In your opinion, what are the toughest apologetic challenges to the Christian faith?
We have been practicing some apologetics in my Bible study, and there has been a request to start dealing with some of the toughest apologetic challenges to the Christian faith. Now, there is of course an element of subjectivity to this kind of evaluation, but that's why I want to get a variety of opinions. What do you think are some of the most difficult challenged to Christianity?
Views: 933
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Yashin Nashi on -
Lou Hamby said:
Lou's response to Yashin:
Yashin said:
I'm not Buddhist or from Asia, I was raised United Methodist in the US. For the last time, please stop making assumptions about me. I am not surprised by sacrifice, I am disgusted and appalled by it.
O,K, let's take this sentence, I can only respond to what you put in writing, correct??. You referenced a Buddhist scripture as if it had some level of authority,
Sorry for the confusion then. I was not quoting it as an authority. I said that it was what best described my own basis of morality. I only quoted it to credit my sources of the quote. The source really doesn't matter, it's just a nice habit to cite it when you are using a direct quote. The words speak for themselves. I don't care if it was said by Buddha or Hitler. The words themselves were an accurate summation of my views so I used them.
So--I accept the Golden Rule scripture you gave...and I made a case for Gods action on your behalf follows the golden rule. You can reject that, but Gods loving kindness is wrapped up in His sacrifice for you...?
Your talking about punishment for sin, and I am talking about Gods grace and mercy, and his personal shedding of HIs own blood for you, on your behalf, that you might be redeemed and set in heavenly places justified by the one sacrifice that is perfect and without blemish. God offered up himself? This is not an act of punishment? The disparegence between us comes from your one sided view of sin and punishment, and the truth of Gods loving kindess and acts on behalf of your sin?
What is my one-sided view of sin?
So with no assumptions on my part--do you believe you are a sinner, or that you sin????? I suppose that is the most basic and fundamental question? Since you do use the Buddhist scriptures, then I make no assumptions as to your inferences as to whether you believe in a non-guided system of Karma or similar. See the brass tack is what do you believe about sin? ONce you answer that then we can continue this discussion because we have went around that questions several times because of differing views, and that I accept--but the over all and most basic starting point of this whole dialogue would be what do you believe about sin?????
I don't use Buddhist scriptures. I am an atheist. i do not follow any holy books from any religion. I have read many, i may even quote them if something from them is relevant, but nothing about my views on any of these matters comes from any of them. to be honest, i only quoted the Buddhist golden rule to avoid quoting the Jesus one and having to go through the next annoying step of explaining why that doesn't mean I get my morality from the Bible.
Sin is an action against God, I do not believe there is a God so i don't believe one can sin. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that there is a God, so a sin is going against God in any way, really. I believe that the common Christian view of a sin is something that blemishes one's soul, because God is pure and holy, he can't have any sin around him. So if you are in sin, you cannot approach God.
-
Permalink Reply by Sean Quigley on -
"This all makes one very flawed assumption, that materialism leads to determinism. To make this leap you have to assume that our basic understanding of physics through the Theory of Relativity and Newtonian Laws of Motion are all there is and that we have a perfect understanding of it."
No it doesn't. Materialism is a belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter. This doesn't primarily concern about " our basic understanding of physics through the Theory of Relativity and Newtonian Laws of Motion are all there is". It's focus is on the physical matter, not scientific laws. It also doesn't require that we also have a perfect understanding of these scientific laws either, just that we assume that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter. It is from this definition that determinism logically follows. To redefine materialism as focusing more on our understanding of physical laws and that they be perfect would of course make determinism not logically follow. But then your definition of materialism is incorrect from the start and thus makes your argument incorrect.
"We can't know for sure if determinism is correct let alone act on it if it is (We can't predict it) so the only logical conclusion is to assume that we do have free will and act accordingly."
This is arbitrary. You try to say that it would be impossible to determine if determinism is correct, and then you just simply say that we should assume to have free and act accordingly without really even giving any reason of how that would work in your Atheist worldview. This isn't even really objective and its only ignoring the fact that if matter is all there is and if there is no such thing as the soul or anything spiritual, then you are a slave to you DNA and what you do is ultimately not by your own will but by your DNA. Again as the ex-Atheist said
" This means then, that the mind of man, our greatest treasure, is reducible to material bound by physical laws; namely, our thoughts, feelings, and actions are reducible to reactions of chemicals in the brain.
Few people realize, then, that this destroys all that makes us human. Namely; if our thoughts, feelings, and actions are simply chemical reactions in the brain, those reactions are simply the by-products of prior reactions forming an unbreakable chain which leads to the very beginning of the universe.
This means then, that whatever we do, we do because we have to. We cannot do anything other than what we do, it simply isn’t possible."-
"And we can all play this game. Your world-view says that Heaven is the real goal, so you should be trying to get there as quickly as possible. If you were consistent in your world-view you wouldn't wear a seatbelt or go to the doctor and nobody should ever cry at a funeral, it should be a celebration, that person finally made it to heaven. They're finally free from this life which is apparently nothing but pain without the hope of something better in Heaven. If the only thing about life that is good is being with god, then why do you fight so hard to delay it."
The reason I don't do this is because not only is this extremely selfish and inconsiderate of the other people who do not know about the Gospel, but Because as Jesus said in the end of Matthew 28:18-20 " 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. " Jesus calls all Christians to spread his message around the world and make Disciples of men. And while Christians are excited at the prospect of Heaven, we are called as the Body of Christ to reach out to people, help them, and give them the Good News, and we will only stop that when Christ returns.
"Why do people pray for sick friends to get better? Wouldn't it make more sense to pray that they die quickly and painlessly so they can be with god? If you deny this and say that life is worth living, then why can't it be worth living for an atheist? Either life is pure misery and it's only the hope of God that keeps you going (what a horrible thought) or life is wonderful and it can be enjoyed without God."
We pray for people to get better because we desire for them to say with us a while longer and help make much more of an impact for Christ in his ministry while they still can. Once they die, their ministry to the Lord is done and they cannot come back (until Christ Returns of course). The reason why life is not worth it for the Atheist is because his/her life is the shallowest breath compared to an eternity and by remaining an Atheist you are unfortunately missing out on one of the greatest choices you can make in acknowledging yourself to be a sinner, realize you are in need of a savior, and come to the realization that Jesus is Messiah and Lord and He has the power to redeem you and make you whole again and take away your sin and sorrow at eternity's shore. By remaining an Atheist, while you may have a happy and successful life, it will ultimately be wasted when you die because you refused the offer of life that Jesus offered you to save you from yourself. As Jesus himself said in Mark 8:36 "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?"
Again, with this statement, you ignore the implications that Atheism has on your life because if it is true, your choices and view of life is ultimately determined by your DNA and matter in motion and nothing else, everything else is ultimately an illusion and meaningless. That is a horrible thought.
"Dawkins puts himself as a 6 out of 7 on a scale of non-belief (from his book, The God Delusion). I completely agree with that, it has nothing to do with the implications of atheism. it is simply referring to the limitations of one's knowledge. Nobody can say with 100% certainty that there is no God, you can't prove a negative. You should understand this from the main article on atheism, he did at least have a few correct definitions at the beginning. We are all atheists with regard to some God claim. The Yahweh God claim is specific enough that it can be tested, so we can reasonably take a more assertive position on his non-existence."
I am curious as to how limitations in one's knowledge is synonymous with Atheism. I would argue that should not even be an issue because as it says in Romans 1:18-23 " 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."
The issue is not the evidence for the existence of God (There is plenty of that historically, scientifically, and even philosophically as the Christian Worldview is the only worldview that if true, would allow the acquiring of knowledge to be possible. Check out those creation websites I listed previously if you do not believe me) The issue is the heart of people, they are unwilling to have someone tell them what to do even if they know that what they are doing is wrong. They hate the idea of needing a savior and being told that they are insufficient on their own and their heart will only lead to evil.
"But if you were to posit a deist God who initiated the universe and has disappeared since, then there is no way to test or disprove it and it would be unreasonable to say conviction that it does not exist."
I would not go with this one as it is obviously not the God of the Bible who has been active in Human History.
"I said we can work out a consistent morality based on consensus. How is that inconsistent with anything else I've said? "
Again, like I said, if materialistic Atheism is true, which would then lead to determinism, then the subject about Free will, morality, judgment, good and evil is meaningless. How can you have a morality with that? Let alone know that the morality based on consensus is actually a good morality, that we are even progressing to even higher levels of being ethical if all we are is matter in motion. Just like the ex-Atheist in the article said "
All actions are the result of prior actions in an unbreakable chain. We are no different than a cog in a watch or a falling domino.
There is no difference between the embrace of a loving husband and the violence of a vicious rapist, the actions of a doctor trying to save a life and the mass murderer who kills at whim, the actions of our greatest leaders and the inaction of a lazy sluggard.
Both are totally the same in atheism."
"Atheism offers absolutely nothing of a worldview at all. Personally I have been coming from a materialistic worldview, which is consistent with atheism, but it doesn't come from atheism. Atheism by itself literally has nothing to offer. It isn't a worldview, it doesn't try to explain anything. It's just a useful category to identify myself as one who does not share any belief in a God. My worldview could most accurately be considered materialistic. Bill asked me on what basis I judge God, I presented it, based on humanity. Not based on atheism or materialism. Then you proceeded to tell me what I believe."
I would beg to differ. Believing or not believing in a God has huge implications on how you view the world. The Universe being created or self-sustained, answering the questions of why we are here and what is our purpose? And starting your worldview with matter is all that there is by default takes away the spiritual realm and thus God. So materialism essentially subtlety assumes that there is No God and is thus Atheistic.
Regarding your worldview of materialistic Atheism, you have not tried to answer the points made in my first article which sets to refute your worldview. How would you answer the claims to refute your worldview in this article?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
-
Permalink Reply by Leonie Margaret Edge on
-
Yashin, do you also go to websites of other beliefs (like Buddhism, Islam, Wicca, Druidism) and question as you are doing here, for fun?
Dominus tecum
Leonie
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Foster on -
No time for all:
If I act on instinct rather than choice, I could not be culpable for anything. My response to any accusation could be, "My genes made me do it."
There is no 'oughtness' to instinct. Reaction to external stimuli involves no moral imperative any more than yawning, blinking, and belching do.
OT laws: Figured this would be misinterpreted. No, God is not using a relativistic standard, his standard does not/has not moved. He gradually moves the Israelites toward it. Society has multiple standards - we're not all moving toward the same one. No, society is not progressing (morally) - we're in a fixed loop of degradation - human nature is the same now as it was in Biblical times.
Vicarious redemption appalling/"I should have to pay for it myself": Very noble of you, but neither you nor I have the moral capital to do that. The standard is perfection and man broke the standard - that is why Jesus is necessary (perfect man). People can choose to rely to on their own 'goodness' but in light of perfection they will be sorely disappointed.
It seems that skeptics think believers get a loophole. There is no loophole. Jesus willingly (no torture involved) paid the price to the Father, so now we owe Jesus. We 'die' to ourselves (starve our own selfish desires) and live for him while receiving the fulfillment that comes with doing that - not so appalling.
Yashin Nashi said:Don't worry, Lou. I'm not going anywhere. That was just the conclusion of one discussion. And thank you, I have read the Bible already.
Bill Foster said:I agree that the there is an innate moral law (Rom. 2:14-15) although animal instinct is different since it is hard-wired reaction, not volitional action (not based on choice which morality must be based on).
I do not accept this definition at all. I have never come across this definition anywhere. I am defining morality as the act of doing what is right, the motive and any choice preceding that act have no bearing on it. If you insist that morality must involve a choice then don't bother reading the rest of this because we are talking about 2 different concepts. If you agree that our morality is innate, then it is just as much a human instinct as breathing. The reference to animals was just to say that some moral acts are so common that they are even present in insects. Simply pointing out that we do not have a monopoly on altruism.
You are welcome to your opinion of whether God is just or not, but it is a relative standard - other people may and do see things differently than you - so whose standard should we expect God follow?
Yashin Nashi said:
My own standard based on the universally observable innate morality of humans.
If I had to boil it down to a common theme it would be as Siddhartha Gautama said in Undanavarga 5:18 - "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." This is known as the ethic of reciprocity or commonly called "the golden rule" by some. It's also a naturally occurring stable strategy called "tit for tat". As I said, different cultures will disagree on some of the details (Is it ok to beat your children? Is it ok to eat meat?) But there are many universally accepted morals. Murder (defined as an unjustified killing) is universally wrong, what specifically constitutes murder can also vary, but there are some levels that are universally accepted; soldiers killing during war or killing in self defense is almost unanimously not considered murder. Slaughtering babies or killing anyone who is not hurting you in any way is almost always considered murder (when it's ordered by God seems to be the only exception).
Unless there is a transcendent, objective standard of morality then there are only relativistic opinions, not morals. Either we accept an objective standard from a transcendent source of whom we only have a partial picture, or we elevate our own fluctuating standards to the level of absolutes.
In the OT, God did not institute moral ideals that were too far ahead of public conscience. For example, Prohibition (1920-1933) was a failure b/c the public conscience did not believe total abstinence from alcohol was lawful. Similarly, the Beatitudes (Mat. 5) would have been bizarre to the ancient Israelites b/c they are too far ahead of them. Their hearts were hardened b/c of the brutal mindset of the day (Mat. 19:8).
In the OT, God is progressively moving Israel toward an ideal. The OT laws are actually a major moral step forward from the cultures that surrounded Israel (and even a step up from Hammurabi's Code which is considered ahead of its time). Yet even these laws were intended to be temporary as the Old and New Testaments affirm (Jer. 31:31-33, Heb. 8:13, Gal. 3:24-25).
So, if society progresses on its own, they're just senseless, arbitrarily fluctuating, unreliable standards. Totally relativistic. But when God's laws change He still has an objective standard? I know where you're trying to go with TAG, but you first have to prove that there is an objective standard when even the standard that you're supposedly getting from God is a changing one. I think we do have universal consensuses of morality among humans in the modern world. And they are hopefully progressing and always changing and being refined. For all intents and purposes, this is an objective moral standard. It changes slowly enough and the movement is in one direction that there are limits. I'm not talking about any fringe moral dilemmas, I'm talking about very concrete notions of right and wrong. The basis is that all these standards are universally applicable, you can't have one standard for one group of people and a separate standard for a different group. And really, like I said, it doesn't matter how they come about, as long as there are any standards at all that can be identified as universally accepted then there is a standard human morality.
"Finite crimes": In context, human beings are created to exist in eternity with God - not just exist in a mortal form for 70-80 yrs. Because we broke fellowship with an eternal being who gave us life, the consequences are eternal - more than we can pay. That is why God offers to pay it for us - we get what we deserve if we refuse that undeserved mercy.
I'm not even sure if I want to delve into this part of the discussion until we've settled the rest (which is an awful lot all on its own). The idea of vicarious redemption I find appalling. First, the very idea that God being eternal meaning He can't deal with our petty sins is ridiculous. If anything, it should be just the opposite. He shouldn't really care what we do if we're so small and insignificant compared to Him. Count each sin as a negative number, any number other than infinity. God is infinite, you can't take way from Him, nothing finite should be able to bother Him. Then the notion that God wants to forgive us but can't? He (through Jesus) "pays" for our sins? Pays them to whom? Himself? Why is that step even necessary? If He wants to forgive us, He just can. There's no need to add this stipulation of going through Jesus. I'm aware of the tradition of animal sacrifice and Jesus was the "perfect sacrifice" by why does there have to be any sacrifice at all? Initially it was because God liked the smell. This is the most sickening part to me, why does it have to be paid with death? If I was given the option I would have said, "No! I don't want you to torture anybody on my behalf". What a horrifying thought. If I'm truly, truly deserving of this, then that means nobody else can pay it for me, I deserve it so I should have to pay it for myself. And if somebody else can suffer on my behalf then my crime was obviously not so terrible in the first place. How can a crime which is forgivable be at the same time worthy of eternal punishment?
It doesn't matter if the standard for morality is relative or objective, it has to at least be consistent. And of course there is the main question for a morality TAG argument. Is something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral?
-
Permalink Reply by Leonie Margaret Edge on
-
Yashin, you wrote 'If I had to boil it down to a common theme it would be as Siddhartha Gautama said in Undanavarga 5:18 - "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."'
Umm, Yashin, all very well and good on the surface, BUT a lot of paedophiles excuse their behaviour by saying that the child is undergoing 'true love'. Yick!
Humans will always excuse behaviour that other Humans find unacceptable. I cannot understand how a loving parent can smoke around a child or not restrain a child in a car or fail to teach their child manners or, or, or.
A case in point that is relevant to me right now: there's a bloke at my local beach who must be in his sixties, ie old enough to know better. He sits down on his fold-up chair that he brings with him every afternoon between 3:30 and 4:30. After a while, he goes back to his car, which is parked in front of a rubbish bin, travels back down the steps to the two metres where his chair is, and proceeds to drink from the bottle of beer he has brought back down with him.
He then throws the bottle on to the rocks, not caring if it smashes and, clearly, not caring if a child injures himself whilst exploring the rocks.
To me, and I know I am judging, which I ought not, this man is a Mama's Boy, an egoist who believes that others should clean up after him. Whilst I agree with you that he would not appreciate being made to step on his own broken glass (and, yes, I am reporting him to the local govt. authority this morning, I've had enough), I believe it's his attitude that is the clear problem here. That is why imposing morals on ourselves just doesn't work. We need a higher power, and I'm not talking the legally legislated government here.
He feels he can get away with it, even though it is morally and legally reprehensible. Any concern he has must be purely for the legal outcome as he clearly cannot see any moral problem with what he is doing.
That's one of the many reasons we need God.
Dominus tecum
Leonie
-
Permalink Reply by Yashin Nashi on
-
No it doesn't. Materialism is a belief claiming that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter. This doesn't primarily concern about " our basic understanding of physics through the Theory of Relativity and Newtonian Laws of Motion are all there is". It's focus is on the physical matter, not scientific laws. It also doesn't require that we also have a perfect understanding of these scientific laws either, just that we assume that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all organisms, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or interactions of matter. It is from this definition that determinism logically follows. To redefine materialism as focusing more on our understanding of physical laws and that they be perfect would of course make determinism not logically follow. But then your definition of materialism is incorrect from the start and thus makes your argument incorrect.
I'm not redefining anything. Yes, materialism is about matter and how matter interacts, which is called PHYSICS. Physical laws are descriptions of what we know about how the material world works. To make the leap to determinism is what requires assumptions about these interactions. There is no reason to assume that matter interacts in such a way that is deterministic. Those assumptions about physical interactions are really averages we can use to make predictions. That's not a true picture of how particles act.
"We can't know for sure if determinism is correct let alone act on it if it is (We can't predict it) so the only logical conclusion is to assume that we do have free will and act accordingly."
This is arbitrary. You try to say that it would be impossible to determine if determinism is correct, and then you just simply say that we should assume to have free and act accordingly without really even giving any reason of how that would work in your Atheist worldview. This isn't even really objective and its only ignoring the fact that if matter is all there is and if there is no such thing as the soul or anything spiritual, then you are a slave to you DNA and what you do is ultimately not by your own will but by your DNA.
