August 25, 2010
Sufficient Evidence
Question: Isn't it rather unrealistic, and perhaps self centered, for God to condemn a bunch of Atheists, who don't believe in him, when He hasn't given them any convincing reason to believe in Him?
The brilliance of Razi Zacharias' answer was obvious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
... Not exactly brilliant. :P
ReplyDeleteThe best way, imo, of defeating this "You're assuming a moral law" apologetic is to point out that the moral law I am assuming is the Christian one. The Problem of Evil and the Problem of Non-belief are internal critiques of Christianity, they do not posit a moral standard of their own. They attempt to show that the Christian god, as defined, either contradicts Himself or the world around us.
The guy who asked the question doesn't have to give an argument for why it would be morally wrong for God to be self-centered. Dan, do you think God has a high opinion of being self-centered? Of course not. God is loving, He cares about us and wants us to care about one another. Why then, if he cares about so much, does he put our eternal salvation at risk by not providing sufficient evidence? God not giving us reasonable evidence contradicts His omnibenevolence, and thus God can not exist.
Of course, the argument whether there is evidence for God is a completely different one which Ravi doesn't address(Naturally, he doesn't have the time), so I won't either.
But he does say something about free will. He says that it would be immoral for God to violate my free will by compelling me to believe. Let me just say this now. If God came down from his heavenly abode and shook my hand, I would believe and would not feel that me free will has been violated. At all. Besides, Christians ALWAYS say that God compelled them to believe, gave them the holy spirit or presented Himself clearly in some way or another. Has the free will of these Christians been violated? Of course not. How would God appearing clearly to the world violate my free will to do anything? Did Jesus violate doubting Thomas' free will by allowing him to poke the wound in his side?
And then he says the evidence is utterly overwhelming! So am I being compelled by God to believe or not?
Brummer,
ReplyDeleteIntellectual honesty would force one to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. The unbeliever does not have this avenue, and therefore according to their professed worldview could not know anything for certain. The only reason they do know things for certain is because they borrow from our worldview, and supress the truth about it.
God does not send people to Hell for denying something they are not certain about.
We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. The evidence is utterly overwhelming!
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Intellectual honesty would force one to admit that [a god] could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain."
Quite the reverse. A trickster god could "reveal" something that was really a lie in such a way that you would say that you knew for certain that it was true. And that's assuming (for the sake of argument) that there was any "revelation" at all. There is no reason to believe that there was.
There is no reason to believe that there was a revelation. But there is a strong reason to believe that there was not. Sye, and Dan following his lie, are not able to describe this "revelation" except to say "in such a way that I know for certain." In other words, they want to avoid being nailed down.
"We [lie] that all evidence is evidence of [our presumed god,] even one's very ability to reason about evidence. The evidence is utterly overwhelming!"
The available evidence for your god is nil. You are inserting unwarranted premises (e.g. that my ability to reason implies your god.) If you had any real evidence, you would not pull such shenanigans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete>>we cannot know for certain ANYTHING about the nature of God.
ReplyDeleteAre you certain that we cannot know for certain ANYTHING about the nature of God?
>>There is absolutely no way to demonstrate that--even if he DID exist--he is not lying, deceptive, amoral, or downright evil.
Are you absolutely certain that there is absolutely no way to demonstrate that?
aww you deleted your comment...never mind
ReplyDelete"Are you absolutely certain that there is absolutely no way to demonstrate that?"
ReplyDeleteWell, sure. If God is omnipotent, He could lie to you without you ever knowing.
Brummer,
ReplyDelete"Are you absolutely certain that there is absolutely no way to demonstrate that?"
>>Well, sure. If God is omnipotent, He could lie to you without you ever knowing.
So now you are saying that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can not be certain of them? If so, please explain.
Are laws of logic absolute?
"So now you are saying that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can not be certain of them? If so, please explain."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're asking. I thought my point was pretty simple. I guess you're saying that things revealed to us by an omniscient would have to be certainly true, given that he's omniscient. I agree with that, but I didn't question whether God was omniscient. If he exists as defined, he does know everything. We can be certain that God knows, for example, what happens to us after we die. But what we can not be certain of is if God has revealed that information to us or not. He might've revealed something completely different, to trick us. How would we know? He could even manipulate our beliefs to make us think we know for certain what will happen to us after we die, when the opposite is true. I know it sounds far fetched and all, but technically an omnipotent being could do all that and a whole lot more. I don't think there's anything to dispute in what I've said.
"Are laws of logic absolute?"
Yes, and that's why there never was and never will be a square circle. :P
But here's a question for you:
Can God know that he's omniscient?
Brummer,
ReplyDelete"Are laws of logic absolute?"
>>Yes, and that's why there never was and never will be a square circle. :P
Touché! Forgive me for having thought experiments around y'all. Nevertheless, Brummer. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
>>Can God know that he's omniscient?
That would place a brain equal to ours on God or at least our understanding of things. Something that I don't recommend that either of us do.
I might regret this as much as the square circle thought experiment but out of curiosity, and to take the bait,
Could an all knowing God know something, like His own omniscience? Sure. If not, why not?
Granted that I am pushing aside for the moment that you have yet to demonstrate anything that justifies your ability to reason about this or anything. :7)
"Could an all knowing God know something, like His own omniscience? Sure. If not, why not?"
ReplyDeleteWell, the argument goes like this. I've never made this argument before, just heard of it and happened to remember it just now. If there's something God doesn't know, well, he doesn't know it. There's no way God could demonstrate to us or himself that he is ALL knowing, instead just very knowledgeable. Imagine for example that there are other complete realms of existence outside of our own with their own gods with their own creations. Our God has no idea any of this is going on, and only falsely thinks that he is omniscient. How would he demonstrate there is nothing outside of his knowledge? I don't see how he could. So if God is omniscient, it's only because he happens to be and can't actually verify his omniscience. I'm not perfectly confident of this argument, but it's something to chew on.
"Granted that I am pushing aside for the moment that you have yet to demonstrate anything that justifies your ability to reason about this or anything. :7)"
Wait a minute.. So before I can reason about anything, I have to believe in God? But first I'd have to reason myself to belief in God. If I need to believe in God to be able to reason, how do I reason myself into believing in God? How does that work?
Granted that I am pushing aside for the moment that you have yet to demonstrate how you know God isn't fooling you.
Brummer,
ReplyDelete>>How would he demonstrate there is nothing outside of his knowledge? I don't see how he could.
That is the core of the problem right there.
there is a difference between "believe" what is true, and truth.
>>Our God has no idea any of this is going on...
That is a claim of not being omniscient then, its your assumption. Question begging.
>>So before I can reason about anything, I have to believe in God?
That or account for your worldview without borrowing from the Christian's worldview. Can you? If so, how?
>>If I need to believe in God to be able to reason, how do I reason myself into believing in God?
The belief is not needed, justifying your ability to reason is though. Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.
>>Granted that I am pushing aside for the moment that you have yet to demonstrate how you know God isn't fooling you.
I will ask again, is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
Dan:
ReplyDelete"That or account for your worldview...."
More deception to support christianity. No one accounts for his worldview. In order to do so would require arguing for the worldview without assuming any part of that worldview -- a start from nothing. From nothing, nothing can be proven. Presuppositional apologetics is just a way of saying "honesty and integrity oppose christianity; one has to lie to support it."
H_brummer:
"Well, the argument goes like this. I've never made this argument before, just heard of it and happened to remember it just now."
I prefer to use a statement to which "god" cannot correctly know the answer. One example is "according to 'god's' knowledge, this cannot be determined to be a true sentence." If "god" determines it to be true, it is a false sentence, and "god," having made an error, is not omniscient. If "god" determines it to be false and does not determine it to be true, it is a true statement, and (again) "god," having made an error, is not omniscient. If "god" makes no determination, it is a true statement that "god" cannot answer. Although it does not constitute an error, it still constitutes an area of ignorance. He is still not omniscient.
Dan
ReplyDeleteThat or account for your worldview without borrowing from the Christian's worldview. Can you? If so, how?
How's about showing just how your worldview is the one that justifies logic, without using circular reasoning or evasions?
Are you going to post those bible verses again, pretending that they do the job?
You remember that I pointed out that those verses only used those logical rules at best, and that the speakers gave no indication that they knew that they were even using any laws of logic.
Unlike the greeks, who before NT times actually spelled them out. The christian worldview really doesn't say squat about logic.
The laws of logic are conceptual models used by people to describe reality.
No religion or belief system is necessary.
While you're thinking, you may want to read this and this.
Oh yes. "Conceptual" has a slightly different meaning than "immaterial" in case you're thinking of bringing up another of Sye's talking points.
ReplyDeleteSomething else: If god can't create a squared circle (as was shown on this blog in an earlier comment) or he can't make a rock so big that he can't lift it, that means that he's subject to the laws of logic just like everyone else.
He's not it's maker, he's just another "servant".
