What are the other ways of knowing the Biblical God exists

[Perplexity]

Actually turning to God is the most rational decision. For if there is no God morality is a sham and truth is whatever a dictator decides is truth. There is nothing transcendental to anchor these things to so they are just temporal.

If there is no God, the most rational response to suffering is suicide. If there is no afterlife nothing matters. On the other hand if there is an afterlife we can argue there is an objective meaning to life. To argue that there is only subjective meaning means there is no meaning, for then contradictory meanings are true and so holding that position is illogical. Nobody can truly live their life as if there is no meaning, truth or morality. Everyone falls victim to living their life as if one or more of these things exist.

Furthermore atheists speak as if it is courageous to never reach out to God even if it is a necessity for a person. They call it weakness. Yet on the flip-side one could argue that they are too proud to take help when help is needed. That is not strength but weakness, being a slave to your own vanity. If one reaches out and touches God they will inherit all things. But if one does not touch Him they lose nothing, but gain the truth, that God does not exist. But that can only happen if they seek Him with true intentions, because if the absolute God exists He knows all things.

It is simply rational to listen to theists when they tell you to seek out God and pray with your heart that He reveal Himself. The only obstacles are not being able to reason out why it is rational or not being able to risk being a fool.

“There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy.” - Pascal

If these things were true, I’d be a theist But, unfortunately, atheism doesn’t involve any of this.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Do you believe in objective truth (something is true despite people not believing it)? If so how do you establish that it is true? How do you discover it and convince others? What if they do not accept your postulates? By what standard do you claim others believe something false?

A common atheist objection is that religion is a mental construct to explain things and establish order. But just because you can come up with an explanation for why religion exists does not debunk religious claims. Yet at the same time you will have atheists talking about how it is all in the mind like a done deal. I think of C.S. Lewis when he says that it is possible that if we require things things that they might exist. If we need heaven and God they exist just as we feel hunger and food fulfill needs.

 

[Perplexity]

Do you believe in objective truth (something is true despite people not believing it)?

Yes.

If so how do you establish that it is true?

You cannot show that there is no truth, for then it would be true that there is no truth.

How do you discover it and convince others?

I discover truth just like everyone else does by discerning whether a proposition corresponds with reality. Convince others of what?

What if they do not accept your postulates?

It depends on why they don’t.

By what standard do you claim others believe something false?

I find this question malformed. If I believe someone’s claim is false, it’s because I think it does not correspond to reality. But, I can think this for any number of reasons, there is no single standard.

A common atheist objection is that religion is a mental construct to explain things and establish order. But just because you can come up with an explanation for why religion exists does not debunk religious claims. Yet at the same time you will have atheists talking about how it is all in the mind like a done deal. I think of C.S. Lewis when he says that it is possible that if we require things things that they might exist. If we need heaven and God they exist just as we feel hunger and food fulfill needs.

I certainly haven’t made this argument.

 

[InJesusItrust]

That’s just it. If something is true objectively it doesn’t matter what people think about reality. It is either right or wrong. Saying that there is no standard makes it impossible to establish that something is true or not. Then it is the human/group that has most power and influence who decide what it true for humanity. Either that or truth has to be based on the transcendent.

 

[atheistgirl]

I would think that a logical thinker would be more receptive to the notion that, if anything, morals would be the hardest thing to create Ex Nilhilo.

Not at all. The evolution of moral and social behavior in primates (including ourselves) is well researched and pretty well understood and demonstrated.

‘‘According to Michael Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:
"attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group’’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

If I am incorrect, I would be fascinated to learn to hear how you developed your morals from nothing,

Trial and error, experimentation. Learning the lessons. Observation. Those that co operated and worked together lived longer along with their off spring that those that didnt, and had better quality, less stressful lives. We’ve been refining the rules ever since.

I would be more curious to know if you felt that those morals would have developed identically if you were hypothetically the only person in the world.

Given we know that our primate ancestors worked and still work in co operative societies, I would imagine there would be some semblance of a moral sturcture within me. I would probably be astute enough to realize if I kill all the bees to steal their honey from the trees, there’ll be no more honey for me. Or if I kill all the fish in one spot, then I need to travel much further to get as good a fishing grounds. Or of I kill the suckling mother of the calf, that’s a lot of easy meat wiped out.

So I would guess there would be a moral basis there for good stewardship at the very least.

But moral issues around theft, abortion, willful murder of other humans wouldnt enter into it because Im the only human, so will never be able to test or develop it.

But were I to meet another human, then we have two options. Kill one another, or work together to better ourselves.

It’s quite obvious the path human kind took.

