INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

Your objection was about my label. Call it whatever you wish, I am worn out with this meaningless type of discussion.

No. It was with your claim. The label is just a convenient way of talking about it. If objective morals can't exist without God, then necessarily, all views that hold that objective morals exist but God does not must be false. But yet, you never bother to show that they are false, or why objective morals entail the existence of God. In other words, you never bother to adequately back up your claim by taking the steps necessary to do so.

Quoting the label of a theory doe snot merit disproving.

Well, when you claim that that theory, and all similar ones, are necessarily false, then yes, it basically does. If you're saying that all theories that posit the existence of objective morals but not the existence of God are not just false but impossible, you need to show or say how/why they are false. I would've thought that much would be obvious.

They prove nothing and indicate my position has more support anyway.

If I was remembering the numbers accurately, then the general position which includes yours (including several others you claim are false, i.e. every other view which posits objective morality but not god) has marginally more support. But, as I pointed out, this isn't relevant, because consensus, even when it is clear (i.e. not here), does not settle the matter. Which is the answer to this-

I do not know what this means.

How scholars are divided on the matter is ultimately a footnote, and doesn't settle anything.

You say that objective morals can be founded if God does not exist. I cannot evaluate what most say is impossible unless it is provided.

Yeah, "most" moral philosophers do not say that. But I've already told you, if you aren't going to disappear (i.e. its going to be worth my while), I have no problem paraphrasing the main contenders for moral realism for you (although it seems to me I've done this before).

Regardless you cannot possibly know objective morals do not exist.

That depends. But if that is so, then by the same token, you cannot possibly know that objective morals do exist. I do, however, have some fairly compelling reasons for supposing they do not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Many claims in science rely a lot more on faith given less evidence than the bibles core doctrines require. The burden of faith is only the absence of a defeater. However my claims are best fit for the evidence. I know of no Christian that things the bible is right in totality until proven wrong. They do however take the impeccable record of reliability of it's verifiable claims and extrapolate to the unverifiable parts. The same is done in all forms of academic study.


.

Answers in Genesis seems to think that the Bible is right in totality, regardless of whether or not it can possibly be proven wrong:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

 

[metis]

Answers in Genesis seems to think that the Bible is right in totality, regardless of whether or not it can possibly be proven wrong:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

I have run across many Christians who have clearly stated that they believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have run across many Christians who have clearly stated that they believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant.

My uncle is one of those people.

 

[metis]

My uncle is one of those people.

Your family reunions must be rather interesting.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Your family reunions must be rather interesting.

That's my whole family...I mean it's not bad for me cause I'm Christian too, but my mom dislike how I don't find the bible inerrant.

 

[Ouroboros]

My uncle is one of those people.

My oldest brother and my sister are like that.

My other brother and myself used to be one of those people.

I was hardcore Christian, all the way. I gave 10% (automatically drawn from my account). Went on mission trips. Knocked on doors in the city on a weekly basis for more than a year. Went to an expensive "Bible school" (scaled down seminary). And much more... I was part of the prayer team for the meetings as well. So Sunday morning, 8 am (or whatever it was), a team of 10-20 people gathered in a prayer room. We were there, call on God's power to come and visit people in the meeting (they lasted usually 3 hours, imagine praying that long... urgh...). I was one of those creationists/anti-evolutionists...

Some years ago when I went back to visit my family, they all wanted to have a prayer session (we always did that in my family before trips). We pray in tongues. Everyone has to lead in prayers at some point. I did even though by that time I had lost my faith. It was a funny feeling, but no one complained. Of some reason the Holy Spirit didn't reveal to them that I didn't believe anymore.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your family reunions must be rather interesting.

Yeah, they're a real gas.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My oldest brother and my sister are like that.

My other brother and myself used to be one of those people.

I was hardcore Christian, all the way. I gave 10% (automatically drawn from my account). Went on mission trips. Knocked on doors in the city on a weekly basis for more than a year. Went to an expensive "Bible school" (scaled down seminary). And much more... I was part of the prayer team for the meetings as well. So Sunday morning, 8 am (or whatever it was), a team of 10-20 people gathered in a prayer room. We were there, call on God's power to come and visit people in the meeting (they lasted usually 3 hours, imagine praying that long... urgh...). I was one of those creationists/anti-evolutionists...

Some years ago when I went back to visit my family, they all wanted to have a prayer session (we always did that in my family before trips). We pray in tongues. Everyone has to lead in prayers at some point. I did even though by that time I had lost my faith. It was a funny feeling, but no one complained. Of some reason the Holy Spirit didn't reveal to them that I didn't believe anymore.

Wow, that's far more interesting than my family reunions! We pray in English.
Myself and one other cousin are the only nontheists in the family. The rest of kind of moderate Christians save for my very um, interesting, uncle.

