Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PMVCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
The moral argument (#14):
Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the “religious” one.
But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
Therefore the “religious” view of reality is correct.

The problem with this is the assumption that the atheistic view of reality is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
Atheists and others contend that human social behaviors such as moral behaviors are the product of evolution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
Click to expand...
This is one of my favorite arguments for God’s existence. 🙂

Atheists can have personal moral standards–that is, they can be moral–but they cannot have moral obligation. That is, they cannot obligate others to be moral in the same way that they are moral. At least, if they want to be consistent with an atheistic paradigm.

Obligation indicates that there is something we are bound to, beyond our own personal desires.

For example, I can say as a Christian that I am morally obligated to stop someone from beating his child. And so is the atheist who sees someone beating a child.

As an atheist, you can only say, “I would stop someone from beating his child, but you are not obligated to do so.”
 
Tomdstone said:
You are assuming something that the atheist does not accept. Can you prove that the soul is immortal to an atheist? Can you get the atheist to agree on your definition of a soul?
Click to expand...
Can the atheist prove he has not got an immortal soul?

And if he has one, and does not attend to it, won’t he be dreadfully surprised when he enters eternity?
 
Aloysium said:
Checked your link and stopped reading when I saw:

" . . . Richard Dawkins describes how we must rise above our selfish genes . . ."

This is nonsense, pure science fiction.
Click to expand...
Yes. Well that confirms my belief that theists and atheists generally have a gut feeling that the other one is spouting fiction. One poster mentioned pulp fiction, which perhaps is a better description.
 
Tomdstone said:
Yes. Well that confirms my belief that theists and atheists generally have a gut feeling that the other one is spouting fiction. One poster mentioned pulp fiction, which perhaps is a better description.
Click to expand...
What do you believe?
 
Tomdstone said:
. . . looking for an argument that would certainly convince an atheist.
Click to expand...
It all depends on where each person is coming from. If they are interested in your beliefs, they will ask questions to clarify what you think. I find that exploring the other person’s faith helps with communication; it is then possible to introduce the alternative way of understanding what are basic human issues. The problem with many atheists is that there is no belief system you can get into. A lot of it is bad science, as I stated above. There’s no point of connection. That I suppose is where one’s presentation of scripture could be reflected back as being pulp fiction. The conversation can then devolve into an argument. Even if you browbeat the person, it just leaves them angry, and worse, feeling they are stupid. In terms of evangelizing, if there was an opportunity, it has been lost. I think a discussion can be of help in situations where there is pain. Even if the person does not accept what you say, even if they are angry that someone would suggest that there is a God permitting this terrible event to have befallen them. To pray for someone does help. To demonstrate that you do care definitely does, acting as God’s agent.
 
Tomdstone said:
Can you get the atheist to agree on your definition of a soul?
Click to expand...
As the old saw goes, you can bring a mule to water, but you can’t force him to drink.

Atheism is stubborn in its conviction that God and the soul must be identified as physical entities or else there is no proof. This is, of course, a childish way of viewing God. One goes where the signs point. If the atheist cannot see the signs, it is because he is deliberately looking away from them rather than straight at them. Nothing can get him to look straight at them until he grows up and realizes some day that he has behaved like a child who has threatened to run away and has made good on his threat.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Since when does treating an illness mean exterminating everyone who has it?

I suppose you simply forgot how illnesses are treated in modern societies in your haste to associate me with Nazism.

You do realize homosexuality is not genetic, but, if any correlation to genes exists, it is epigenetic. You do understand the implications of that, no?

Environmental factors change (turn on or off) epigenetic inhibitors, so homosexuality, if epigenetic, can be “treated” environmentally.

If epigenetic, by the way, promoting it as a “good” thing will very likely increase prevalence. The only reason anyone would positively endorse allowing homosexuality to become more prevalent is that a moral determination has already been made that homosexuality is morally good, or, minimally, not morally bad. Which, of course, you are committed to such a view.
Click to expand...
You somewhat missed my point. Your notion of changing the entire definition of mental illness so as no longer to be about the individual, but instead about unsubstantiated perceptions of its supposed effects on “humanity as a whole” is redolent of the Nazis and social engineering.

As far as I know, homophobia is not listed in the DSM, despite the damage it does to “humanity as a whole”.

It doesn’t meet the criteria for mental illness either.
 
Tomdstone said:
The atheist is going to tell you that sure, on earth everything we see here does have a cause (except perhaps for some events in the subatomic quantum world and for spooky action at a distance, which I will have to expand on later). But he will say that although everything on earth has a cause it is not clear that the universe as a whole had to have a cause or a sufficient reason to exist. By assuming that it does, you are assuming the existence of a Creator and a Creation, so in effect you are assuming what you want to prove.
Click to expand...
In effect, all deductive logic is “assuming what you want to prove.” The conclusions of a logical argument follow from the premises BECAUSE the conclusion is, in some form, found within the premises.

He premises merely “get at” the conclusion in an undeniable form and lead to the conclusion which follows from the premises.

If the only retort left to the atheist is “you are assuming what you want to prove,” clearly the atheist has abdicated reason because he cannot and does not deny the premises, nor can he find any reason to dispute them, but merely resorts to a kind of subjective relativism by claiming “it might not be true” just as your “Berkeley guy” denies all non-subjective facts merely because they are non-subjective.

Sure, the conclusion “might not be true” but the atheist has abandoned trying to show why it “might not be true” because he obviously doesn’t have a leg to stand on for thinking it might not be. Instead of conceding the argument, the atheist has retreated away from it. He may as well say, “Well, your mother wears army boots!” or some other jibe, which is, basically, all he has left to make his non-existent case.
 
To follow my last point.

The atheist, instead of claiming “it might not be true,” could instead repeat ad infinitum “you missed my point” without ever actually making one.

It is a workable strategy, one that avoids ever meeting refutations head on, while maintaining the aura of rationality.

To wit:
inocente said:
You somewhat missed my point…
Click to expand...
😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top