They are always the popular ones
Thinking Exercise: Is Christianity Right?
- Thread starter LysanderShapiro
- Start date
I can't really prove anything Hitler did unless I could go back in time with a video camera. Nonetheless, historians will recognize a lot of the history about him, as well as a lot of the prophecies about the messiah.
Well, I talked about an intelligent creator who is outside the constrains of time and is infinitely more intelligent that us. The only concept that we have for such a creator is God.
Cosmic arguments feel easy to defend, but it's a long walk from there to something personal. I would usually only present one to counter "It is unreasonable to believe in a creator God."
For personal impact for seeking agnostic I would go with-
1. If there is no God, there is no objective moral right or wrong.
2. There is a moral right and wrong.
3. Therefore there is a God.
That's not true at all. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence about Hitler from many sources including video footage.
Indeed. Though even Atheists know right from wrong, despite their rhetoric, and they hold an objective position on those things. In fact, militant Atheists strongly oppose religion because they believe they dishonor objective morality.
Therefore, couldn't we only know objective moral truths without knowing WHY they are what they are?
An atheists once told me that morality is ultimately subjective because it is, after all, the opinion of God. I told him that the opinions of God, even if they are subjective, are the most objective values that we can ever get our hands on, since God's opinions never change and God is not influenced by external causes, but rather everything has its origins on Him. What would you have replied? I think his statement was very original.
Atheists will quickly point out that there is no such thing as Objective morality.
I think that in that case they must also admit that there is no morality at all, since subjective morality can change completely depending on who's dictating the rules.
Almost always, yes, they will point that out. Some won't. So are honest enough to admit there is objective morality...they just disagree on where this objective truth comes from. They often claim it is from our own humanity...though it still seems somehow incoherent.
I think postmodern Atheists tend to say the strangest things like "There are no objective truths." It's a self-defeating statement because it claims to be a true statement, which it couldn't be if nothing is true.
Few that still make that case have provided it with any real thought. And those that can make a cogent argument for it I've never seen able to profess to believe that argument to the point that they allow it to shape their world view in daily practice.
Most would rather take a stab at countering the conclusion, or as Lysander's character does here, look for a "so what?" exit.
Absolutely. The argument does not say "One must be believe in God to do good," it addresses the "why does good exist?" One can always decide not to ask the question and let it be... just as we can continue to exist without knowing WHY we are what we are, and we can continue be affected by the laws of physics with out knowing WHY we stick to the earth. Living without questioning, living with blinders on for the sake of comfort is absolute a choice you can make. But I suspect if that was your choice you wouldn't have bothered to ask "Does God exist?"
I was using hitler as an example. Lets go with Julius Caesar. I'm pretty sure there is no video footage of him.
the point is, historians recognize themI think we're progressing!
1) There has to be a deity of some nature because if all components including math, gravity, etc. are products of a universe, and the universe is in question of its own existence, and the author of the universe could only be timeless -- we'd have to conclude of some sort of outside dimension or deity, which we would call God.
2) Objective truths exist because everything that begins to exist has a cause. But if everything that came into existence didn't have a cause, then there could be no truths, and to state that is a self-refuting statement.
...But I'll throw another argument out there...
Why only a God? Why not Gods in the plural?
The Greeks could have easily been wrong. Most don't believe it to be true, and the Greeks don't even hold this position anymore...most don't anyway.
We have primary sources for Julius Caesar. Alexander the Great would be better for your point, but in any case, he already got you on a red herring.I was using hitler as an example. Lets go with Julius Caesar. I'm pretty sure there is no video footage of him.
"Biblical accuracy therefore God" is a tough walk to make without a huge amount of distractions. It's not wrong or anything, maybe you'll be led to do it with someone who is really earnest and interested in looking in to scripture. But if someone takes the stance of an opponent it would be awfully hard to drag them through a defense of scripture that logically mandated a change in their worldview.
Fun thread, good exercise.