Where did God come from?

It is my beleif that the impossibility of the contrary is ample evidence(I know, here we go again..). Given the observed existance of absolute truths such as reason, morality, concepts of justice ,etc, I would say a universe in which God does not exist is an absurd universe and is contrary to what science has measured. In other words, if an atheistic worldview can not account for the laws of morality, that philisophical system is bankrupt. You will argue no doubt that there is no such thing as a set of absolute moral truths. I would say in doing this, you are denying an obvious reality in order to fit the universe into your worldview (I'm assuming you are an atheist now-apologies if I'm wrong). An atheist will borrow from the creationist worldview by using laws of reason,logic and morality when it is conveient, but then deny the very implications of their existance, that is, the existance of a God whose glory itself represents these absolute truths.This is supressing the truth as Paul stated in his letter to the church in Rome. I would argue that the existance of the laws of morality is alone reason enough to believe that God exists. Through other reasons, I would also conclude that this God is the Christian God. And finaly if God does exist and He is the Christian God, then what He has told us is true. This would simply mean that He has always been and always will be in existance - since He has told us this. In other words He is infinite and transcends our oversimplified concept of time.Give me reason to believe otherwise."Christe eleison"

I find your straw man argument to be extremely lacking. This board would not accept such remarks from a creationist, why should it from any one else?The claims of Christianity are far different than your claims of BOBO or any other rediculous claim that was mentioned.God either exists or He does not. He can not NOT exist and EXIST at the same time. Here are a few differences:1)The vast majority of the world agrees that God exists.
--No one in the universe is arguing whether or not BOBO exists.
2) The wonders of revealed theology.
3) Millions of changed lives from Christ.
--No one has claimed to have been changed by BOBO, or the purple unicorn.
4)rapid growth of Christianity amongst persecution and large differences in jewish culture.
5)Teachings of Christianty are solid and speak to the very core of ones being.I know that some of these can be arguments for other religions as well(and they are). One must examine the facts as they stand. In general, this forum has a bias against Christianity or theism in the general ssnse. While I am a Christian, I can freely admit that there is evidence for Islam or Hinduism. I believe that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Christianity because of other reasons. Why is it that most atheists can not speak honestly and concede the same for Christianity? I would argue that this bias against Christ provides further evidence for the claims that Christ makes(example: man is fallen and in active rebelion against God, this board shows this fallen nature in an extreme case. In general if you turn on the news, the fallen nature of man is made abundandly clear and again, Christs teachings are confirmed ). Again, how can an unbiased observer not agree that there is at least SOME evidence for Christianity??? It is fine if you do not find the evidence compelling but at least examine the evidence and give credit where credit is due.I have labored repeatedly on evc forum that the existance of absolute truths is evidence for the existance of God. How can atheism account for the fact that it is wrong to rape someone(even though there might be social benefits in doing this-namely the growth of a tribe or group of humans)? Why must an atheist instead claim that this is not fundamentaly wrong? This denial of reality is absurd and irrational at best. Why would it make sense to concede that that it is not really wrong only to fit the universe into an atheistic mold? This in my opinion, is much worse than the young Christian who blindly listens to someone else and comes on this forum ,posts something without looking at more facts and then gets demolished by the wolves(shot-out to my homey crashfrog). In most cases, I suppose this young believer doesn't really know better. Typicaly those who attack him or her do know better(or should). So, I see a bias. I admit that I am somewhat biased (given the experiencial evidence for Christianity I have been given through the grace of Christ), we all have our set of presuppositions, denying this is again denying reality. Most on this forum presuppose that God doesn't exist. They present straw man arguments against Christianity such as the BOBO example. They compare Christianity to unicorns and aliens on mars or whatever. The reality is that this is a dire oversimplification. I'm sure any rational person would have to agree. Christianity and the claims it makes should be examined in an unbiased nature before discounting them. The requirments for a 100% scientific proof are unreasonable and should not be demanded. God either exists or He doesn't. The reality and proof of Christianity is experienced not proven in the classical sense as you would prove that a car exists in the garage. I know, as do most believers that God does exist. It is a much larger step of faith for me to believe that He doesn't exist."Christe eleison"

Err.. Anger? Did I convey anger? My apologies if I did. I am certainly not angry by anything that has been said. In fact I apreciate the dialogue we've had in previous posts.It is not my place to be angry at any atheist. While I would argue that atheism is irrational, I certainly can understand the desire of the atheist to see concrete evidence before belief. I would only have to ask if it were presented, would you then beleive the claims of Christianity? Couldn't you find fault in any evidence I would present? At what point is the evidence enough and it becomes silly or irrational to deny it. In my humble opinion, (available only because of the loving grace of God ---so again, who am I to be angry), the argument from morality fits this example."Christe eleison"[This message has been edited by grace2u, 12-16-2003]

OK.. I think I covered the anger part(I am not angry nor is it my place to be). Onto your comments.. I would disagree that it is conjecture. While I would agree it's inductive in nature, I certainly wouldn't attribute it soley to conjecture. First I must explain what I mean by absolute truths.They are absolute meaning that they are "Perfect in quality or nature; complete". I could have used the term universal, invariant and abstract to imply the same. Both are commonly used within debates of this nature and neither definitions are my own.This is to say that there is in existance a set of absolute truths known at a minimum to God and partly known to man. This is not conjecture since it is not based on guesswork. There is ample evidence to support this claim. Not only is there evidence, but the existance of a moral,just,reasonable and logical entity is required in order to make sense of the universe. In other words, these absolute truths can not come from no-where. They certainly can not exist within atheism. If you claim they do, I must ask where they come from within atheism and what evidence you have to support this claim.So you must either concede that they exist and can exist within atheism(which I am sure you wouldn't since this would put you on a far limb with TRUE conjecture(guesswork)) or you can deny that absolute truths exist(which you probably will). I argue that in denying these truths you are denying the reality of the world in which we live. One example is morality(I could argue reason,logic or justice as well). You must deny an obvious fact. The rape example is one of 1000's that a theist could produce. Is it wrong to rape? Why in your world view? What if it makes you happy? What if you think it makes the other person happy? What is the basis for determing the happiness of another creature?Furhtermore, you claim to have no knowledge of these absolute truths however I would beg to differ. For one, right now you are assuming that I will use the same reasoning that you are. You are in fact using an absolute truth in that you are assuming that there is a truth to be found and that this truth can be determined inductively or deductively. Evidence compells me to labor that if a set of absolute truths did not exist, the universe would behave irrationaly. If you ignore the argument from reason and go to morality I think the argument is similar but even more convincing to those that would contend otherwise. How can anyone deny that there are rights and wrongs and that these are absolute. Note: I am not saying that our judicial system is absolute, rather AN absolute does exist. Our judicial system is constantly searching for this truth. They will never fully understand or quantify what these truths consist of. Only the Almighty Soveriegn of the universe knows this. In His grace, He has shown us a glimpse of His glory and truth. Because of the impossibility of the contrary. As observed by an individual yes. This individual is a measuring device, a scope if you will. Given the fallen nature of man, this scope is prone to error. We can only measure to an accuracy limited by the percent error. Some of these laws are unchanging however. You might call it conjecture, but I would argue that if only one example of an unchanging law of morality exists, then you are proven wrong. Surely of the infinite number of scenarios I could produce, one of them we could agree is universal(used everywhere), invariant(unchanging) and abstract(exists in the metaphysical realm as opposed to the physical). Many could be presented but allow me to give one-> I take my toddler and put him in a closet to teach him right and wrong. She doesn't obey so I punish her, torture her if you will. In doing this I barely allow her to live, beatings and food depravation. I continue on with this for years until she is 12. I then rape her in order to allow my family to grow. Why is this wrong? In your worldview, how can you make any judgement at all concerning right and wrong. What if you thought it made her happy and was making her a better person? What if society said you could do this to a girl since she is in effect your possession? Is it wrong because society says, it causes pain to the girl or because it violates the character and nature of God.This example and an infinite number of others simply demonstrate the denial of the world in which we live, that atheists are forced to defend. This is a simple truth, why must an atheist put spin on this example in order to explain it away? They must do this to fit reality into their worldview. One of many reasons why logic and reason forces one to concede in absolute truth. Once this concession is made, the only possible explanation is the existance of a God(impossibility of the contrary). Other reasoning leads you to the God of Christianity.Again, I appreciate your comments and will reply as time permits me to."Christe eleison "

Thanks for the encouragement "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." Jude 1 24, 25

If I understand you correctly, you are saying then that the horrible example I gave is not wrong. It might be wrong now but there could be a time when this is not wrong. I would disagree whole heartedly. The example of torture and rape is never right. It is always wrong to do. To deny this, is to deny reality. Again, denying the obvious truth in order to fit the world into your worldview. Granted we all do this at times(given our presuppositions), but this is a blatant example of the absurdity of the philisophical system known as atheism. Is it not a more reasonable answer to concede that there are moral absolutes? To disagree is equivalent to disagreeing in our own existance, that is to say, a position like this can be taken, but is it a meaningfull position to argue? I don't think any rational philosopher has ever argued in favor of solipsism since it renders debate and communication meaningless.I mean no disrespect by this, however in my opinion(and I believe deep down in every honest unbiased human being), arguing that the example I gave is not wrong in the absolute sense, is absurd at a minimum. For one, all evidence you present to back this claim up is based on a series of unproven(in the classical sense) presupositions and conjectures(guesswork). I admit that mine are not fully proven either, merely that my claims are the more logical and rational choice.How can any rational unbiased person say that it is not ALWAYS wrong to torture a person and rape them in the example I have given? To argue contrary is to say that there is a case, in the universe in which we live in, when this is not wrong. Any such case presented is pure speculation. Presented from the confines of an atheist imagination. The contrary (my position, that absolute morality exists) not only is clear in the way our minds are wired (God placed within us these concepts), but they are stated outside our mind. God has revealed this through the old and new testaments. So while the evidence I present might not be convincing to you, it is at least physical evidence.Btw, yes I mentioned old and new testaments but don't suggest this is circular. The circular argument using the bible is much simpler. "God created the bible, therefore God exists." This is a silly argument and no rational Christian or non-Christian would use this argument. The existance of the old and new testaments are legitamate evidences to be used in this discussion, even if you only consider them to be poetic or "man originated" in nature. I would argue sufficient evidence has been demonstrated to convince an unbiased observer that they are divine in nature however for the sake of THIS argument, this doesn't matter."Christe eleison"

Fair enough.. I must first state that I am extremely limited on time in fact this will be my last post for about a week. (Christmas vacation). I think the way you pose the question is a little off. I am not suggesting that we need god for morals. I am not saying that Christians have morals and Atheists don't. Nor am I saying that Christians are perfect and Atheists are evil. In reality, the theology is that we are equally evil in Gods eyes. Through Christ, we have redemption and salvation. Man is depraved and is in rebelion against God. This rebelios nature has driven man to exchange the glory and goodness of God for broken things(paraphrased from Pauls letter to the Romans-I think). God, in response to this(as Willowtree has eluded to), has turned us over to depraved minds. In other words, atheism is the end result of this rebelion and consists of the denial of fairly simple truths in order to fit a more complex construct(atheism and the lack of absolute truths). Man ends up worshiping the created rather than the creator. Some worship their own rational thought and self, even though there is an abundance of evidence suggesting a creator or some entity greater than themselves. If only the existance of absolute morality exists, then God exists. Why embrace a broken system with such vigor and zeal(atheism or even agnosticism)? The beatuy and glory of Christ is far more intellectually challenging and edifying than any system of thought denying His existance or the existance of a God. See J. Edwards "The end for which God created the world" or " Gods passion for His glory" by John Piper.I am amazed that atheism uses concepts of reason, logic and even moral arguments at times(how could a loving God do some act of evil?). Do you not realize that in doing this you are borrowing from a theistic interpretation of the world? You are assuming an absolute standard of goodness-it is that unspoken concept that you are comparing this alleged God to. The universe can not escape absolute truths- reason,logic and certainly the more obvious one morality. Think of how many atheists repeatedly assume exist? They will not claim they exist, but the unconscience assumption of their existance lingers in almost every post written by atheists even on this forum.So perhaps the better way to state this is not that we need god for morals, rather the existance of "concpets of morality" within man demonstrate that a moral God must exist.Most atheists even concede that the concepts of a loving God in heaven are nice and probably better than the logical conclusion of atheism. Atheism exchanges the glory and goodness of God for broken things. I am NOT saying here that one should believe just because it's a nice happy concept, rather that the facts speak for themselves. I maintain that if one argument for the existance of God is proved reliable(morality in this case), then this God does in fact exist.I'll have to address MEME's later..Take care and have a great Christmas everyone!
"Christe eleison"[This message has been edited by grace2u, 12-19-2003][This message has been edited by grace2u, 12-19-2003]

I'm just curious, how do you respond to the following:
In the course of this debate, you have alleged other peoples arguments to be circular. Do you not concede that YOUR very own argument hinges on a series of circular arguemnts? In other words you use the laws of logic(or perhaps reason at a minimum) in an attempt to discredit Willowtrees claims.1) Do you acknowldege this?How do you establish these laws of logic or reason as being valid tools? Do you not have to use reason or logic in order to do this?2) Please respond..yes or noIf yes-> Then isn't YOUR argument circular? (using resaon to prove reason or logic to prove logic)
If no -> Then what is your basis for using them?I would maintain, that this example I've given demonstrates my point. You can not escape the circular nature of YOUR very own argument. That is you must use reason or logic to prove reason or logic. You PRESUPPOSE the existance of such things in order to prove they exist. Is this not hypocritical?? You alledge that theist like Willowtree use circular arguments yet if more thought was put into your own argument you would certainly conclude your very own argument is circular. To deny this fact is to demonstrate your bias to the subject matter.What is your response ?This simple example demonstrates once again atheisms inability to deal rationaly with the world in which we live. You are quick to (attempt) to find fault in Willotrees argument, and in so doing demonstrate the absurd nature of atheism as a system of thought. The requirements you place on theists is a requirement that your own worldview can not sustain. Theism is different. We acknowledge the existance of universal absolute truths (reason,logic and morlaity for example) and know that they reflect the very nature and glory of Christ. When Willowtree uses logic, he is using a tool that can be accounted for within theism or Christianity.Again, I won't be able to get back for a couple days on this one but am eager to see your response."Christe eleison"

Ned,
I think that perhaps you have slightly misuderstood me(at least in this first reply). I will address your comments in order. I would agree with the definitions given concerning circular arguments. It always gets tricky when you think someone has slightly misunderstood you, to then try and see how they understood your comment to be, so I apologize if I am off on this...
I am not suggesting that Rrhains argument itself is circular because he has presupposed that Willowtrees argument is circular. Any statement could be claimed to be tautologous and we would get no where in trying to determine the validity of the claims made or of the truth of our world.I do think however that you have touched on the point I am making. Let me restate using the example you gave. You have agreed that the presupposition is made that a circular argument exists and that its definition is as given. My point is this:
Rrhain alledges others arguments to be circular and then right out discredits other peoples claims soley based on the circular nature of their argument. This is hypocritical in that Rrhains arguments are based on an entire series of circular reasoning. We start with the nature of our existance (do we exist or do others exist?-I assume he presupposes that we exist and that others do as well(outside our mind)). He then presupposes that reason and logic exist and then makes a subtle presupposition(he would probably deny) that they are universal and invariant. This is subtle because he assumes that he will find truth(given by the nature of his statements) and that others will use the same standards of reason to determine this truth-btw the entire forum does this (atheist and theist alike). Since he assumes he will find truth the truth will not change-otherwise the discussion is meaningless. Even if you could determine the truth today, whos to say it won't be true tomorrow? So the coherence and consistancy of the universe demands that this truth be constant. Otherwise, none of this would matter. You could presuppose that this truth is not universal and invariant, however what would be the proof/evidence for this? I alledge that the nature of our universe demands this truth to be invariant and universal.So, Rrhain makes the comment that other peoples arguments are circular and that this is not allowed. He does not say this however he does make the subtle claim. This is irrational since in doing this he is proving himself to be irrational, oversimplified and incoherent since his own argument is circular. It is circular becuase he uses logic. If asked how he proves this logic, he would not doubt have no answer. He could only use logic to prove his logic is valid.I concede that I use logic and that I use reason- as do atheists and theists alike. I also concede that my defense in using these is circular in nature. HOWEVER, it also is evidenced by external entities apart from logic and reason. So you could say it is presupposed and evidenced. That is , they are presupposed but confirmed in scripture and in what sensible thought demands. The universe is incoherent without reason and logic AND without them being universal and invariant.So you could summarize my comment as follows:
1) Atheism is an oversimplified philisophical system. Atheists will use oversimplified arguments to discredit theists. This is a tragedy since ultimatly when they are doing this they are exchanging the glory and grace of Christ for broken cisterns that hold no water. While not all atheists will do this, some do( I have pointed out this in Rrhains argument). They claim circularity in order to discredit valid points or evidence. In doing this they ultimately are stating the fallacies within their own beliefs. Using the same logic, their belief system is just as bankrupt. I concede that not all atheists do this. Ultimatly this is somewhat irrelevent since the actions of some have little say in the validity of the claims the system of thought maintains. I mainly wanted to point out the hypocritical nature of many claims that atheists make.2) The real problem for atheism comes from the fact that it can not deal with universal invariant abstract entities. It can not deal with these metaphysical things that we know exist. To name one, I use absolute truth. Atheism can not sustain the discussion since ultimatly, the logical conclusion of their arguments even if all points are granted is the following:
Even if we prove one system to be right or wrong today, it might not be tomorrow, so why even have the conversation?
Ratinoal thought and discorse demands that truth be universal and invariant. I have not even mentioned morality here but that is another one. The circular argument comes from his use of logic. Perhaps to avoid confusion I should say reason. Rrhain uses reason to back up his claims. For one, I assume he believes that the following statement can not both "be true" and "not be true" at the same time: The Christian God exists. If he denies this then most of his statements are unintelligable. HOw would Rrhain then demonstrate how it is possible that some statement on existance can not both be true and not true at the same time? He would probably use logic or reason to prove this. One must use reason to prove reason exists. I do agree that they can be used to construct arguments. My point is that
1)Rrhains argument itself is ultimatly circular. This IMHO is hypocritical of him given his alleged desire for truth and rational discorse. It can not deal rationaly with the world because of the truth can not be universal and invariant within atheism. That is absolute truth can not exist within the philisophical system. I have given an example above. Yes, but in examining systems of thought such as atheism or theism, there are more complex components. Unfortunately, atheism can not deal with many of the logical conlcusions of the beliefs it maintains. Furhtermore, most atheists accept atheism not because of sound thought and reasoning, rather out of oversimplified thinking. Such as "Since I can not comprehend how Noah got all those animals on the ark, I will reject God". In doing this, they are exchanging the incorruptable beauty and glory of Christ for broken items. Just like Golem in the Lord of the Rings. Golem chased after something corupt. It gradualy ate away at his being, changing him from a beautifuly created creature into a starved helplessly depraved individual. This thing he chased after ultimatly destroyed him. This is but a picture of sinful nature(the ring) where man(you and I) are golem.I apreciate the dialogue Ned. Take care,
"Christe Eleison"

