Your best argument that god exists

[jonathan180iq]

Yes, but the fact that there are morals does not explain why anyone should be moral.

Why don't have to be moral. It's a flawed question, like "why are we here?". Morals exist because we have structured little hierarchical populations and we've chosen, over the eons, to use basic empathy in order to structure a moral code which we find the most beneficial and/or pleasing. It's really that simple. We don't have to be moral - we choose to be.

Accusing Dr. William Lane Craig of circular reasoning is your subjective opinion, please provide objective data to support it.

It was an anecdotal comment anyway, but it's totally true. Just watch any of his debates of moral relativism. He's a fantastic debater because he structures his arguments in such a way so that he cannot lose unless the person whom he is debating directly addresses his version of an argument. He says quite often, for example, that is objective moral values exist they must have their basis in god or nothing at all. He will similarly argue, when talking about the existence of god, that god must exist in order for there to be objective moral values... That's the very definition of circular reasoning. He's a great speaker, but he very rarely gets called out on this flaw.

Not once did I say that relativists or atheists do not have morals.

Right. You said this...

"Relativism is, in fact, a complete denial of morality. It denies the idea that there is any sort of morality that can be discussed or debated – all actions are simply personally judged to have a pleasant effect or unpleasant effect. Actions which result in pleasure are seen as being good, no matter how much pain they may cause others."

...Which is what I was responding to.

A handful? Every culture in every era of history has or had some kind of belief system. What does that say about the nature of human beings, to recognize the existence of something greater than themselves? You get out of that by re-defining what a human being is. In our day, about 3% of the population are atheistic. The real handful are the atheists making an extraordinary claim, but exempt themselves from providing any extraordinary evidence (which they cannot do).

Every culture has also had a differing acceptance on what is considered moral and amoral; right or wrong.... Doesn't that make the argument for me? If there actually was a higher power on which objective moral values were based, wouldn't every culture in ever era of history have figured it out by now? Wouldn't they have been more consistent in their application or morality?

What that says about the nature of human beings recognizing something "greater than themselves" is that we are still paranoid apes, scared of natural phenomenon and constantly looking for explanations and platitudes to ease our fears... And I've never redefined what a human being is... Homo-sapiens. Humans. You and me.

We also cannot prove that UFOs, Sasquatches, Unicorns, or Leprechauns do not exist. Are those mythological beings just as legitimate as your god, by that argument?
If I said "There is no such thing as Vampire Space Monkeys" would you argue against me because I have the burden of proof to show that these fake beings do not exist, or would you agree that they do not exist simply because there is absolutely no evidence to even make the claim that they do? - So such is the argument against god(s).

Hear and respond to His calling or continue to stuff your ears.

Whose calling? Your version of one Mesopotamian god? Well, thanks for the advice. I'll give you some of my own.
You can hear and respond to the calling of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or continue to stuff your ears with garlic bread. Either way, he has the whole world in his bowl. He's there whether or not you like pasta. You're but a flake of oregano on his noodly appendage.

 

[kepha31]

Why don't have to be moral. It's a flawed question, like "why are we here?". Morals exist because we have structured little hierarchical populations and we've chosen, over the eons, to use basic empathy in order to structure a moral code which we find the most beneficial and/or pleasing. It's really that simple. We don't have to be moral - we choose to be.

You are evading the question. I'll re-phrase: Why do we choose to be moral? If you see an old man fallen down on the street, why should you help him if there is no reason to? The question isn't really reasonable, but an excuse. It is a refusal of the revelation of the conscience. One doesn't ask, "Why should we learn the multiplication table?" if he knows he can do it. He would say such a thing because he is having a hard time studying it. Why would we regret something that we have not done? If we have done something wrong, we will try to prevent it from happening again because we do not like that feeling we get. The person who does not study his multiplication table will regret it when he fails his exam. Then, there are two solutions to his regression. One is to study, and the other is to ask what the purpose is for doing so. He is more likely to pick the former unless he has failed many times. If a person keeps on failing, he will likely go with the latter. Since they cannot do the right thing, they will give up and refuse to do what his conscience says. When this happens, they will base their judgments upon their feelings. They will deny their conscience and follow Jean Jacques Rousseau's philosophy of "Don't think, it hurts; just feel."

Now, to refute this, someone might ask, "Why not follow Rousseau's philosophy?" The answer is that he has already refused to do the right thing by denying what his conscience tells him. That is why he would ask such a thing.

It was an anecdotal comment anyway, but it's totally true. Just watch any of his debates of moral relativism. He's a fantastic debater because he structures his arguments in such a way so that he cannot lose unless the person whom he is debating directly addresses his version of an argument.

That does not make Craig wrong, it may mean he doesn't let his opponent slither around with different meanings for the same words.

He says quite often, for example, that is objective moral values exist they must have their basis in god or nothing at all. He will similarly argue, when talking about the existence of god, that god must exist in order for there to be objective moral values... That's the very definition of circular reasoning. He's a great speaker, but he very rarely gets called out on this flaw.

That is not his position. This short article sums it up, there is no circular reasoning, that is a projection of your feelings, an illogical premise.

Right. You said this...

"Relativism is, in fact, a complete denial of morality. It denies the idea that there is any sort of morality that can be discussed or debated – all actions are simply personally judged to have a pleasant effect or unpleasant effect. Actions which result in pleasure are seen as being good, no matter how much pain they may cause others."

...Which is what I was responding to.

Every culture has also had a differing acceptance on what is considered moral and amoral; right or wrong.... Doesn't that make the argument for me? If there actually was a higher power on which objective moral values were based, wouldn't every culture in ever era of history have figured it out by now? Wouldn't they have been more consistent in their application or morality?

Your premise is that every culture has morals, which they do, but not every culture acts morally all the time. You have no basis for determining the immorality of the ISIS, or the Nazis, or the French Revolutionaries, or the Mayans, since relativism dictates the equality of all points of view (which is self refuting).

If the statement "All truth is relative" is true, then this would be a truth. If it is a truth, that means the statement "All truth is relative" is not relative. Therefore, not all truths are relative (since you claim your truth is not relative) and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.

What that says about the nature of human beings recognizing something "greater than themselves" is that we are still paranoid apes, scared of natural phenomenon and constantly looking for explanations and platitudes to ease our fears... And I've never redefined what a human being is... Homo-sapiens. Humans. You and me.

We also cannot prove that UFOs, Sasquatches, Unicorns, or Leprechauns do not exist. Are those mythological beings just as legitimate as your god, by that argument?
If I said "There is no such thing as Vampire Space Monkeys" would you argue against me because I have the burden of proof to show that these fake beings do not exist, or would you agree that they do not exist simply because there is absolutely no evidence to even make the claim that they do? - So such is the argument against god(s).

A red herring to the discussion. I prove the existence of God by the Resurrection, countered by The Myth Theory, which denies this. I countered by exposing its relativism; the truth is much easier to defend than a lie.

The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.

Relativism refutes itself.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You are evading the question. I'll re-phrase: Why do we choose to be moral? If you see an old man fallen down on the street, why should you help him if there is no reason to? The question isn't really reasonable, but an excuse. It is a refusal of the revelation of the conscience. One doesn't ask, "Why should we learn the multiplication table?" if he knows he can do it. He would say such a thing because he is having a hard time studying it. Why would we regret something that we have not done? If we have done something wrong, we will try to prevent it from happening again because we do not like that feeling we get. The person who does not study his multiplication table will regret it when he fails his exam. Then, there are two solutions to his regression. One is to study, and the other is to ask what the purpose is for doing so. He is more likely to pick the former unless he has failed many times. If a person keeps on failing, he will likely go with the latter. Since they cannot do the right thing, they will give up and refuse to do what his conscience says. When this happens, they will base their judgments upon their feelings. They will deny their conscience and follow Jean Jacques Rousseau's philosophy of "Don't think, it hurts; just feel."