You're an amazing defender of evolution now. There's a 180 if I ever saw one.

 

[Ouroboros]

Wow, that's far more interesting than my family reunions! We pray in English.

We pray in Swedish when we "lead in prayer", of course. But when someone is praying loud (leading), the others are praying in tongues. Chackabhaya and such... (it's a joke, my pastor back then had a favorite "tongue" word, chackabahaya. You could hear it many times while he was praying.)

You're an amazing defender of evolution now. There's a 180 if I ever saw one.

Life happened. I woke up. I went back to school and learned. Then realized that I'd been rather foolish following my heart only instead of reason (at least to some degree). Taking a couple of classes in anthropology, sociology, philosophy, and psychology really woke me up. But it the real wakeup didn't come from that though. We had a bad accident, my wife and kids hurt, and years of struggle that made us all (me, wife, kids) that God isn't that easy to get help from when in need. However, we noticed that doctors, people (including non-Christians) were much more helpful than a mystical, supernatural God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We pray in Swedish when we "lead in prayer", of course. But when someone is praying loud (leading), the others are praying in tongues. Chackabhaya and such... (it's a joke, my pastor back then had a favorite "tongue" word, chackabahaya. You could hear it many times while he was praying.)

I've never actually experienced something like that. I think I might enjoy that.

When I was a kid we used to have to take turns saying prayers, but I would always start laughing during mine because I found it embarrassing so they cut me off.

 

[Ouroboros]

I've never actually experienced something like that. I think I might enjoy that.

It's a trip. We used to sing in tongues too. When I was part of the worship team, I played piano. Many times we had prayers at the end of the meeting, and we would improvise music and sing in tongues. It was pretty cool actually.

When I was a kid we used to have to take turns saying prayers, but I would always start laughing during mine because I found it embarrassing so they cut me off.

It takes practice.

You have to plan what you're going to pray for, so when it's your turn, you know what you're going for. At times, I was more focused on what I was going to pray than actually concentrating on "supporting" those who were praying.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's a trip. We used to sing in tongues too. When I was part of the worship team, I played piano. Many times we had prayers at the end of the meeting, and we would improvise music and sing in tongues. It was pretty cool actually.

I've often wondered how that works. So you just make sounds?

It takes practice.

You have to plan what you're going to pray for, so when it's your turn, you know what you're going for. At times, I was more focused on what I was going to pray than actually concentrating on "supporting" those who were praying.

I'm just kind of a quiet person, not the public speaker type, not even in front of my own family, apparently.

I used to to needlepoint and stuff like that so eventually my grandmother made me stitch together a prayer she chose then hung it right on the wall in front of me so I could just read it off when it was my turn. It helped ... a little.

 

[1robin]

No. It was with your claim. The label is just a convenient way of talking about it. If objective morals can't exist without God, then necessarily, all views that hold that objective morals exist but God does not must be false. But yet, you never bother to show that they are false, or why objective morals entail the existence of God. In other words, you never bother to adequately back up your claim by taking the steps necessary to do so.

This is getting very weird ta this point. I have had at least three people tell me about groups that have founded objective values without God. No matter how much I ask for what should have been posted with that claim I just can't get it. It is a little hard to critique or show faults with things mentioned but never supplied even after repeatedly being asked for them. I have many reasons to think it impossible but it would be far more efficient for me to examine whatever it is your talking about and I am also curious. Do you need $5 in a pay pal account to supply them or something?

Well, when you claim that that theory, and all similar ones, are necessarily false, then yes, it basically does. If you're saying that all theories that posit the existence of objective morals but not the existence of God are not just false but impossible, you need to show or say how/why they are false. I would've thought that much would be obvious.

I already have. They do not contain even the possibility for a transcendent objective criteria. This is not new or unknown if fact most non-theists grant this. You say there are a few that do not. I can't very well critique what is not supplied despite much effort to have it supplied. Something weird is going on here.

If I was remembering the numbers accurately, then the general position which includes yours (including several others you claim are false, i.e. every other view which posits objective morality but not god) has marginally more support. But, as I pointed out, this isn't relevant, because consensus, even when it is clear (i.e. not here), does not settle the matter. Which is the answer to this-

I have watched so many formal debates I have more than enough of a data set to establish rough ideas about scholarly consensus. The vast majority of atheists grant that objective morals do not exist without God, and only insist relative morals cobbled together by evolution or reasons and empathy are all there is. Why in the world are you typing thousands of words telling me others exist but are not willing to post their claims? I am sure a few attempts are made, and I am sure they fail, but I can't tell you how X fails or Y fails until you post them.

How scholars are divided on the matter is ultimately a footnote, and doesn't settle anything.

Nor was it intended to regardless of the fact your side constantly refers to scholarly opinion to settle all manner of things. I used it to indicate not confirm.

Yeah, "most" moral philosophers do not say that. But I've already told you, if you aren't going to disappear (i.e. its going to be worth my while), I have no problem paraphrasing the main contenders for moral realism for you (although it seems to me I've done this before).

You have got some problem, because I have requested you do this many times. I here almost every day and have 7000 posts, hard to do if I am not here. Drop the arrogant gotcha crap and you can't get rid of me.

That depends. But if that is so, then by the same token, you cannot possibly know that objective morals do exist. I do, however, have some fairly compelling reasons for supposing they do not.

I agree, I do not know, the same way I do not know if my senses are reporting truth about the natural word. An almost universal apprehension of a transcendent moral realm is no less or more reliable than my apprehension of a physical world. I do not insist objective morality be granted as a given but only as a likely reality. I do however insist that if objective morals are granted they be founded sufficiently. Only a theist can do so.

 

[1robin]

Answers in Genesis seems to think that the Bible is right in totality, regardless of whether or not it can possibly be proven wrong:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

I am not a member and am not bound by what they state. I agree with the Chicago statement of faith and have no idea what answers in genesis claims. So at the time of my statement I was not aware of any Christian (and still am not aware of any Christian person) who let's faith disprove fact.

I think you will find AIG to not be saying that facts are irrelevant if they disagree with the bible, instead that proclaimed facts are not reliable enough (especially about events 6000 years ago) to consider them to have proven faith wrong.

 

[1robin]

I have run across many Christians who have clearly stated that they believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant.

So does the Chicago statement of faith but inerrancy applies only to revelation not that transmission of it. I find almost no Christians that understand this. In fact the only guarantee of perfection applies to the original revelation alone, not to it's copying.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This is getting very weird ta this point. I have had at least three people tell me about groups that have founded objective values without God. No matter how much I ask for what should have been posted with that claim I just can't get it. It is a little hard to critique or show faults with things mentioned but never supplied even after repeatedly being asked for them. I have many reasons to think it impossible but it would be far more efficient for me to examine whatever it is your talking about and I am also curious. Do you need $5 in a pay pal account to supply them or something?

For one thing, this is your selective memory at work again; I very specifically remember outlining several alternative forms of moral realism, such as Kantianism and utilitarianism, once before with respect to this very same topic. For another, I've already said that I'd be willing to go over the topic again for your convenience, provided you give me some assurance you aren't going to disappear or ignore it- I don't want to take the time to do this for nothing.

I already have.

Post # or link then, please.

I have watched so many formal debates I have more than enough of a data set to establish rough ideas about scholarly consensus.

Watching Youtube debates, even extensively, is not enough to establish an idea of scholarly consensus.

The vast majority of atheists grant that objective morals do not exist without God

No. You simply pulled this claim out of thin air- I don't even need to ask you to substantiate this, because we both know you could never do it. For instance, according to those polled for the PhilPapers survey, 73% of professional philosophers lean towards atheism. And yet, 56% lean towards moral realism (the view that there are objective moral truths/values/duties), and 65% towards moral cognitivism (the view that moral statements can be true). This doesn't square with your claim, since if over 70% lean towards atheism, we would expect far more anti-moral realists since you claim that atheists grant that objective morality can't exist without God, and since atheists believe, by definition, that God does not exist, they would be committed to some form of moral anti-realism.

Nor was it intended to regardless of the fact your side constantly refers to scholarly opinion to settle all manner of things. I used it to indicate not confirm.

Don't tell me what "my side" does- that is irrelevant. If I do not do it, then I don't really care. And you will never see me referring to consensus as an argument that something is the case.

You have got some problem, because I have requested you do this many times. I here almost every day and have 7000 posts, hard to do if I am not here. Drop the arrogant gotcha crap and you can't get rid of me.

And yet, you never provided that justification for invalid deductive arguments you kept promising. So clearly, it can and does happen. If you're actually going to address it, I'll paraphrase some alternative forms of moral realism in my next post.

I agree, I do not know, the same way I do not know if my senses are reporting truth about the natural word. An almost universal apprehension of a transcendent moral realm is no less or more reliable than my apprehension of a physical world. I do not insist objective morality be granted as a given but only as a likely reality.

Well, but that it is likely is NOT a given. It is a possibility. Until some reason is given for supposing it is at all likely, the assumption is merely that it is possible, not probable. (and, by the same token, that there is no objective morality is assumed merely possible, not probable)

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not a member and am not bound by what they state. I agree with the Chicago statement of faith and have no idea what answers in genesis claims. So at the time of my statement I was not aware of any Christian (and still am not aware of any Christian person) who let's faith disprove fact.
I think you will find AIG to not be saying that facts are irrelevant if they disagree with the bible, instead that proclaimed facts are not reliable enough (especially about events 6000 years ago) to consider them to have proven faith wrong.

What it says to me, is that if scientific evidence contradicts what the Bible says, then that scientific evidence is considered invalid and/or subject to interpretation (Kinda like the Bible?).

It doesn't matter if you're a member. I used the mission statement to point out that your claim in fact there are Christians in the world that do claim the Bible is right in totality. While you may not personally know these people, they do exist.

 

[1robin]

For one thing, this is your selective memory at work again; I very specifically remember outlining several alternative forms of moral realism, such as Kantianism and utilitarianism, once before with respect to this very same topic. For another, I've already said that I'd be willing to go over the topic again for your convenience, provided you give me some assurance you aren't going to disappear or ignore it- I don't want to take the time to do this for nothing.

Yet once again you did not do so even after my making about as big deal about your not doing so as possible. What is the deal? By this time it would have only required .25% of the words to post it that comment on why you didn't post it.

I have no recollection of you posting the reasons, perhaps you did but for certainty you have not done so here.

Post # or link then, please.

I have explained this over and over again. I must have commented on this one point more than any other.

Watching Youtube debates, even extensively, is not enough to establish an idea of scholarly consensus.

Add in textual transcripts from many other debates, many books on the subject devoured (currently I am reading one by Craig and another huge tomb on the history of theistic debate), plus constantly researching posted links and links for my own use. I also collaborate with three people much older then myself with lifelong interests in theological debate.

No. You simply pulled this claim out of thin air- I don't even need to ask you to substantiate this, because we both know you could never do it. For instance, according to those polled for the PhilPapers survey, 73% of professional philosophers lean towards atheism. And yet, 56% lean towards moral realism (the view that there are objective moral truths/values/duties), and 65% towards moral cognitivist (the view that moral statements can be true). This doesn't square with your claim, since if over 70% lean towards atheism, we would expect far more anti-moral realists since you claim that atheists grant that objective morality can't exist without God, and since atheists believe, by definition, that God does not exist, they would be committed to some form of moral anti-realism.

I am currently hung up neck deep in scientific reliability issues and do not have time for anything. I would rather spend what little time I might come across on the foundations of morality without God, if we can get it posted. This issue will require a long time to hash out. For example I must investigate the differences concerning robust and minimal realism, and what they mean exactly concerning objective truth. I have no problem coming back to it, it will be meaningless but I would find it interesting anyway. So just for now let's try and get the foundations on record.

And yet, you never provided that justification for invalid deductive arguments you kept promising. So clearly, it can and does happen. If you're actually going to address it, I'll paraphrase some alternative forms of moral realism in my next post.

After I had explained why I did not want to do it, yet was wiling to do so anyway because I had obligated myself to do it time after time after times without being told to go ahead I considered the matter closed. I will re-open the matter again if when I provide philosophical justification for each argument in it's premise you will concede the point. I already know exactly what will occur. I will spend many hours finding each justification given by at least one respected philosopher and you will attempt to negate it by the opinions of some other scholar. It is hard to justify the effort on that basis. Almost all these semantic objections resolve to a point where it is one scholars opinion versus another, and more importantly we lack any objective standard to determine who is right. I consider Aquinas and Leibniz, etc... right and you will not. What is the point?

Well, but that it is likely is NOT a given. It is a possibility. Until some reason is given for supposing it is at all likely, the assumption is merely that it is possible, not probable. (and, by the same token, that there is no objective morality is assumed merely possible, not probable)

The fact that almost every human who ever lived intuitively perceived an objective moral realm is certainly a lot more persuasive than for dark matter which no one intuitively perceives. However that was not the issue anyway. The issue is given objective morality what accounts for it. Or taking it away what is left. I like this version of the argument.

1. Objective moral values exist only if God exists.
2. If you believe just one moral act in history was objectively right or wrong then;
3. God exists.

Whether you agree or not this is where my argument comes from.

As I said I am hip deep in scientific dysfunction at the moment and will be short of time for a bit.

 

[1robin]

What it says to me, is that if scientific evidence contradicts what the Bible says, then that scientific evidence is considered invalid and/or subject to interpretation (Kinda like the Bible?).

It doesn't matter if you're a member. I used the mission statement to point out that your claim in fact there are Christians in the world that do claim the Bible is right in totality. While you may not personally know these people, they do exist.

That is certainly what it sounds like but I have been surprised to find upon investigation that is almost never what it turns out to be. For example I have heard biblical inerrancy for many years and always thought it to be the claim the bible is perfect in all forms which is absurd. I began investigating and found it that it almost never means that. It usually means the original revelation was free of error. Maybe that organization defies what I have found to be almost universal but I am not going to grant that until shown.

I DID NOT claim there are no Christians that believe the bible is perfect. I said I knew of none. That was to indicate their numbers are so small that in a data set that includes hundreds I know of not one. Your butchering my claims again.

Here is my claim again: I know of no Christian that thinks the bible is right in totality until proven wrong.