Where did God come from?

If morality were absolute, then what-ifs would be irrelevant. Yet if I can find just one situation that is possible in principle in which committing a postulated "bad" action would be preferable to some other agreeably "worse" action, then you must concede that the "bad" action would be "good" to do as opposed to the "worse" one. That was the point with the mad scientist that threatened the lives of 90% of the earth's population. Disagree. It is possible that they can be seen as good, too. Rapists certainly think raping is good. Disagree. The person being raped and tortured would likely feel that the raping and torturing was "bad," yet the saved lives would predictably feel that it was "good" since it saved them.Take Jesus' crucifixion, for example. On the one had, crucifixion is a very "bad" deed, yet on the other you believe Jesus' sacrifice to have washed your sins clean, which is a "good" thing, no? You see, depending on how you look at it things can be both good and bad. Level 3 is not observed, and Level 2 is just an aggregation of Level 1 -- the only REAL level of morality. Disagree. Level 1 is always right since it is at that level that each individual determines what they believe is right. It is impossible for you to simultaneously believe at Level 1 that the pro-choice platform is right and that your opinion on that matter is wrong.[This message has been edited by ::, 01-07-2004]

grace2u,Thank you for the encouragement. In the matter of debating with unbelievers in a productive manner, we are advised in Scriptures that love between and unity of believers is essential for their credibility. This love is defined as keeping the commandments, which means working through disagreements according to His rules for such things, not necessarily being in total agreement. I'll keep my eyes out for your posts, to see if we cannot find a way of working together so that truth-loving doubters won't find either of us incredible or hypocritical because we speak as if we know God, but ignore His commandment to love one another. Hope you'll do the same. Meanwhile, let's keep the question, "Why do you believe that is true?" up before us, so that we can sharpen our presuppositional base, as we explore disagreements. If we are right in our beliefs about the Bible, there could well be static in the communication system we are using.Thank you, again. Glad you understood what I was thinking.Stephen

I thought it was the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil'.If God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of this
tree, then he didn't want them to have a concept of good
and evil ... that doesn't really make much sense really in
light of the suggestion that there is an absolute morality
derived from God.

Stephen,
Thanks for the message. Although we might have different understandings of many things within the scope of Christianity, I agree with you that this is not the forum for us to discuss these more theological issues. I am united with you in heart and certainly in regard to the presuppositional stance you are maintaining. So very trueI do regard you as my brother and agree with your position on these matters. It is sad, that so many times it seems we forget the most basic and simple command, to love one another. Of course this simply reaffirms the desperate need we all have for Gods mercy and grace. I like you, find grace to be a beatiful and powerfull thing.Take care and regards,

Willowtree,Re your post #154,Didn't want the astuteness of this post to go unrecognized.So, a practical atheist could do an experiment: If they could somehow properly "accept" Jehovah, temporarily for the sake of testing, they could then experience a confirming new state of mind, one that was different from a control where one tried to talk oneself into believing something non-theistic.To properly accept Jehovah in this experiment, the foundation would be attention to some imperative voice "command" from Him in Scripture. I prefer His command to "Choose Life."Keep up the good work.Stephen[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 01-09-2004]

:ae:You note, I admit it begs the question, which I do to arrive at predictions I can test. I need to have the non-sequitur explained, unless it means that I suppose that it follows that it is more than usually likely that we have absolute truth, because I say that is what God seems to have decided for us.Meanwhile, the idea that we have absolute truth from a creator God is deduced in part because the God is the absolute creator, and can determine absolute truth, by (my) definition of an absolute creator. So, if the creator God is real, and if the deduction that He has created us with at least some absolute truths is valid, we can predict that human behaviors based on the belief that absolute truth exists, will be successful or wise: will get what they set out to accomplish. Now, I was taught that human science is based on the idea that absolute truth existed and, while unattainable, could be approached by repeated iterations of the hypothetico-deductive method. This method is accredited with many, perhaps most scientific successes by some philosophers of science.There are, as I have noted on other threads, many H-D confirmations that this creator God person is an ontological reality. One can even deduce from this hypothesis the existence of atheists in the species Homo sapiens, a species in which the members of the species are supposed to have a fairly accurate ontological view of the world. This creator appears to have made free-will the trump card, overcoming any natural tendency or talent towards intelligence, compassion, or even survival instinct. Such confirmation also improves the estimate of the plausibility that there is absolute truth.But, the only absolute truth I have found so far is that survival, especially eternal survival, depends on hearing the creator God's voice, experienced first as a choice, and then as humbly using any and all available authority (especially the Bible, when available) to learn how to hear that voice.Stephen

Born2Preach responds to me:

quote:

---

What Grace2u is saying is NOT that the belief of God is required for us as humans to have morality, but the EXISTENCE of God whether or not people believe in Him.

---

But the mere existence of atheists proves her wrong. That god of hers simply does not exist. Why does she get to be the final arbiter about whether or not god exists? Why can't we take the atheists' word for it?

quote:

---

Let's just assume that God is real for a second.

---

No, let's not. That's the problem. You're assuming that god exists and then coming to a conclusion that god must have done it. That's circular reasoning. You assumed what you were trying to conclude.You don't get to say that the atheists are deluded and that the reason they have morality and a sense of justice and all that is because god gave it to them and they just don't know it.

quote:

---

The belief that something gave it to us is NOT relevant in the arguement

---

You're right. It isn't irrelevant...it's circular.The mere existence of atheists proves your assumption wrong.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

WILLOWTREE responds to me:

quote:

---

God responds to dis-faith by empowering non-faith, resist His urge and eventually He withdraws it.

---

Logical error: Circular argument.Once again, you're saying that god will only deal with those who believe but you cannot believe until god makes you, which he won't do because he won't deal with you until you believe....

quote:

---

Atheism is a penalty from God for continually resisting Him.

---

Logical error: Circular argument.If you believed in god to begin with, you wouldn't resist. Instead, god makes you resist, but god doesn't deal with those who don't believe....

quote:

---

Source of Theology Information : Dr.Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University)

---

Logical error: Argument from authority.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The purpose of my source acknowledgement is to prevent anyone from accusing me of plagarism.You can continue to slightly twist what I say, I cannot stop you.Every time you do, what I say becomes what you want to be true.Why can't you say what you want said in your own words ?Because you are playing a game that refuses to ever say anything that originates from yourself.The only thing circular is your pattern of thinking. The circle of your brain does not allow any breach that might contradict anything that you've already said."....God does not exist because that is irrational...and anyone who says He exists is irrational...because God does not exist...and anyone who says contrary is crazy....because God does not exist..."Over and over this is your one dimensional circular thought pattern.Your arrogance is so absolute that you have chosen to tell other people that what they believe is something they created in the first place.The God of the Bible says that He did not choose everyone. Those who He chose He placed a receiver in - an ability to respond to Him when He transmits.You can philosophize away this truth but this denial does not make this truth dematerialize.God starts the contact by manufacturing an urge into persons to want Him. That is vertical one way directional.If you resist that urge long enough He will withdraw it eventually, then the resister will end up in a state never caring what God thinks of them.Response to the urge usually has the respondee commensing an act of faith.When God feels this act of faith is genuine, THEN He promises to respond by revealing Himself special to you. When this occurrs, THEN you will know that the original urge was indeed from Him. Then you will know that you are not crazy.Say what you want, twist it anyway you want, but if atheism is a penalty from God for continually resisting Him (and it is) then this truth perfectly explains your circular thought pattern.

Could you please explain to me why you expect your logical errors to be binding on this discussion? Do you come to this conclusion because it is a reasonable conclusion? Are you using reason to explain your reason and therefore creating your own circular argument ultimately? If you are not using reason, explain what you are using. If you say by axiom, then why do you conclude that when something is axiomatic, it doesn't need any more justification than that? Reason perhaps? Does not your own argument depend upon circular reasoning in the end?

"But the mere existence of atheists proves her wrong."Look, we've tried to explain to you several times that the assertion is NOT that the BELIEF in God generates the morality, but the EXISTENCE does. You go on about how I assume God exists and then think God must've done it. You've been whining about people assuming things about you, and asked them to not do so. Please practice what you preach and don't assume that I assume.Just because I am a Christian does not mean I am a fundamentalist. I do not assume EVERYTHING is a sign from God. If I trip over a rock, it's because a rock was there and I didn't see it. There was very doubtfully Divine nor demonic intervention at all.The mere existence of atheists proves the mere existence of atheists. Just because people don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You seem to think, and I said seem so I'm not jumping to conclusions, that if a few people don't believe in something it doesn't exist, without question. You may not believe in any supernatural presence. That's fine. However, when I said 'let's assume God is real for a second' I meant that for the sake of arguement that point would be a given for maybe a paragraph, to prove a point. But for the rest of it, I am trying to conclude, not assume."quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The belief that something gave it to us is NOT relevant in the arguement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You're right. It isn't irrelevant...it's circular.The mere existence of atheists proves your assumption wrong."Okay, please explain how this is circular and this whole atheists proves everybody wrong thing.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

Thank you for your support.Realistically, atheists would never submit to this type of test.Besides, God cannot be fooled by some test. He is not on trial - we are.The brightest theologians agree, atheism is the result of persons who do not want a Boss.God will not force Himself on anyone. The Bible has an endless amount of text supporting the reaction of God when He is resisted/rejected : He gives jackass a shove in their anti-boss direction.Pharoah demonstrates this truth in action when the scripture says that God hardened his heart in response to him defying God one too many tmes.If this truth is true then arguing with atheists about God is absolutely futile.

B2P,You seem to be trying to assert that there is a difference between "belief in a god" and "the existence of this god". There really isn't any difference. Ultimately, it all comes down to your belief. You just can't stipulate to your god's existence as though it is factual. The only thing provable is that you believe in your god's existence.You said: "Just because people don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist."Certainly you are intelligent enough to realize that the reverse of that is very true. Just because people believe in something doesn't mean it exists.To "assume god is real for a second" makes it nothing more than a hypothetical discussion, and so, isn't really germaine to the discussion, unless the debators all stipulated that it was merely a hypothetical discussion.I only read this last page of this discussion so I may be re-iterating something already said, but I think it is folly to piggy-back morality onto the back of religion. Morality has as much to do with our religious choices as it does with the choices we make regarding the sports we prefer, or the foods we like, or whether we wear boxers, briefs, or lacey panties. I imagine that Rrhain has been trying to point out to you that the fact that atheists are just as moral as any other demographic proves that religion and morality aren't related.Verzem