Dan, not the presupp stuff again. We keep pointing out how this argument is flawed and vapid. I suggest the lurkers review older threads concerning this and you will clearly see how the presupp apologetics at best are a clever ruse for those who don't bother to actually examine it, and at worst a lie that Dan keeps repeating though its flaws have been clearly demonstrated to him over the past year or two, over and over and over.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIntellectual honesty would force one to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. The unbeliever does not have this avenue, and therefore according to their professed worldview could not know anything for certain. The only reason they do know things for certain is because they borrow from our worldview, and supress the truth about it.
God does not send people to Hell for denying something they are not certain about.
We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. The evidence is utterly overwhelming!
Way to not address the issue, Dan.
Again, how do you bridge the chasm from human reasoning being evidence for human reasoning to human reasoning being evidence for your god? Where are the connections?
All you can do is make juvenile assertions to the effect that anything counts as evidence for your god, and we can't even state our case without confirming your god's existence.
But it just doesn't follow. At all.
And never mind the fact that a concept claiming to explain everything actually explains nothing...
Dormantdragon,
ReplyDelete>>All you can do is make juvenile assertions to the effect that anything counts as evidence for your god,
Are you certain of this Dormantdragon? If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument.
>>and we can't even state our case without confirming your god's existence.
And Bingo was his name-o.
I will ask again, is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
ReplyDeleteNever mind 'certain', Dan - just try 'beyond reasonable doubt' or even 'within bounds of plausibility' first.
Are you certain of this Dormantdragon? If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument.
Again, no - I'm not certain. You might not even exist as a flesh-and-blood person, for all I know, but based upon what I can perceive, it's within the bounds of plausibility to suppose there's a person behind a keyboard posting juvenile assertions to this blog under the name 'Dan'.
Since I haven't seen any posts under that name that contain an actual, valid argument for your god's existence, I am sticking to my assumption that baseless assertion is all you can offer in support of your god hypothesis, until you - or the assertion-spam server posing as you - can demonstrate otherwise.
and we can't even state our case without confirming your god's existence.
And Bingo was his name-o.
Can't even let your commenters through without a bit of dishonest quote-mining, huh?
Dan's MO:
ReplyDeleteWhen your world view is challenged, demand that your opponent account for things you yourself can't account for, and walk away feeling satisfied.
Honestly, this is a little sad to watch. Dan actually was an interesting read a few years ago, but he's descended into rhetorical antagonism.
Dormantdragon,
ReplyDelete>>Again, no - I'm not certain.
Are you certain that you are NOT certain?
>>Since I haven't seen any posts under that name that contain an actual, valid argument for your god's existence, I am sticking to my assumption that baseless assertion is all you can offer in support of your god hypothesis, until you - or the assertion-spam server posing as you - can demonstrate otherwise.
Dormantdragon, that is an argument from ignorance committing the fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam." Even if there is no evidence to the contrary, that is not grounds for you to assume the validity of your reasoning. Please try again.
Also, ‘evidence’ also presupposes ‘logic, knowledge, and truth” care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?
People can BELIEVE that something is wrong without knowing why it is wrong, but in order to KNOW that something is wrong, they must know WHY it is wrong.
>>Can't even let your commenters through without a bit of dishonest quote-mining, huh?
With a standard of logic which does not comport with your worldview.
If something is "a bit of dishonest quote-mining", then there has to be a STANDARD for that observation to be evaluated against. So if dishonest exists, as you just claimed, then you are forced to acknowledge that the STANDARD to judge others exists also. So, once again, you are using my worldview to evaluate what you believe otherwise your views are reduced to absurdity.
Wem,
ReplyDelete>>When your world view is challenged, demand that your opponent account for things you yourself can't account for, and walk away feeling satisfied.
Awww Wem, don't be so hard on yourself. Just because I can account for my worldview, and you cannot, doesn't mean that you should kick yourself. Just understand that your worldview is reduced to the absurd and repent.
>>Honestly, this is a little sad to watch.
Indeed. Are you ready to answer the questions? Here they are again...
How do you know? How do you know that your reasoning about this, or anything is valid?
Please don't just walk away satisfied without answering.
is god logical? or did he create the laws of logic? is something logical because its logical, or logical because god says it is? how could god be logical before he created the laws of logic?
ReplyDeletesame with right and wrong. did the laws of logic have to exist before a logical god could exist? I think so sir. it contradicts itself that a "logical god" existed before logic. these laws must be eternal...not your god.