Now, to refute this, someone might ask, "Why not follow Rousseau's philosophy?" The answer is that he has already refused to do the right thing by denying what his conscience tells him. That is why he would ask such a thing.

We choose to be moral because, as I stated, over the eons we recognized certain behaviors to be more beneficial to our collective survival and well-being than other behaviors. The general knowledge that having less people in a group hinders survival has, over the millenia, turned into "murder is wrong". Why is it wrong? It's wrong because having less people in a group hinders our collective survival.
Morals are chosen, and morals are relative.

I didn't avoid anything. It's all right there in my first response to you.

That does not make Craig wrong, it may mean he doesn't let his opponent slither around with different meanings for the same words.

Dude, I don't even care about Craig. Like I said, it was a cheeky aside...

That is not his position. This short article sums it up, there is no circular reasoning, that is a projection of your feelings, an illogical premise.

Exactly... Read the response that he wrote again, from the point of view that I just submitted.
He says that objective moral values exist because there is a god. And god exists, and should be worshiped, because there are objective moral values, God being the highest good...

Your premise is that every culture has morals, which they do, but not every culture acts morally all the time. You have no basis for determining the immorality of the ISIS, or the Nazis, or the French Revolutionaries, or the Mayans, since relativism dictates the equality of all points of view (which is self refuting).

Uh, I can judge them through my own moral code and value system, can't I? Isn't that something that everyone on the planet does, all day every day?
I personally and directly no basis in moral authority for questioning the morality of ISIS or the Third Reich, or anyone else for that matter. But I can certainly view their actions and behaviors through my personal moral framework. The people who perform acts that I find quite disturbing do not view their acts as being immoral, right? There are probably some people within my sphere of influence that view some of my actions and behaviors as immoral, despite the fact that I feel otherwise.... The question to you, who is claiming that objective morals come from God, is which one of us is right? If Objective Moral Values exist, then who is the most moral? What is that based on? Why?

Your value system is right to you because you were taught it and because you chose it. The value systems that existed prior to you were similarly both taught and chosen. Simply having the weight of history lending an air of authenticity to your moral system doesn't make it any more right than any other moral system, and it certainly doesn't defend the argument that your morals come from god, or some other such nonsense.

We judge ISIS and the Nazis based on collective moral decisions. Modern society has decided that those regimes are acting against the moral wishes of the majority of humanity. Since we are humans and they are humans, we judge them based on that very simple moral divider and nothing else.

If the statement "All truth is relative" is true, then this would be a truth. If it is a truth, that means the statement "All truth is relative" is not relative. Therefore, not all truths are relative (since you claim your truth is not relative) and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.

I said morals are relative - not truth. It would be quite a stretch, however, for you to argue that morals are objective and come from God just because there do exist some absolute truths... Two very different arguments here.

Take math for example. 2+2 is 4 regardless of feelings or decisions or anything else. There is nothing that we can logically argue which would make 2+2 not equal 4. Very simply then, 2+2=4 is an absolute truth. But what does math have to do with Morals?....Nothing.

You cannot demonstrate absolutes in morality in the same you can with mathematics or science.

A red herring to the discussion. I prove the existence of God by the Resurrection, countered by The Myth Theory, which denies this. I countered by exposing its relativism; the truth is much easier to defend than a lie.

So you prove the existence of God simply by claiming there was a resurrection?

"I declare the existence of Zeus! I can prove his existence because Achilles was snatched off his funeral Pyre by Thetis. He was resurrected and made immortal. See? I have used the evidence of Achilles resurrection to prove the existence of Zeus!! "

Would the above argument for Zeus be good enough for you?
Even if I quoted directly from Hellenistic sources, even if I used the original transcripts and directly translated them for you, and even if I argued how no one at the time of the writing disputed my claim, would you believe it just because I said so?

And your entire defense of this outlandish claim of Jesus' resurrection proving the existence of God is based on your dislike or relativism? Really?
Again, I'll just simply ask, what is your basis for substantiating your original claim? Is disliking relativism all you have in defense of your arguments for God and the resurrection?
Just a few arguments from logic?

You'll admit, I believe, that if I employed the same tactic for Zeus that you wouldn't accept such a weak argument, would you?

The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.

Relativism refutes itself.

I don't even know who you are talking to when you say this, but it's really beside the point.
What do the existence of absolute truths have to do with morals?
Just because there are some absolute truths does not mean that morals are objective and come from God...

You're having two different arguments. Which one do you want to finish first?

 

[Shad]

The Myth theory is that Jesus was a complete myth. The resurrection does not counter this as it is based on the same source, in part, as the myth theory, the bible. The counter to the myth theory is not the bible but sources from other people such as Josephus. These sources talk about the beliefs of Christians not the historical reliability of the resurrection. You made a claim based on hearsay, nothing more, it is not proof. Moral relativism has nothing to do with the question of did this event happen or not.

 

[outhouse]

Why do we choose to be moral?

Human nature no mythology required.

 

[outhouse]

That does not make Craig wrong,

The fact he does not have the education, and he is not a scholar, does make him wrong.

 

[outhouse]

I prove the existence of God by the Resurrection

YOU DID NO SUCH THING.


No eyewitnesses has written a word about such. Not only that resurrection was so unimportant that the unknown authors of Mark barely even mentioned this event and it had to be added at a later date.


Resurrection is not a historical event, it is a theological position most people claim is mythology.

 

[Nakosis]

Normal people find the image I posted appalling. The actions of the ISIS are immoral, and we base that conclusion from an objective standard that most normal human beings have (that slaughtering innocent people is wrong) It is not some airy principle that religious people dreamed up, objective morality is true. If morality is relative, then by what standard do we say the ISIS is wrong? After all, it's right for them. That's your "relativity" for ya.

Morally it's true for you. Morally true for a large number of folks but that don't make it morally true for everybody.

They are wrong by my standard and apparently your standard. That doesn't mean our morals are shared by everyone. Different folks have different standards. Morals are individual to each person. The only base standard for morality is our feelings. What you personally feel is right and wrong is not necessarily what anyone else feels is right and wrong.

 

[Shad]

Subjective morality does not mean unimportant, based on a whim or without justification. One can reason for a position as moral or not. On the other hand objective morality can only be inferred by an assertion of an entity existence, is intelligent and hold such an idea as morality.

Take murder for an example. While one will argue that murder is immoral as an example of objective morality it does not take much research to show that the concept of murder is based on what is legal and illegal rather than a imposed idea of morality from an asserted entity. Thus is a human construct rather than a religious directive from god. More so the religious directives were often in support of outdated justification. There are laws which justify murder in war, in self-defense, etc. It was legal to put witches to death based on the false idea that witchcraft is real and that is evil. Thus a justification was produced not on what the person did but based on presuppositional views and argument from authorities from ignorant people that thought witchcraft was real and evil. The same principles applies to slavery in which people attempted to justify it, and did for centuries with great success. As with all justification which are not longer acceptable the current set of believer either employ a no-true Scotsman fallacy or attempt to cover the fact that society forced these changes upon religion rather than religion leading the way as the believer wish it to be. Hence less dogmatic religions progress while those that are invested in dogma are decades behind the societies they claim to have created.

 

[Nakosis]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

My God was the absolute truth before. I told myself seeking truth was the same as seeking God. So whenever we discovered what it was that was the absolute truth that was would be God.

However, since I no longer believe is absolute truths, I no longer believe in God.

 

[Skwim]

 

[EverChanging]

God does not exist. God is Existence.

One way to think about it is an apple. I can say it's green, it's big, it's sweet. All of these things add something to the description of the apple. But saying that the apple exists doesn't tell me anything descriptive about it. Existence is not a property of the apple.

God exists us and all things. There is not anything that can be compared to God. Therefore God is No-Thing.

 

[outhouse]

Existence is not a property of the apple.

False

God exists us and all things

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

There is not anything that can be compared to God.

Mythology?

 

[McBell]

God does not exist. God is Existence.

One way to think about it is an apple. I can say it's green, it's big, it's sweet. All of these things add something to the description of the apple. But saying that the apple exists doesn't tell me anything descriptive about it. Existence is not a property of the apple.

God exists us and all things. There is not anything that can be compared to God. Therefore God is No-Thing.

Now that is a whole lot of double talk in a small area.

 

[Skwim]

God does not exist. God is Existence.

One way to think about it is an apple. I can say it's green, it's big, it's sweet. All of these things add something to the description of the apple. But saying that the apple exists doesn't tell me anything descriptive about it. Existence is not a property of the apple.

God exists us and all things. There is not anything that can be compared to God. Therefore God is No-Thing.

Hollow pretension.

 

[Bunyip]

God does not exist. God is Existence.

One way to think about it is an apple. I can say it's green, it's big, it's sweet. All of these things add something to the description of the apple. But saying that the apple exists doesn't tell me anything descriptive about it. Existence is not a property of the apple.

God exists us and all things. There is not anything that can be compared to God. Therefore God is No-Thing.

Well at least you agree with us atheists, god is indeed nothing.

 

[kepha31]

YOU DID NO SUCH THING.


No eyewitnesses has written a word about such. Not only that resurrection was so unimportant that the unknown authors of Mark barely even mentioned this event and it had to be added at a later date.


Resurrection is not a historical event, it is a theological position most people claim is mythology.

Theology does not equal mythology.

 

[Unification]

Now that you've established that "God" doesn't allow that, or that there is no "God" to allow that... Who does allow that?

 

[Unification]

Well at least you agree with us atheists, god is indeed nothing.

Absolutely, no-thing.

 

[kepha31]

YOU DID NO SUCH THING.

Actually, I said the rise of the Church was a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself.

No eyewitnesses has written a word about such. Not only that resurrection was so unimportant that the unknown authors of Mark barely even mentioned this event and it had to be added at a later date.

I never heard Dale Martin say the rise of the Church was an unimportant event. The Church is a living legacy. The Church testifies to the Resurrection, not the other way around. And since when does an event have to be enscripturated by an eye witness in order to be acceptable history? Is that some new criteria that "scholars" pull out of their ear?

"...The heart, as we may call it, of the historical evidence for Christ’s real resurrection is the facts of recorded history. If anyone will not accept the data provided by the Gospels and the first century Church, that person, I can say, has no grounds for accepting any history of equal antiquity..."

"...Part one, remember, was the historical reality of Christ’s bodily rising from the dead. Part two is how the Resurrection is a continuing reality in the Holy Eucharist. And part three is, ‘that Christ’s Resurrection is a promise of our own resurrection from the dead’. Peter’s insistence on Jesus the man being raised back to life by the power of God is the heart of the matter. Later on Peter would tell the Jews, the Father and the Author of Life you have killed, but on Pentecost it was necessary to emphasize that Jesus was a true man, who truly died and by divine power was truly raised from the dead. Christians must be firmly convinced that Jesus, Himself, rose from the dead, otherwise their faith in the final resurrection will lack the grounds for believing that Peter provided the first converts to Christianity on Pentecost Sunday. What Peter wanted to bring out, and Paul will make clearer as we go along, Jesus was the first man raised from the dead. As God He raised Himself, as man, He was the first one to be raised, and we are to follow..."
Fr. John Hardon, S.J. Resurrection of Christ

Resurrection is not a historical event, it is a theological position most people claim is mythology.

Please define what you mean by "historical event" because at the rate you're going, there is no history of equal antiquity that ever happened.