You are making valid claims. These are true. I am not arguing that your claims are false, rather that they do not make sense within a worldview apart from God. Do you maintain then that I do not exist? This assumption I made is a fair assumption given the comments you have made. If you do not suppose that myself or Willotree exist or possibly that you do not even exist, then your comments are extremely irrational. Do you contend then that I exist within your mind only? Please explain. Same as before. The comments you have made would lead any unbiased person to assume you believe that reason and logic exist. Concerning the nature of such things, that is if they are universal and invariant, then what are they? They are non-universal? What are the implications of this? The truth exists here but not elsewhere? I make the statement my car is in my garage. This statement is true universaly. The statement every car on earth is in a garage is false at a universal level since there are some cars not in garages. This truth is universal. It is invariant since at all times, the statement holds. Now if I move my car then the statement is false of course (universaly) however the reasoning used does not change ever. You would not freely admit to the universal and invariant nature of truth however, your comments suggests that you do. Otherwise, who is to say it will not change? Wouldn't that render all communication on the subject matter meaningless? This again demonstrates my point. Please notice:
You are apealing to reason. You are saying that because Mathematics and atheists exist, that I am wrong. That since they exist, my conclusion can not be true. I think you got a little sloppy on this one(as we all do at times) or I misunderstood you. Mathematics existance actually is evidence for a theists worldview. It suggest order and reason exists. The existance of atheism does not prove that I am wrong either. It actualy is evidence for Christian theism as well since this type of rebelion against God is to be expected within a world bent towards depravity. Can you say the same for theism? Does the existance of theists suggest that atheism is true in any way? I would think not, correct me if you disagree. You speak as if there is-that my evidence(we all do in fact). You speak as if some truth does exist. While you might disagree that it consists of Christ. Lets assume for a moment the implications of truth not being absolute in context witth this conversation. For one, if an absolute truth does not exist, what would our discussion look like? Why do you speak as if it does? Why do you find fault in other peoples arguments(if truth is not absolute)? If you do not believe in absolute truth, why do you not just say, ok.. to each his own. Perhaps willowtree is correct and I am also correct(since this would be possible in a world void of universal truths)? Why do yo not suggest this in any of your comments? It is subtle, but ultimately YOU do believe in absolute truth. Again, you might not agree it is Christ, but you do have an understanding of this. In fact your argument is silly if you do not. Because anyone could postulate any proposition and claim it's true. Truth is universal and absolute. So by neccesity, truth is absolute. Your demands of a proof are unrealistic. You are covering your eyes from the obvious realities of the world in order to fit the world into your presupositions. I do know that you are a mathematician and obviously educated. How can you not see this truth? Go beyond the oversimplified and superficial thought and delve into the implications of your statements. Draw out the logical conclusions of your statements and thoughts and understand what they imply.You will no doubt utter the following again: Please for a moment examine your position more thouroughly. If you believe that truth is not absolute, why do your arguments not follow this line of thought? Why do you speak as if there is a truth to be found? Why do you claim to have found fault in Willowtrees arguements? In your worldview, there is no such thing as logical fault since any statement proposed can both be true and not true at the same time. Lets again examine this statement with more thought. You are essentially claiming that because a statement is axiomatic, it's valid to use in an argument. Furhtermore, you make the bold claim that a circular argument is NOT valid. You are speaking of an absolute truth. You are using reason here. How can you account for the reason you use. How can you not concede this point? To disagree on this is to demonstrate the absolute biased nature of your argument and thoughts. Lets suppose for a minute that you are correct and truth is not universal nor is it invariant. This would suggest that it will change. That the reasoning you use is dynamic. It is to suggest something like the following:
The Christian God does not exist and He does exist.Your entire argument depends upon truth being absolute and invariant. Otherwise, I could contend that the Christian God does not exist and He does exist at the same time. This does not make sense. It is illogical. It is not allowed. Why? Because truth is absolute. Can you not see how much science (and yes mathematics) and our universe depends upon this fundemental truth? Please explain to me what a universe void of absolutes would look like.PLEASE ANSWER THIS ONE:
And finaly, since you have stated that you do believe in God( I think you have at least), please indicate who you think this God is and what is your evidence for belief in him. If you are in fact an atheist please provide similar evidence for your belief.Thanks for the feedback and dialogue!
"Christe eleison"

I agree with born2preach, in fact I read his post after posting my last one, most of our comments are similar. Most references to Pascals wager within Theists arguments are straw man and represent EXTREMELY oversimplified thinking.Take care..

I am a guy. "Christe eleison" is "Christ have mercy". I'll allow you to respond to my comments before adding more...

I have not claimed that atheists do not use logic because they don't believe in God, quite the contrary, atheists use logic and they use reason, as do Christian theists and non-Christian theists. Rather my point is that the existance of absolute truth (reason,morality,logic,etc) can not be adequately explained within the construct of atheism. I have focused on logic and reason(used interchangably somewhat slopily by my own admission). You use reason as do atheists within this forum. My point is that when atheists do this, they are using a tool that can not be explained within their worldview and therefore their worldview is lacking.
It can not because it can not deal with absolute truths. Christian theism is different since Christ consists of ALL wisdom and knowledge(from colosians somewhere). Note: I am not saying that because the bible is the word of God, the bible claims this, therefore it's true. While I believe this, my argument does not depend upon this, rather it depends upon observed realities within our world. By this do you mean to suggest that you view yourself as a prisoner within the cave and that therefore you can never truly know the truth or do you percieve yourself to be the freed one and myself to be the prisoner? My first thought is that you see yourself to be potentially a prisoner at all times and therefore aware of the possibility of seeing only shadows as opposed to reality as a freed prisoner would see. You also then probably would see my view as that of another prisoner interpreting shadows in different ways. This is fair enough however it does lead me to another question. Does not the existance of a world outside of the cave suggest an absolute truth. Does not Plato's parable NOT make sense if all that is external to the cave is simply another cave? Suppose an infinite recursive number of caves such that a prisoner when freed, simply goes to another cave that appears to be the "truth", would not the prisoner still be chained and therefore truly be a babbling fool to the other prisoners? Because of this example, I would think that Plato ultimately agrees in an absolute truth (that which is external to the cave). People might percieve this truth in differnt ways, but ultimately the truth does exist in an absolute sense. Do you agree with this? If not, explain more what you mean please. But you conclude that this is possible using reason at a minimum. In other words, your reason tells you that if something is agreed upon by axiom then it needs no further proof in order to sustain itself an argument. Take out reason from the equation and you would not be able to determine that this is true. BTW, this is not a language issue. This type of reasoning and certainly loogic in all of its splendor, is found in all human societies. It is far more powerful and consistnent(meaninful) than any language agreed upon by man. You are slightly misunderstanding me. In an ultimate sense, there is an absolute truth in this matter. It could be said that if my car is in the garage, then the statement, my car is in the garage is true. I agree that there could be a car that looks like mine in the garage and this would lead me to think that it is my car. The answer to the statement on validity would then be NO my car is not in the garage. The logic behind this would be false universaly and invariantly. That statement"I think that my car is in the garage" would be true universaly. It goes beyond the physical and into the realm of the metaphysical. The logic and its truth value go beyond my understanding and perception and into the realm of reality "extrenal the cave if you will". But there is A TRUTH. And that is my point. The possibility of the dream scenario is there, however, given the evidence suggesting the contrary, I believe it is far more likely that we do exist and that the Christian God governs the cosmos. This is probably an entire new discussion but atheism does make a claim. For one, they make the claim that the Christian God does not exist. Secondly, most make the claim that God does NOT exist period. I think that atheism realized that it is impossible to prove a universal negative(Stein?-I think) and so most simply say that they just don't know or there is not enough evidence to determine. What atheists will not say however, is that their worldview is in fact a BELIEF. They accept this system of thought by faith ultimately. I agree that a circular argument is invalid, my point is that the concepts of logic do not make sense in a world apart from God. HOw can they? I would contend that you ultimatlely do believe in this. The passion in your arguments suggest this. You might step back NOW and say that we will never know the truth, but simply by your disagreeance with Willowtree, it suggests you believe he is wrong. How can he be wrong in your worldview? PLEASE ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY. How can Willowtree be wrong(or anyone for that matter). If it is all about mere axioms, then why can't Willowtree or me for that matter create an axiom that says God exists, therefore He exists. You will probably say that it is because it's not agreed upon by everyone. I will make an axiom then that says "God exists even if everyone does not agree with me.". This kind of debate or discussion is meaningless. When I said that it renders all discussion meaningless this is what I mean. Truth MUST be absolute and since it is absolute it is invariant and universal. I am not saying Hindus are atheists. Hindus are ultimately theists. The argument I am making is not geared towards Hindus, rather towards atheists and the undecided. Towards other religions it would speak more of revealed theology and the truths contained therein.Conerning depravity, yes, they are all living in a world of depravity. In fact, we are all living in a world of depravity. It is obvious that man has a problem(self centeredness at a minimum). This problems only cure is one found external from man- throught Christ. All other religions have constructed rules such that if you follow them, you are able to attain this ultimate "spiritual end". In an attempt to follow these rules, one would certainly find themselves to be lacking ultimately. Fair enough. Although it is relevent. Surely you have reasons for whatever you believe in. I am curious what they are. Do you place the same requirments on your own belief system as you do for Christianity? Since you claim to not agree with the Christian God, please at least tell me specificaly why? Perhaps one of the greatest movies ever.
Regards..

:ae: we've gone round and round on this numerous times now but a quick point: They are much more complex than that. The realities of logic,reason and morality are much more than simply inventions of man. This is different however. I certainly agree that science's interpretations have changed over time, and as I've said before, I am absolutely pro-science. In fact as I've stated before science reveals the wonder and glory of God for a theist(Newton,Pascal,etc would no doubt agree). Science is not the enemy of Christianity. The existance of new logics in order to explain certain phenomena are simply new revelations that our current system of logic was flawed or perhaps not complete. But there still exists an absolute truth that can be sought out. The nature of our universe demands this. I have used examples from this forum, examples from non-Christians that are arguing the contrary(against absolute truth). Things they have said suggest that ultimately EVEN THEY believe in an absolute truth. Of course they deny this since it would be contrary to their belief system. So in doing this, they demonstrate the absurd nature of a world in which absolute truths are void. This would be a world in which any postulate can be declared and any logical contradiction could be made. This could be made because no absolute authority is in existance. It is an irrational concept to fathom. Imagine a world void of absolute truth. This forum could not even exist. It appears as if they are simply trying to fit the world into what they WANT to believe. Of course, I'm sure they would say the same of me.So concerning science again, as time progresses we catch more of the ultimate picture and correct past mistakes, and sometimes introduce new ones. All the while, the Truth still exists and it is soveriegn over man's science. So mans interpretation changes(he thinks the world to be flat then corrects his mistake), but the fact that the earth is spherical never did change only mans interpretation.Regards.

As I remeber our discusion I demonstrated your claims lack of thought by reminding you that Godels incompleteness theorem required a closed set. Here is a copy from the thread you reference: Other statements you made in this post: My point is NOT that OUR current logical system(fuzzy,aristolean,etc) is absolute, so this statement has no meaning. I have asked repeatedly what a world void of absolute truths would resemble. I have provided examples of the silly nature of such a world. A world with absolute truths is consistent with this world and is reasonable. I have also demonstrated that a world void of absolute truths is an irrational world in which intelligent communication,deduction or induction can not exist. Intelligent communication,deduction and induction exist, therefore the world can NOT be void of absolute truths. Since the world can not be void of absolute truths, absolute truths must exist. Should we discuss morality?