"Awww Wem, don't be so hard on yourself. Just because I can account for my worldview, and you cannot, doesn't mean that you should kick yourself. Just understand that your worldview is reduced to the absurd and repent." a Van Tillian approach... This type of argument is technically called a "reductio ad absurdum" where all Dan is trying to do, is not prove anything,, but just make u feel stupid. is that Christian like? nope. also he doesnt want to prove or learn or discuss anything..he just wants to make anayone who doesnt agree with Christian pressup. look stupid
ReplyDeletejust because you can "account" for your worldview, doesnt automatically make someone elses worldview untrue, and it doesnt automatically make your worldview true. muslim apologists use this same presuppositional approach. does that make a muslim worldview true?....nope.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, fastdiets. Dan's only interested in NOT justifying his world view.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if god was using logic when he was creating the laws of logic...*kaboom*...
ReplyDeletemy head exploded...big mess...back soon.
Action Jackson (on a diet),
ReplyDeleteGod cannot violate the laws of logic as they are not created by Him, but derived from His very nature and the way He thinks. If there is an apparent contradiction, then we can be assured that it is our understanding that is skewed, and not that logic has been violated.
derived from his nature...hmm...do the laws of logic exist? if so, how did they come into existence? just by god being, that means that logic existed?
ReplyDeleteis god the creator of all things? material and immaterial? or not?
how exactly is logic "derived from his nature?" what process takes place in this "derivation?"
in this video Zacharias said "there must be a law maker" so, you disagree with the video you have posted here?!
so god is not the "maker" of the laws.
is god logical? does he follow "the laws of logic" or not? is he the creator of all things? or almost everything?
the word "logic" is not even present in "god's word" "the holiest of holy bibles"
ReplyDeletehow can it be then, that we "derive" logic from a book, that is supposedly this god's "guide to life" where the idea, the word, the definition, and the concept of logic is not present?
seems to me that logic ONLY exists outside of the Abrahamic Bibles.
Action Jackson (on a diet),
ReplyDelete>>just by [God] being, that means that logic existed?
Yes. Same as moral laws, the basis is the very character of God. God does not say things are wrong "because I said so" though He could say “Because I am not a liar.” He hasn't picked and chose what is right and what is wrong. Its because they are based on His unchanging character. Get it?
>>so [God] is not the "maker" of the laws.
You keep moving the goal posts here. Maybe its just confusion. Let me break it down.
The laws of nature are created by God, they are not a reflection of His unchanging nature. If we are speaking of physical laws, (Fluid mechanics, Heat, energy, temperature, Force, mass, and inertia, etc.) then yes God created those laws. In fact, God’s promises for uniformity in nature are only for as long as the earth endures (Gen 8:22). Surely you do not believe that when the earth passes away (Mark 13:31) that’s God’s nature will change? Did God’s nature change when He performed miracles?
Look at what Bahnsen said, "I mean if there aren’t laws of morality, I can just take out a gun right now and say “Okay Dr. Stein, make my day. Is there a god or not?” You see if he argues “oh no! You can’t murder me because there are laws of morality”, then of course he’s made my day because I win the debate. That shows that the atheist universe is not correct. But if he says “Oh no, there are no absolute standards; it’s all by convention and stipulation” and that sort of thing, then I just pull the trigger and it’s all over and I win the debate anyway.
Would you expect me to win the debate in that fashion? Absolutely not. You came here expecting rational interchange. I don’t think we’ve heard much from Dr. Stein. I’ve asked him repeatedly, it’s very simple. I don’t want a lot of details, just begin to scratch the surface. How in a materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life, man in his place in the world, can you account for laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality. The atheist world-view cannot do it and therefore I feel justified in concluding as I did in my opening presentation this evening, by saying that the proof of the Christian God is the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Christian world-view, this debate wouldn’t make sense."
how can you account for "a god that logic is derived from" when this god makes no account of logic in the bible?
ReplyDeletecan you answer the question instead of quoting Bahnsen?
Im almost certain everyone in here has heard that debate. between stein and bahnsen, if not head over to youtube.
if I ask someone to sacrifice their son as god asked a man to do in the bible, is this moral? is it logical? if so how?
does it make it ok to say, "hey, kill your son for me, Im god"..."just kidding! just wanted to see if you would obey me".
is this moral or logical?
sorry if I keep "moving goalposts" I dont claim to be an expert in blog debates though my questions are sincere
Action Jackson (on a diet),
ReplyDelete>>the word "logic" is not even present in "god's word" "the holiest of holy bibles"
That is because it is from the mid 1400's dude! Neither is the word "Dinosaur" for the same reason, it was never used until the 1800's but the Bible speaks of them in Job 40:15-19. Your reasoning is illogical, though no big surprise. :7)
>>how can it be then, that we "derive" logic from a book, that is supposedly this god's "guide to life" where the idea, the word, the definition, and the concept of logic is not present?
Are you certain of that? If so how are you certain of this or anything? Or, are you looking for a Bible study lesson?
Also, proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview? :7)
unless I missed something, Im certain that logic is not is the bible because I looked and its not there and since the bible, according to christians doesnt change, youd have to agree it hasnt changed since I looked and saw that logic was not in there. or do you disagree?
ReplyDeletecomparing dinosaurs and logic is not comparing apples to apples. do you disagree?
for something to be logical it has to comport to the laws of logic.
Action Jackson (on a diet),
ReplyDelete>>comparing dinosaurs and logic is not comparing apples to apples. do you disagree?
Ignoratio elenchi. I did not do that. I am not comparing logic to dinosaurs, I am comparing you demanding that a certain word like "dinosaur, logic, or computer" exist before said words were ever created. Its illogical to think that modern terms would be used.
>>for something to be logical it has to comport to the laws of logic.
You mean like the Law of Identity? Exodus 3:14 "I AM THAT I AM" I agree. :7)
nice. well so far I still can't get answers to most of the questions I post for you to answer. I dont think that the bible teaches us to make logical and moral decisions, as I dont think that agreeing and planning to murder my son because a god told me to is logical or moral.
ReplyDeleteI was introduced to your blog through Dawson Bethrick's blog and Im just beginning to actively debate on other blogs here and there. I would like to see your answers and Bethrick's rebuttals to those on morality. I find philosophy, atheism, objectivism and the debates between presup. apologetics most entertaining and educational.
also if I loved someone or something I would not create a place for it to suffer eternally. I never understood this, even as a christian, even as a child. that is why I am now an atheist. if god is so perfect, and he created the standard and I can only account for it by believing in him or borrowing etc. why then is it still such a struggle to accept?
if god will not heal children with leukemia as they're mothers pray to him to, he must take liking to some, who he does "allow" to beat leaukemia and others, he does not, so, he chooses to let this child die after suffering through leukemia, if god answered any prayers, surely these would have priority. this does not seem logical or moral, as god COULD heal every one of these children, and then, save the mother's soul, as Im sure some women's faith has been lost as a result of losing a child to a horrible death which GOD ALLOWED to happen when he COULD have changed it...what morally sufficient reason does god have to let these women and children suffer with leukemia? to force them to go thru something like this? there isnt one. saying "god wants u to love him no matter what happens" is not a moral reason to cause suffering to this magnatude.
ask anyone, "if you had the power to heal this child of leukemia, would you?" anyone will tell you yes, no matter what religion, atheist etc. unless they are mentally ill.
ur a tricky debater Dan. its been a pleasure. thanks for not calling me names as so many Christian presuppers do!
ReplyDeleteGood Form.
Dan
ReplyDeleteYou mean like the Law of Identity? Exodus 3:14 "I AM THAT I AM" I agree. :7)
Well Dan...it looks like the answer to the question I posed above: (Are you going to post those bible verses again, pretending that they do the job?) in this comment is yes.
Too bad for you that the "trinity" breaks the law of non-contradiction. But of course, you've said that it's just our understanding that's messed up.
Nice dodge.
Not really.
And now you quote Bahnsen as saying:
Look at what Bahnsen said, "I mean if there aren’t laws of morality, I can just take out a gun right now and say “Okay Dr. Stein, make my day. Is there a god or not?” You see if he argues “oh no! You can’t murder me because there are laws of morality”, then of course he’s made my day because I win the debate. That shows that the atheist universe is not correct. But if he says “Oh no, there are no absolute standards; it’s all by convention and stipulation” and that sort of thing, then I just pull the trigger and it’s all over and I win the debate anyway.
Why does that psycho fuck not realize that laws of morality can exist outside of his god's existence? He just assumes that his god is necessary for moral laws to exist without realizing that his own god is at best, contradictory with them (ex. genocide and baby-killing), and doesn't acknowledge the fact that it has been people throughout history who have been hammering out how to behave towards each other, even without your religion's invovlment.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteYou do understand that your "account" of laws of morality is merely a bare assertion of them don't you? Please try again. Your gripes and complaints about God are noted but first you still have not accounted for such laws within your worldview. If the laws of morality cannot be accounted within your worldview and you MUST borrow from the Christian's worldview to account for such objective morality then you have only to rely on faith that God will answer such question that you have.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete