Reply to Why don't you believe in God?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Why don't you believe in God?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Ok, objective truth.

"Objective" is defined as "independent of the knower and his consciousness." Truth, according to Aristotle's definition, is defined as "saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.". Truth means "telling it like it is."

Objective truth regarding math and the laws of physics does not seem to need God (putting aside the questions of who set the first object in motion, why something and not nothing, energy, etc.). We can observe gravity.  We can figure out that sand will not work in our car's engine.  We can accept that humans cannot fly like birds.

Objective truth regarding right and wrong actions is different.  Why was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip the hearts out of living babies?

PPs have indicated religious skepticism (objective truth is ONLY found in the sciences) or religious subjectivism (religious "objective truth" is merely feeling).  Religious skeptics say we cannot know objective truth about God.  But the skeptic is saying he knows God well enough to know we can know nothing about Him.  How can the skeptic know with certainty that God cannot be known?  Skeptics usually don't think it is important to know, or are prejudiced against knowing.  The skeptic says we cannot know the truth.  The subjectivist says we all know it.  The skeptic denies truth;  the subjectivist denies error.  Objective truth is "for you, but not for me.".

So for the skeptics and the subjectivists regarding objective truth of right and wrong, why is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies?[/quote]

You are really contorting skepticism to fit what you want it to be.

Religious skepticism does not say that we cannot know anything about God.  Religious skeptics say that we have no proof of God.  A skeptic would never claim to prove a negative.[/quote]

But do you see that your definition of a skeptic is the same as mine, just phrased in a way that stacks the deck in an attempt to make skepticism look humble, rather than arrogant?

PP after PP stated "I see no evidence of God" or "There is no way to prove God exists" or "We have no proof of God."  That is begging the question.  That is assuming what you want to conclude.

Religious skeptics are willing to see objective truth in nonreligious fields.  Just not religious ones.  That is actually a positive statement that objective truth about God is unknowable.

This is a good time to point out the interplay of intellect, will, and emotions.  The intellect is Mr. Spock, the will is Captain Kirk, and the emotions are Dr. McCoy.  (The Enterprise is the soul, but I know mentioning the soul will bother people, so forget that.)  The will can command the intellect to think, but the intellect cannot command the will to will--it can only inform the will.  And the will cannot just make you believe (many PPs said they wanted to believe, but couldn't, because they just did not see enough to believe in).

Belief happens when you decide to be honest, and place your mind in service of objective truth.  Justin Martyr gave this description of the process:

#1  A man seeks the truth by the unaided effort of reason, and is disappointed.
#2  It is offered him by faith, and he accepts.
#3  And, having accepted, he finds it satisfies his reason.

Do you see where skeptics run into trouble?

Those who believe there is objective truth about God do not pretend to know everything about Him.  But they do claim He is not unknowable.  We are finite, in time, we change, we decay, we cannot create something out of nothing.  So we cannot know an infinite, always was and always will be Creator.  But there are some thing we can know.

If we are willing to.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics