Explain how God can exist

[Phoneman777]

There was a similar topic started a while back "Questions for an atheist." I don't think the question it's self was properly posed. So, what I propose is this:

How can you prove, with credibility and evidence, that God does in fact exist? Now, I would like to ask, that if possible, when using scripture in an argument, please find a way to connect it to tangible evidence if possible. I also understand at some point it is what you would choose to believe.

Now, as believers and followers of Christ we have faith and have seen evidence in our own lives. But remember, you are, at this point, trying to convince someone, atheist or otherwise that there is a God. How are you going to do it?

BA Out!

According to Peter, the "surest" word we can offer a non-believer is prophecy, which he says is more compelling than what we see or hear (2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV). Any atheist who gives honest consideration to this will be compelled to agree that an Intellect foreign to our planet must have been responsible for this. He will either stubbornly insist that it was alien creatures, to which he will be faced with questions about their origin and the almost inconceivable notion that the "one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, etc." improbability of the evolution of life happened twice, for us and for the aliens - OR - he'll recognize the utter impossibility of this and simply accept that the Intellect responsible for prophecy is also responsible for the creation of intelligent creatures who recorded prophecy. Or, he'll just remain willfully ignorant in order to continue to satisfy the lusts of his flesh without that pesky conscience raining on his parade.

 

[Doug_E_Fresh]

This is one of my favorite ways:
[sharedmedia=gallery:images:587]

 

[River Jordan]

This is one of my favorite ways:

Has that actually ever worked? Because I see a huge hole in it.

The path down "relative morality" says "You or others make and agree on what is moral". Well, that's how societies work. People get together and decide what is and isn't acceptable within their society. That's why every society has different morals. Then the next step is "You must answer to yourself. You may answer to others (if you want to)". The problem is, that's not how societies work. Not only do societies decide what is or isn't moral, they also set up a system for enforcing those morals. For example, in Amish society if you break their moral code, they may shun you.

So the "if you want to" part is a pretty ridiculous straw man of reality. I'm pretty sure people who are arrested, put on trial, and sent to jail are not told "You only have to answer to this system if you want to". ^_^

 

[Born_Again]

Yea, but if you didn't think there were consequences then you wouldn't hold your self accountable. It's human nature. We obey rules because we fear punishment. If there were no God, then who cares?

 

[River Jordan]

Yea, but if you didn't think there were consequences then you wouldn't hold your self accountable. It's human nature. We obey rules because we fear punishment. If there were no God, then who cares?

It's pretty much only sociopaths who truly have the "who cares" attitude. Most other people have a sense of empathy.

 

[Doug_E_Fresh]

River Jordan, you're missing the point. No human is better than another, if you believe that, then no morality applies to you except the one you create. How can someone "force" their morals on you without literally using force? They can't. That's why their IS punishment. It comes down to who can dominate the other in order to impose their belief system. This is why it works:

Atheist worldview: Time + Matter + Chance = Universe

No one is better than anyone else because you all just "exist". So again, you don't need to answer to someone who isn't you. Because you're all that matters. There's no intrinsic value in who you are, or what you believe because you're a fleck of meat in an enormous universe.

Also, any morality created by man is not absolute and therefore again, subjective to each person. Just because multiple people agree on a moral view it doesn't make it any more correct than the opposing view. Because you have nothing except your own perceptions to base it on. Even if your perception is "the common good." it's still your perception.

There are no holes in it. I just didn't give you a full explanation as to why it works.

Additionally, you said "empathy". Empathy to what? To say empathy means to say that you're believing that there is bad and good. An atheist can't say that. if there's bad and good, you need to be able to distinguish them without subjectivity, to do that you need a moral law, to have a moral law, you need a moral law giver in order to give you the moral law for everyone to live by. Who is the moral law giver? God.

 

[KingJ]

Can we all agree on this?

Burden of proof on God's non existence = 100% on atheists....as EVERY atom points to a Creator God not limited by laws of physics. They need to create Frankenstein!!

Burden of proof on Jesus / Christian God being true God = 100% on God and us.

 

[River Jordan]

River Jordan, you're missing the point. No human is better than another, if you believe that, then no morality applies to you except the one you create. How can someone "force" their morals on you without literally using force? They can't. That's why their IS punishment. It comes down to who can dominate the other in order to impose their belief system.

And look around you....that's pretty much how societies work. They collectively decide what is and isn't acceptable, set up a system to enforce those standards, and collectively enforce them.

No one is better than anyone else because you all just "exist". So again, you don't need to answer to someone who isn't you. Because you're all that matters. There's no intrinsic value in who you are, or what you believe because you're a fleck of meat in an enormous universe.

This is where you lose atheists. You've basically just told them that they are sociopaths, and it's only through societal force that they are made to behave. Do you think that's something that'll make them want to hear more from you, or is it more likely to make them roll their eyes at such a ridiculous straw man and tune out the rest of what you have to say?

And that's my point...this particular apologetic attempt is pretty terrible, and IMO counterproductive.

There are no holes in it. I just didn't give you a full explanation as to why it works.

Yes, it has a massive hole that any intelligent atheist could drive a truck through.

Additionally, you said "empathy". Empathy to what?

Empathy for their fellow humans.

To say empathy means to say that you're believing that there is bad and good. An atheist can't say that. if there's bad and good, you need to be able to distinguish them without subjectivity, to do that you need a moral law, to have a moral law, you need a moral law giver in order to give you the moral law for everyone to live by. Who is the moral law giver? God.

Well, I can see that you're going to keep making this flawed argument no matter what, but I promise you....by tying Christianity to such obviously flawed arguments you're losing more converts than you're gaining.

 

[Doug_E_Fresh]

I'll try this one more time. Maybe this will help you. Morality is not about what it looks like. Societies isn't a logical conclusion for anyone because societies are built on individual members. Any country is STILL using subjective morality. Whose morality is correct when one group of people want to annihilate another? The justification for subjective moral reasoning doesn't get any better when you say, "look at society". When involving other people on a larger scale because it's even harder for someone to argue that morality matters at all.

Maybe Ravi Zacharias can explain it better for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0218GkAGbnU

 

[HammerStone]

This is where you lose atheists. You've basically just told them that they are sociopaths, and it's only through societal force that they are made to behave. Do you think that's something that'll make them want to hear more from you, or is it more likely to make them roll their eyes at such a ridiculous straw man and tune out the rest of what you have to say?

And that's my point...this particular apologetic attempt is pretty terrible, and IMO counterproductive.

No my dear, it's called reductio ad absurdum. Tim Keller has actually quite successfully employed this at his NYC church, so if you'd prefer to stick to your uncharacteristically anecdotal insistence, then have at it because it obviously works for Redeemer. This is one of the paralyzing drawbacks of post-modern's relative materialism, and frankly I'd rather run the risk of pissing them off and upsetting the apple cart a bit rather than presenting a moralistically therapeutic big man who wants them to be happy with who they are.

The mystery and majesty of the imago Dei is the perfect antidote to such a malaise, and there are quite a few arguments which begin with argumentum ad absurdum and develop from there. It's my understanding that's a pretty common plank of logic.

So, when one makes the assertion that someone somewhere should stop doing something that they are doing regardless of how justified the individual feels in the matter, you're automatically appealing to the existence of a greater good beyond "I feel" - similarly the existence of empathy indicates that the feelings of others should at least be considered, if not placed above my own at times. This again appeals to some other thing (concept, ideal, reality, whatever) beyond simple feelings. In other words, why should your empathy for the victim stay the hand of the murderer?

 

[River Jordan]

Morality is not about what it looks like. Societies isn't a logical conclusion for anyone because societies are built on individual members.

You'll have to explain that further, because it doesn't make sense as written.

Any country is STILL using subjective morality.

Of course.

Whose morality is correct when one group of people want to annihilate another?

Whose morality is correct when both groups are claiming to be operating according to God's will? And don't think of it just in terms of one religion against another, but also think of it in terms of inter-religious conflict, e.g., the Protestant vs. Catholic battles in Europe. And not only which group is correct, but who gets to decide which group is in line with God's will? You? Me? The Pope? Someone else?

The justification for subjective moral reasoning doesn't get any better when you say, "look at society".

It's not a justification; it's an observation of reality. Even within religious circles we see all sorts of subjective morality.

When involving other people on a larger scale because it's even harder for someone to argue that morality matters at all.

Or course it matters...moral codes and laws are what keeps societies functioning. That's mostly what they're about in the first place.

Maybe Ravi Zacharias can explain it better for you:

He's not here to discuss this. Is there anything specific from his video that you'd like to discuss?

No my dear, it's called reductio ad absurdum. Tim Keller has actually quite successfully employed this at his NYC church, so if you'd prefer to stick to your uncharacteristically anecdotal insistence, then have at it because it obviously works for Redeemer.

So they convert atheists by telling them that they are sociopaths who, unless they believe in God, will kill, rape, maim, etc.?

This is one of the paralyzing drawbacks of post-modern's relative materialism, and frankly I'd rather run the risk of pissing them off and upsetting the apple cart a bit rather than presenting a moralistically therapeutic big man who wants them to be happy with who they are.

Again, not everyone operates in such black/white terms.

The mystery and majesty of the imago Dei is the perfect antidote to such a malaise, and there are quite a few arguments which begin with argumentum ad absurdum and develop from there. It's my understanding that's a pretty common plank of logic.

It's also a common logical fallacy. And in this case, the fundamental premise of the argument (atheists are sociopaths) has absolutely no basis in reality. Remember, as Christians we are to be truthful in all we do, and when it comes to actual moral behavior, the data contradicts this premise.

So, when one makes the assertion that someone somewhere should stop doing something that they are doing regardless of how justified the individual feels in the matter, you're automatically appealing to the existence of a greater good beyond "I feel" - similarly the existence of empathy indicates that the feelings of others should at least be considered, if not placed above my own at times. This again appeals to some other thing (concept, ideal, reality, whatever) beyond simple feelings.

Can you give an example?

In other words, why should your empathy for the victim stay the hand of the murderer?

Again, based on the flawed premise of atheist = sociopath.

 

[HammerStone]

I'd take a glance in the mirror for logical fallacy. Speck meet log and all of that.

A sociopath would exhibit characteristics beyond the foundation laid here. In fact, a sociopath would lack empathy. Thus, the very premise that I am addressing the person's capacity for empathy would preclude me labeling them a sociopath. Thus, I wholly reject your assertion. Rather, the move is to push at those things that are not 100% materialistically explicable and offer a framework for comprehending those things. Christianity does not pretend to explain all loose ends tidily away - it is faith, after all - but it does offer a valid framework for understanding. Rejecting a framework for understanding is in no way demeaning to the dignity of the person, and honestly I'd expect most men and women to put on their big boy or big girl pants and handle that. In fact, I've discussed this with a family member of mine who is an atheist, and he seemed to be able to engage me on it without offense.

Once again, you keep repeating something over and over, because for you that mean's makes its true. You're quite versed in post-modernism, but you're dealing with a group of people here who will not simply accept it because it's the flavor of the month when it goes against their faith. There are other epistemological understandings in existence.

Your epistemology intrigues me as a Christian, because you seem to unable to lay a positive framework for anything that resembles Christianity as most know it. And that's okay, but I would really like to see an example of your epistemology at work in how you would address a nonbeliever? With all due respect, instead of constantly saying that won't work, let's go with something positive. How would you approach the same hypothetical and talk to them about your God?

 

[River Jordan]

Thus, I wholly reject your assertion.

Good, then we can move past this whole atheism = no morality nonsense.

Rather, the move is to push at those things that are not 100% materialistically explicable and offer a framework for comprehending those things.

You mean the God of the Gaps fallacy?

Christianity does not pretend to explain all loose ends tidily away - it is faith, after all - but it does offer a valid framework for understanding.

Yes, we agree.

Your epistemology intrigues me as a Christian, because you seem to unable to lay a positive framework for anything that resembles Christianity as most know it. And that's okay, but I would really like to see an example of your epistemology at work in how you would address a nonbeliever? With all due respect, instead of constantly saying that won't work, let's go with something positive. How would you approach the same hypothetical and talk to them about your God?

Given the extreme animosity I've experienced from my fellow Christians on this forum, I'm inclined not to. But I'll say that my approach is to not start off preaching or telling someone anything, but rather to listen to what they have to say and what they believe, and go from there. I'm always surprised at how far I get just by genuinely listening. And when I talk, I try and not come across as desperate or trying to convince them in one sitting. Every interaction is as unique as the individuals who participate in them.

 

[aspen]

River, it is a shame that tribalism plays such a big role in Christianity because it takes the power away from listening and dialogue. If you have been branded by some as belonging to the "other" group no amount of listening or honest exchange of information is going to matter because you will be labelled as an interloper.

I have a.feeling Christ was talking about this problem when He stated, "the Son of Man has no place to lie His head", He was rejected by all because He had no tribal affiliation

 

[River Jordan]

River, it is a shame that tribalism plays such a big role in Christianity because it takes the power away from listening and dialogue. If you have been branded by some as belonging to the "other" group no amount of listening or honest exchange of information is going to matter because you will be labelled as an interloper.

To be fair, tribalism plays a role in just about everything humans do. We're social animals after all.

I have a.feeling Christ was talking about this problem when He stated, "the Son of Man has no place to lie His head", He was rejected by all because He had no tribal affiliation

Because He came for everyone, not just one group or another. That's what makes it so beautiful.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

You mean the God of the Gaps fallacy?

http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/2014/04/the-god-of-the-gaps-fallacy/

 

[Doug_E_Fresh]

So they convert atheists by telling them that they are sociopaths who, unless they believe in God, will kill, rape, maim, etc.?

You're taking an argument, running to an extreme, and putting your stake in the ground.
This is the point: Atheists MUST employ subjective moral reasoning. Because not everyone does in society, thank the Lord, it is not falling apart at the seams. You claim that I'm saying that they will kill, rape, and pillage. I'm claiming that there's nothing to stop them from it in a morally subjective worldview. Ravi may not be here, but the video is basically saying the exact same thing that i'm saying in a different way. So you you should still watch the video since it's not that long.

Subjective moral relativity can ONLY work in society so long as everyone intends good for one another. I can't make it more clear than that. We've killed more people in the 20th century than all the previous centuries combined. If everyone believed subjective moral relativism, then look out because this isn't nearly as bad as it *COULD* get.

I'll leave you with this thought:

"If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted," Frankl continued, "with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or, as the Nazi liked to say, of 'Blood and Soil.' I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." - Victor Frankl

If this doesn't make any sense, then this is how I'll end my part in this conversation:

"To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation." - George MacDonald

 

[KingJ]

T
Because He came for everyone, not just one group or another. That's what makes it so beautiful.

Yes it is beautiful. Now if only everyone loved / respected Him in return. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

River, it is a shame that tribalism plays such a big role in Christianity because it takes the power away from listening and dialogue. If you have been branded by some as belonging to the "other" group no amount of listening or honest exchange of information is going to matter because you will be labelled as an interloper.

I have a.feeling Christ was talking about this problem when He stated, "the Son of Man has no place to lie His head", He was rejected by all because He had no tribal affiliation

All the exchange is evidence of patience, love and giving her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[River Jordan]

This is the point: Atheists MUST employ subjective moral reasoning.

So do you; so does everyone on a lot of questions. For example, is it wrong to kill a person? It depends, doesn't it? If the person is a legitimate threat, then killing him may be moral. OTOH, it's not moral if you kill him for no reason. We can get even closer to home here...do you abide by all the OT laws? They are God's commands after all, and if we can only operate according to absolute morality, then by definition those laws must apply to everyone at all times (that's what "absolute" means).

Subjective moral relativity can ONLY work in society so long as everyone intends good for one another. I can't make it more clear than that. We've killed more people in the 20th century than all the previous centuries combined. If everyone believed subjective moral relativism, then look out because this isn't nearly as bad as it *COULD* get.

I can't think of any society that operates according to a code of absolute morality. Can you?

I'll leave you with this thought:

Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum.

 

[KingJ]

Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum.

You did not read your links did you? Is Doug guilty of this...

which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning.

As for Godwins law, please read your link properly.