No in our day to day lives we cannot utilize a deterministic model to make predictions. In other words, for all intents and purposes, we do have free will because even if it is determined, we still have the illusion of free will. We still "make choices" and are able to act and interact as if we do have free will. A free will model is more useful in our daily lives. It's a more accurate model of what we can observe.
The reason I don't do this is because not only is this extremely selfish and inconsiderate of the other people who do not know about the Gospel, but Because as Jesus said in the end of Matthew 28:18-20 "18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying,“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.19 Go therefore[a]and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen." Jesus calls all Christians to spread his message around the world and make Disciples of men. And while Christians are excited at the prospect of Heaven, we are called as the Body of Christ to reach out to people, help them, and give them the Good News, and we will only stop that when Christ returns.
We pray for people to get better because we desire for them to say with us a while longer and help make much more of an impact for Christ in his ministry while they still can. Once they die, their ministry to the Lord is done and they cannot come back (until Christ Returns of course). The reason why life is not worth it for the Atheist is because his/her life is the shallowest breath compared to an eternity and by remaining an Atheist you are unfortunately missing out on one of the greatest choices you can make in acknowledging yourself to be a sinner, realize you are in need of a savior, and come to the realization that Jesus is Messiah and Lord and He has the power to redeem you and make you whole again and take away your sin and sorrow at eternity's shore. By remaining an Atheist, while you may have a happy and successful life, it will ultimately be wasted when you die because you refused the offer of life that Jesus offered you to save you from yourself. As Jesus himself said in Mark 8:36 "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?"
You completely missed the point here. You can paint either worldview in a negative or positive light. You were able to come up with reasons to be optimistic within your worldview. There is nothing inherently depressing about even a deterministic world, it's all about how you look at it.
Again, with this statement, you ignore the implications that Atheism has on your life because if it is true, your choices and view of life is ultimately determined by your DNA and matter in motion and nothing else, everything else is ultimately an illusion and meaningless. That is a horrible thought.
Again, that's not atheism, that's materialism. They are not synonymous. And yeah, because standing around for all eternity worshiping God is so very meaningful. It's completely self-serving, that is the epitome of meaningless. Worshiping for the sake of worshiping. If heaven is eternal and never changing, then what possible meaning could it have? You're doing the exact same thing for all eternity, no result from your actions, no need for it, just a continued, pointless existence.
"Dawkins puts himself as a 6 out of 7 on a scale of non-belief (from his book, The God Delusion). I completely agree with that, it has nothing to do with the implications of atheism. it is simply referring to the limitations of one's knowledge.
I am curious as to how limitations in one's knowledge is synonymous with Atheism.
How on Earth did you come up with me saying it's synonymous? You said that Dawkins can't consider himself a full atheist because of the implication of an "atheistic worldview". I corrected you in that the reason there is a scale at all is only to express the level of certainty about denying the existence of any God(s). Dawkins does consider himself a full atheist, He thoroughly disbelieves, the distinction he was making (and I clearly made) is on any positive claims about the non-existence of a God. In other words, he (and I and most other atheists I know of) are agnostic atheists. I definitely do not believe that there is a God, but I can't claim to know that there isn't.
I would argue that should not even be an issue because as it says in Romans 1:18-23 " 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."
There is nothing clear or inherent about reality that implies a creator. There is only this one universe, what is a universe supposed to look like? What is your basis for comparison between a created/designed universe and one that came about through natural processes?
The issue is not the evidence for the existence of God (There is plenty of that historically, scientifically, and even philosophically as the Christian Worldview is the only worldview that if true, would allow the acquiring of knowledge to be possible. Check out those creation websites I listed previously if you do not believe me)
Not even close. you're talking about TAG and even if one accepted every single ridiculous premise along the way and followed the argument all the way though, you only end with some, non-descript transcendent being to use as the basis for everything (morality, logic, etc). It could be Allah, could be Ba'al, Vishnu, or some other God that nobody knows about. That is a far cry from what you're claiming.
Again, like I said, if materialistic Atheism is true, which would then lead to determinism, then the subject about Free will, morality, judgment, good and evil is meaningless. How can you have a morality with that? Let alone know that the morality based on consensus is actually a good morality, that we are even progressing to even higher levels of being ethical if all we are is matter in motion. Just like the ex-Atheist in the article said "
It doesn't lead to determinism But fine. How can you know that God is real? How can you know that the Bible is truly his word? "Prophesies" in it could all just be misunderstandings or coincidence, you might just be delusional, it could all be a prank from the real God, this could all be a dream, maybe you're trapped in the matrix and this is all an elaborate experiment to see how gullible humans can be under the right conditions. It's all subjective, but it is a consensus, so it is consistent. And by following the golden rule we can be reasonably certain that the morality which arises is correct. It minimizes suffering. We can know that suffering is bad because nobody likes it for themselves.
I would beg to differ. Believing or not believing in a God has huge implications on how you view the world. The Universe being created or self-sustained, answering the questions of why we are here and what is our purpose?
Why does there even need to be an answer to these questions? Why can't we say, "we don't know"? That is the only honest answer. Also, this really doesn't matter for the argument because I am (primarily) a materialist, but please stop conflating atheism with materialism. It's possible to be an atheist and still believe in some "higher power", just not a God. Get it? Atheism is not the cause of anything, it is just a description one belief. Some worldviews are atheistic and some are theistic. Materialism doesn't follow from atheism, materialism is atheistic. Atheism follows from materialism.
And starting your worldview with matter is all that there is by default takes away the spiritual realm and thus God. So materialism essentially subtlety assumes that there is No God and is thus Atheistic.
BINGO! That is the only connection. Now if you're referring to materialism, please call it materialism.
Regarding your worldview of materialism [FTFY], you have not tried to answer the points made in my first article which sets to refute your worldview. How would you answer the claims to refute your worldview in this article?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
See above comment about TAG. This isn't even a very good example of it. It just baldly asserts that logic can only come from God. With air, you can use tools to "see" it, you can indirectly observe it by its effects on other objects, etc.
The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic.
Why aren't they physical? They exist as ideas in my physical mind. They create physical memory path through my brain. And we can observe them by their effects on physical matter. Like his car example for the law of non-contradiction. Obviously the issue here is that he's taking an absurd view of what materialism means. He's making parallels between ideas based on similar definitions, but they aren't the same. It's subtle, but he's just playing a word game. It's like if I said he believes God is immaterial which means something of no significance*. So he believes that god is unimportant. It's just a childish game trying to bypass any real argument and catch the other person on a perceived technicality of terminology.
*im·ma·te·ri·al [im-uh-teer-ee-uhl] Show IPA adjective
-
Permalink Reply by Leonie Margaret Edge on
-
G'day Yashin,
Hey, I used to believe like you, especially that bit about worshipping God for Eternity. Boring! <yawn!> And that was when I was a new Christian, too!
Now, I know better!
You know when you have those moments when everything falls into place, when it all seems so beautiful, so right, so perfect and you feel as though you're in love with the World all over again? That's a taste of truly worshipping God. I have learned that.
I can't wait to do it for Eternity, Mate.
And it's certainly better than the alternative on offer.
Dominus tecum
Leonie
-
Permalink Reply by Lou Hamby on -
Yashin said:
Sin is an action against God, I do not believe there is a God so i don't believe one can sin.Lou said:
Sin is the trangression of Gods Holy Law.
Your choice to reject God is yours, and He indeed honors your free will choice in this...
I have given you my heart, my concerns about your soul, the scriptures, and a cogent argument based upon the Potter and the clay....
How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16
What further discussion could we have....until and unless Christ shows himself strong in your life, and the scales are removed from your eyes...the horror of spiritual blindness is men choose to invest in their eternity--deceived.The Rich man and Lazarus:
27 “He (rich man) answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
