"Evidence and Faith"

I think your tentativeness, though not well received by your church, is well received with me. I have always said that "proving God" is an impossible task from an empirical sense. I think we cannot prove God, but that God can prove Himself.For those that claim pragmatism and rationality, I encourage them to look at the questions with as much rationality as they can muster.Take for example the old question: "If God exists, then why is there so much evil in the world?"Well, lets look at it objectively. If there is evil, then there has to be some moral law that we abide by, or at least understand in principle, otherwise, where did the question itself derive?This must be so because evil cannot exist without good, and vice versa, because they make no sense without that critical comparison and contrast. So if evil exists, then so does good. If good exists, then there is a moral law determining which is which. If there is a moral law, then something must have instituted its policy, otherwise there are no absolutes. If there is no absolute, then there is no good and evil, just opinions.As we categorically run down the argument, it reads as such:If there is no God, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no good. If there is no good, then there is no evil. If there is no evil, then what's your question?Didn't the question, "If God exists, then why is there evil," just cancel itself out?You, as a Christian, can answer these questions because the logic follows itself through. As a skeptic, even the very question is nullified.Origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Those are the four big questions we all wrestle with. I've found, through much toil and heartache, that only following God and His precepts will answer these questions. Otherwise, we end up asking completely vapid questions that have no real answer because even the question itself is logically fallacious.Now, did I just prove God's existence? No. Did God present Himself His own case by pitting the philospher against his own logic? Yes. God is still not proved, but the question of His existence looks much prettier in the mind of the honest skeptic.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Then you make the argument for me. A native of the Amazon may say that ice does not exist, simply because he has never seen it. But his ignorance of such does not negate the existence. However, every man, women, and child has been bestowed this concept of good and evil embedded within them. They didn't ask for it. It just is. Where can such a deep proclivity come from?See, when you see a man get run down by a car, and that car speeds away, you are angered and sense a deep frustration that a great evil has just occurred. And you turn to us for corroboration. You ask us in attempt that we too intrinsically know and understand your frustration. You are looking for the obligatory response. Why? You say it quite nicely-- that its intuitive.And if we don't need absolutes, then by what measure is a crime committed? By what measure is it right or wrong for a spouse to stray? By what measure do we castigate that man who just butchered his wife and kids? No, I'm arguing that the question only makes sense in that existence. You've neglected to explain anything about the skeptic, or why it is self-contradictory for a Christian to assume God in light of the moral argument.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

That wouldn't explain how little children, who have know cultural understanding of morality, intrinsically know the difference between right and wrong the world over. Are you saying that butchering your wife and kids is not an immoral act? Its only immoral when everyone is in agreement? Suppose you are married, and your wife is not okay with you cheating. But you decide to cheat because the prostitute thinks there is nothing wrong with it. Are you engaging in an immoral act simply becaused she doesn't want you to? Does your wife have the power to determine morality?

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Well, I'll say that "right and wrong" is a very dry topic. But if right and wrong hasn't a thing to do morality, then what does?

quote:

---

Are you saying that butchering your wife and kids is not an immoral act?

---

So if morality is based on culture, then why do you indict President Bush as being "evil" if he is merely a pawn to what his cultured doled out? You hold him to a very high standard. Why not hold everyone to the same standard?Would it be acceptable that Americans are culturally inclined to spread war wherever it goes, and yet, call Americans evil for doing what its culture has established for it? Wrong. We simply have one spouse trying to subvert that absolute. Everybody knows that marriage should be sacred-- that its a unit of commitment. If anything, its society that tries to undermine that which is absolute by coming up with clever ways of getting around it. So then there should be no outside influence? If a family determines for themselves that its okay to engage in incest, then why do outside agencies intervene on behalf of the children? Is it not because its immoral to subject children to that?

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Obviously not, being that the majority of the country voted for the "evil" man. Jar, laws are passed from our ability to empathize/sympathize with others being victimized. Our entire code of law stems directly from a moral framework. But that's your opinion. According to you, we live in a world full of moral relativity. Naturally, when a relativist tells me about this or that is evil, my first reaction is to tell them, "So what? What is your opinion supposed to mean to me?"

quote:

---

Would it be acceptable that Americans are culturally inclined to spread war wherever it goes, and yet, call Americans evil for doing what its culture has established for it?

---

The US is one of the only nations on planet earth that is concerned with the lives of innocent people. I mean, you do realize that if we were as bad and mean as many claim that we could simply carpet bomb Iraq and be done with it, right? But the thing staying our hand is the lessons learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unfortunately, the enemy is well aware of rules of engagement policies, which cares more about the African lousewart than it does its own troops.

quote:

---

Wrong. We simply have one spouse trying to subvert that absolute. Everybody knows that marriage should be sacred-- that its a unit of commitment. If anything, its society that tries to undermine that which is absolute by coming up with clever ways of getting around it.

---

Oh, so people get married just because?

quote:

---

So then there should be no outside influence? If a family determines for themselves that its okay to engage in incest, then why do outside agencies intervene on behalf of the children? Is it not because its immoral to subject children to that?

---

Uh-huh, and why is it illegal? Think about it. If laws didn't come from some moral framework, then laws would be completely nonsensical. Obviously it is illegal to molest little children because we find it morally reprehensible.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Jar, you said that "evil" is predicated on where we live and how we are affected by that culture. You also said that people are products of their society. So if America is the bloodthirsty war machine you envision, then America is simply doing what its culture does, and Bush is simply a product of that culture.Where then is the evil?

quote:

---

laws are passed from our ability to empathize/sympathize with others being victimized. Our entire code of law stems directly from a moral framework.

---

Jar, traffic laws are enforced because there is a reasonable expectation that, should the average driver go any faster than the posted speed, it will likely cause an accident. And why don't they want to cause accidents? Because it kills people. Why don't they want people to die? Because we empathize with that.Its like any other law that seems arbitrary. Beatings animals is a crime, not because of some arbitrary reason, but because we can empathize with the animal. And doing that to an innocent is immoral. Therefore, we pass laws in hopes that it will protect animals in the future.Seriously, if laws didn't spawn from a moral framework, they would be completely arbitrary. That seems quite obvious to me. How can say that laws and morals bear no relevance to one another? What's in it for me, then?

quote:

---

The US is one of the only nations on planet earth that is concerned with the lives of innocent people. I mean, you do realize that if we were as bad and mean as many claim that we could simply carpet bomb Iraq and be done with it, right? But the thing staying our hand is the lessons learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unfortunately, the enemy is well aware of rules of engagement policies, which cares more about the African lousewart than it does its own troops.

---

Read what I wrote again.

quote:

---

Oh, so people get married just because?

---

Is this what your marriage is/was based on? That's incredibly callow. Can't say I'm surprised though.Anyway, I've gotta go, so I'll respond to the rest later.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte