so I would like to say, justwondering, that you have used the word religion here, One problem I have with religion . So what are you talking about? God or religion? If you equate the two you are befuddled in your reasoning. God is not religion which shows why you have fallen. You never believed in God nor could you trust Him. You were following religion. Now being disillusioned with religion and blaming God, you will then follow the predictable course of atheism in the ultimate hypocrisy of reasoning. That the Truth is there is no Truth. 1+1=5, blue is pink, dung is food and comes out your mouth, etc... There is an enemy of God who deceives people with lies and religion is his primary means.

 

[ivdavid]

the reason I still hold to "objective" moral standards is there are so many things that just seem plainly wrong by any person's standards (with the exception of psychopaths or outliers like that) in any society

Is this your very reason or is this just the confirmation for you that such and such is an objective moral standard? Because I'm interested in knowing the reason WHY you believe some moral standard is 'objective' - and if you're saying that the reason is because "most people" believe so, then you're committing the "appeal to the majority" logical fallacy. Once you base your standard on the 'majority', it ceases to be objective because by definition, 'majority' is subjective.

Also, you set apart exceptions like psychopaths in your proving why certain moral standards are objective - claiming that now 'all' in your [biased] sample agree to the same standard. But in terming these others as exceptions, you are already using the rule that all ought to agree to this same objective standard. That's circular reasoning and doesn't fit logically.

I raise these only because you put such a high premium on intellectual reasoning. So to be logically consistent, you must state some reason other than "the majority believe so" - to prove why certain moral standards are objective.

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

Continuing...

yes, a person can have doubts of something he was once fully convinced of.

I'm not an expert in this - but I feel you're seeking God emotionally while you cover it under a quest for intellectual truth. So if I gave you all the intellectual truth, and you're still left empty and unconvinced, you'd know that one man cannot convince another of the truth in God - that only God can satisfy the void in every man. Anyway, I'll continue presenting what I have to say in a non-subjective way, commending you to the God who satisfies the whole of man, intellect and emotion.

I do not deny that there are many who describe the same experience that you've gone through - but I'm not looking at circumstances nor experiences here. I'm just looking at your above statement which seems self-contradictory.

To be 'fully convinced' of something, by definition, implies that there isn't any scope for doubts at all on that thing. If you have doubts, then it implies you weren't 'fully convinced' of that part earlier, therein breaking down the definition of 'fully' convinced. So, either you weren't fully convinced earlier on what you have doubts now - or you have no doubts on what you were already fully convinced of. Which is it?


Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

Continuing...

So... if killing kids is wrong, except when God tells you to kill kids, then which view is really objective, and which is subjective?

I thought I answered this in post#16....is there something you've not understood there, because you don't seem to have addressed that here. I'll state it again -

The objective command is - Thou shalt not will to take another's life.
When God commanded the Israelites in the OT, the above commandment was not changed nor bent - in that, it still remained objective - because here it is God alone who's willing to take another's life. I could concede your point if God had said that man cannot take another's life, period. But that's not so - and hence the objectivity of the commandment is maintained.

I have so far presented the intellectual response to this conflict you're having but I understand that you're approaching this from a more emotional stance - 'would we kill children tomorrow if God told us to' - and then you cringe and say that you'd never do such a thing, even if you believed in God and it was God who commanded you to do so. Firstly, there are several hypotheticals here that don't lend for logical conclusions. Secondly, you assume that our moral compass is not primarily established by God.

God instituted harsh yet righteous judgements to be rendered in the OT to show mankind His ways, to teach us justice under His law and to define its consequences as instituted by Him. These were to point us to mercy and faith in God but man is blinded and deceived by sin in him. In the fullness of time, He revealed to us Christ - who was dealt that severity of consequences for the justice that each of us breached. Herein man realizes that God desires justice and mercy - that he is expected to call right as right and wrong as wrong without corrupt distorting justification - and to show mercy, as received freely. God then reckoned the purpose of these judgements to be fulfilled and set us under grace and mercy. Hence, we no longer are in a position to judge our fellow man w.r.t. salvation - having been judged as sinners ourselves and been found guilty unto condemnation ourselves. Having received of His mercy now, we are commanded by God not to judge anybody - such judging only serves to betray our own self-conceited 'righteousness'.

So now, I believe God will not command one man to judge another because the underlying purpose has already been fulfilled. And either way, OT or NT, God's righteousness is still maintained. I also believe that a change in God's purposes for each age are causatively reflected in mankind by God - which is why I think we all agree with God now about how we ought not to deal with our fellow man - and how a Christian is able to definitively call the terrorist's act as wrong even though the terrorist lays claim to being 'commanded' by God.

 

[JustWondering]

Is this your very reason or is this just the confirmation for you that such and such is an objective moral standard? Because I'm interested in knowing the reason WHY you believe some moral standard is 'objective' - and if you're saying that the reason is because "most people" believe so, then you're committing the "appeal to the majority" logical fallacy. Once you base your standard on the 'majority', it ceases to be objective because by definition, 'majority' is subjective.

Yes, I will concede the point that the "appeal to majority" does not make something objectively right or wrong. Obviously, the majority could be wrong. Perhaps I'm being a little loose with my definition of the word "objective". The dictionary defines "objective" as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased". To me, there are many things that are wrong because of the harm they cause others, regardless of whether or not there is a God.

If God is real and the Bible is true, then yes, I will agree that He is the author of morality, and it is objective in that sense. However, I believe that even if God didn't exist (hypothetically speaking) there would still be right and wrong. We are sentient beings who have the mental capacity to sympathize and empathize with our fellow human beings. To callously cause harm to others without regard to their feelings, rights, well-being, etc. is wrong, period. I just feel like to argue that nothing is "wrong" if there's no God to define it is to admit that the only thing that makes you "behave" is the belief that God is watching. If Christians somehow knew God wasn't watching them, I suppose they would feel perfectly okay robbing, murdering, and raping their fellow human beings? Apparently the only thing stopping them is the thought that God would not approve.

I don't mean to be sarcastic about it. That's just the aspect of your argument I don't really understand. If you say you would continue to be a law-abiding person who cared for your neighbor even if there was no God, then you must admit there is something inside you that is defining your morals outside of God. Otherwise, you're admitting that if God was not there restraining you, you would be a hateful, murderous jerk.

Anyway, we could probably go around in circles forever and not change each other's minds. I do respect you and your viewpoint, because like I said, I had exactly that viewpoint for many years. I would have argued vociferously the same side that you're arguing. I guess I see things from a more "secular" perspective now.

Thanks for taking the time to engage in the discussion.

 

[Free]

I would like to engage some of your other points JustWondering but this is all I have time for at the moment.

The dictionary defines "objective" as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased". To me, there are many things that are wrong because of the harm they cause others, regardless of whether or not there is a God.

If God is real and the Bible is true, then yes, I will agree that He is the author of morality, and it is objective in that sense. However, I believe that even if God didn't exist (hypothetically speaking) there would still be right and wrong. We are sentient beings who have the mental capacity to sympathize and empathize with our fellow human beings. To callously cause harm to others without regard to their feelings, rights, well-being, etc. is wrong, period.

The key point to be made here is that if there is no God, there is no moral law giver and no objective moral standard, no such categories as right and wrong, good and evil.

I just feel like to argue that nothing is "wrong" if there's no God to define it is to admit that the only thing that makes you "behave" is the belief that God is watching. If Christians somehow knew God wasn't watching them, I suppose they would feel perfectly okay robbing, murdering, and raping their fellow human beings? Apparently the only thing stopping them is the thought that God would not approve.

I don't think this is exactly the case. You have mentioned that most people feel certain things are just wrong to do. This points to the idea of objective morality. But if there were no God, apart from us not even being here, although I will grant it for the sake of discussion, then everyone would be doing what they wanted to do. There would be no moral law, no objective moral standard.

It isn't because "God is watching" that stops Christian's from doing things, just as it isn't that most atheists do not murder because God is watching. The vast majority of people just feel that murder and other certain types of behaviors are inherently wrong.

From your OP:

"A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?" The big question I have here is, are things morally right because God dictates that they are right, or does God approve of things that are morally right because they are morally right on their own?

Neither. Morals exist because they are grounded in the being of God, in his character. Objective morals exist because a holy God exists; He is the standard of goodness.

 

[Deavonreye]

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.

 

[childeye]

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.

Chaos as I see it, would be a society that can't agree what the laws should be. For one liked to eat black baby soup and another didn't feel that was right because they wanted to not let the others eat their babies. No, their exists a phenomenon that is termed God that most all men agree upon without ever discussing it beforehand. This means men are not free in their wills but subserviant to a higher Truth.

 

[Deavonreye]

Chaos as I see it, would be a society that can't agree what the laws should be. For one liked to eat black baby soup and another didn't feel that was right because they wanted to not let the others eat their babies. No, their exists a phenomenon that is termed God that most all men agree upon without ever discussing it beforehand. This means men are not free in their wills but subserviant to a higher Truth.

I don't get it. Was this a quote from someone?

Regardless, I don't see what "someone eating babies" has to do with anything. As I see it, there isn't any "higher truth" other than what men have claimed, . . . but it is still from men and their minds. They must conclude what is best for the society. Death of young ones wouldn't be so, . . . . therefore laws had to be set up. It isn't perfect. Never misunderstand that point. Where you find men, you will also find error. That is ALL encompassing!

 

[smaller]

I would like to engage some of your other points JustWondering but this is all I have time for at the moment.


The key point to be made here is that if there is no God, there is no moral law giver and no objective moral standard, no such categories as right and wrong, good and evil.


I don't think this is exactly the case. You have mentioned that most people feel certain things are just wrong to do. This points to the idea of objective morality. But if there were no God, apart from us not even being here, although I will grant it for the sake of discussion, then everyone would be doing what they wanted to do. There would be no moral law, no objective moral standard.

It isn't because "God is watching" that stops Christian's from doing things, just as it isn't that most atheists do not murder because God is watching. The vast majority of people just feel that murder and other certain types of behaviors are inherently wrong.

From your OP:

Neither. Morals exist because they are grounded in the being of God, in his character. Objective morals exist because a holy God exists; He is the standard of goodness.

I would point out that in the public sectors of 'law' the terms applied to the above have been moved to similar principles based on 'ethics.' It is a derivation apart from God, but the motivation does not derive therein.

Personally whenever a religious person picks up Gods Laws and makes certain claims I always disagree. Why? Because most 'christians' are basically dishonest about how they handle this particular subject.

I much prefer the system of 'law via ethics' and established law that is not biblically derived.

Most christian divisions and sects have come about from the divisions that Biblical Law has caused, that being from Divine Intentions of same.

So, for the opening poster, if you want a real time example of the existence and veracity of God, simply look at the results obtained by the adherents.

Jesus delineated these Divine workings primarily in His statements about Pharisees, Lawyers and Hypocrites.

What does this prove? It proves the FACTs of the existence of those things 'in mens hearts.'

And that is basically what the intentions of the Word are..to reveal hearts...which The Word does quite well.

The Word is a Divine and Direct 'revelation' of the facts of mens hearts...a virtual 'reflector' of the facts of what lies therein that neither ethics or science will ever find. You or any as an unbeliever merely reflect that fact that exists therein, as scoffer or denier etc etc when the point of the text is to reveal the fact that lawlessness does exist within 'all' of our hearts as a 'universal' condition of mankind. Anyone as a reasoned logical person can openly observe this well demonstrated fact. The text does go on to describe 'why and how' this is. But nearly everyone who confronts that portion of the text will go blank and not only will not, but can not respond to the facts contained therein regarding 'lawlessness.'

So for me, law, lawlessness and the reflections of the latter via amplifications are a primary fulcrum and evidence of and for not only the text, but of God Himself, actively employed in this present world.

I take the following statement from the writer of Hebrews as thee definitive on this matter:

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The interesting part to me is that none have an identical reflection, which is also a testimony to the intricacies of our Creator in not having any two 'things' in creation identically the same.

Every 'thing' within creation is totally and individually unique at the particle level.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[ivdavid]

JustWondering,

I still am not clear on how you mean 'objective'. If being 'objective' is to be based on "facts" - and 'fact' refers to any premise that is determined to be "true" - then we're still left with 'truth', which is beyond and independent of man - therein being absolutely 'objective'. Do you have a different understanding of 'truth', to be referring to 'objective' in a different way?

I believe that even if God didn't exist (hypothetically speaking) there would still be right and wrong..... To callously cause harm to others without regard to their feelings, rights, well-being, etc. is wrong, period.

This is precisely the claim I'm asking you to back up. Why is it wrong to cause harm to others - and on what basis is this to be an objective standard that ought to be upheld by everyone?
Note, a standard ceases to be objective if its basis is subjective.

And how do you define what is "harm to others" - I could say that one is causing 'harm' to a thief w.r.t. his feelings by arresting him. This then doesn't seem to lend to objective standards, does it?

That's just the aspect of your argument I don't really understand. If you say you would continue to be a law-abiding person who cared for your neighbor even if there was no God, then you must admit there is something inside you that is defining your morals outside of God. Otherwise, you're admitting that if God was not there restraining you, you would be a hateful, murderous jerk.

Here, we're discussing where man's intrinsic sense of morality comes from - [This is the point of discussion].
That it is intrinsic is agreed upon by both of us - [This is the observation].
The source is what is being analyzed - whether it is given by God or whether it is simply found in man without God as the cause - [These are the conclusions whose truth we're trying to evaluate in order to answer the above point of discussion].

Now, you're asking me to hypothetically imagine that there is no God. And then you ask me if man would still remain intrinsically good - where you're assuming that man would remain intrinsically good even in the absence of God. But this is the very conclusion whose truth we're discussing, which you're already using as a valid assumption to prove itself - this is circular reasoning. We're herein unable to proceed along this line of argument - since it's logically inconsistent. Are you able to see this?

 

[JustWondering]

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.

Thank you, Deavonreye. That's the point I was trying to make in my earlier posts. 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.

The problem with basing "objective" morals on the thought that "if God says to do it, then it's morally imperative to do it" is that 10 different people may have 10 completely different views about what God said to do. After all, the people conducting the Inquisition and the witch hunts were inspired by their interpretation of the Bible, and used it to defend their actions (and if you actually take the Old Testament laws at face value, they were justified, since numerous OT laws prescribe killing for various reasons.) Never mind the fact that Southern Baptist preachers in the 1800's were among the foremost defenders of slavery, all the while using OT verses to support their case. Given these examples of immoral things that were morally justified by the Bible, it's hard to see how the Bible actually defines objective morality.

 

[ivdavid]

They[Man] must conclude what is best for the society.

Why? Why ought man to conclude what's best for the society?

 

[JustWondering]

JustWondering,


This is precisely the claim I'm asking you to back up. Why is it wrong to cause harm to others - and on what basis is this to be an objective standard that ought to be upheld by everyone?

It is wrong to harm others because we have the capacity to consider the consequences of our actions and how they impact others. Nearly every religion and/or society has some version of the "golden rule". This idea pre-dates Christianity and Judaism by several hundred years (for example, it is included in the Code of Hammurabi in about 1800 BC). To say the concept of treating others the way one would like to be treated is impossible without God just seems to be without merit. Of course we are capable of reaching this determination without divine input.

Also, if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (as Deavonreye mentioned), mankind had to form a code of ethics and social justice in order to survive as a species. If every person truly was only out for himself with no regard whatsoever for his fellow humans, chaos would reign and mankind would self-destruct. It is all of our best interests to get along and maintain peace. Why is God necessary for this?