Sarah x

 

[triumphguy]

hehe

 

[johnnyjones]

Not at all. The evolution of moral and social behavior in primates (including ourselves) is well researched and pretty well understood and demonstrated.

‘‘According to Michael Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:
"attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group’’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

Trial and error, experimentation. Learning the lessons. Observation. Those that co operated and worked together lived longer along with their off spring that those that didnt, and had better quality, less stressful lives. We’ve been refining the rules ever since.

Given we know that our primate ancestors worked and still work in co operative societies, I would imagine there would be some semblance of a moral sturcture within me. I would probably be astute enough to realize if I kill all the bees to steal their honey from the trees, there’ll be no more honey for me. Or if I kill all the fish in one spot, then I need to travel much further to get as good a fishing grounds. Or of I kill the suckling mother of the calf, that’s a lot of easy meat wiped out.

So I would guess there would be a moral basis there for good stewardship at the very least.

But moral issues around theft, abortion, willful murder of other humans wouldnt enter into it because Im the only human, so will never be able to test or develop it.

But were I to meet another human, then we have two options. Kill one another, or work together to better ourselves.

It’s quite obvious the path human kind took.

Sarah x

First you must accept the premise that your ancestors were once apes. I don’t. I also don’t base my understanding of morals on simian behavior. Similar DNA is not the same DNA. I’m sure a link will pop up trying to convince that humans were apes. I work from the viewpoint that man is unique, and God breathed a soul into him, not through a process, but immediate as in the creation account scripture provides.

Far fetched? No. Maybe those who think that could look at the far fetched belief that “elements” were always there and through something we can’t understand blew up and arranged themselves into complex organisms. Your are right to infer that morality is developed through enviormental circumstances at times. Thats why it good to have the “love your brother” enviornment always present. Life was cheap (and some including myself would argue still is with abortion being legal) in antiquity.

Morality is said to be subjective and throughout history existed on paper (or papyra) as a means to claim rules. Those rules were tossed in the blink of an eye when a desired outcome was sought. Society of recent decades has the benefit of cultural morality to guide them. This was not the case in the ancient world as rightness or wrongness of an action was a facade.

 

[atheistgirl]

I work from the viewpoint that man is unique, and God breathed a soul into him, not through a process, but immediate as in the creation account scripture provides.

Far fetched? No.

Thankfully, the Catholic Church is more open to the truth of science and scientific discovery, than some individual Catholics. However, the Church does hold, as far as I understand, Catholics are free to believe either/or so there’s nothing wrong, from the Chuch point of view, about believing in a literal Adam and Eve.

The Church is clear the soul is the issue, not how the body came to be, and the soul is uniquely created by God at the moment of conception.

''Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

Sarah x

 

[johnnyjones]

Thankfully, the Catholic Church is more open to the truth of science and scientific discovery, than some individual Catholics. However, the Church does hold, as far as I understand, Catholics are free to believe either/or so there’s nothing wrong, from the Chuch point of view, about believing in a literal Adam and Eve.

The Church is clear the soul is the issue, not how the body came to be, and the soul is uniquely created by God at the moment of conception.

''Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

Sarah x

I’ve stated to you (and others) before that there is no mandate from the church to believe in theistic evolution or to turn a good portion of the OT into allegories or poems. This is not spoken ex cathedra. As well, it is not as you write a case of “thankfully the catholic church…”. It is not thankfully to you. Your not catholic. The churches view on the origin of man is speculative, as is your view. Of course I agree with the church on the implantation of the soul. Who is it thankfully for? Those who want to believe that viewpoint, thats it.

And yes you can believe in a literal Adam and Eve (and should). But while many Catholics in my view place Adam and Eve at the scene with original sin, they put the surroundings they inhabited in the fiction catagory, as well do others. I don’t agree with that.

 

[atheistgirl]

It is not thankfully to you. Your not catholic. .

Yes it is. Kindly don’t presume to speak for me.

Personally, I’m very glad the Catholic Church, unlike other religions and fundamentalist Christian groups, is open to the truth and discoveries of science.

This fact alone gives the Catholic Church enormous credibility, in my book.

And I’m thankful there is a Church out there who’s theology is not so dogmatic as to exclude outright the findings of scientific research and infact, is actively involved in scientific research.

Please don’t speak for me again.

Sarah x

 

[johnnyjones]

Yes it is. Kindly don’t presume to speak for me.

Personally, I’m very glad the Catholic Church, unlike other religions and fundamentalist Christian groups, is open to the truth and discoveries of science.

This fact alone gives the Catholic Church enormous credibility, in my book.

And I’m thankful there is a Church out there who’s theology is not so dogmatic as to exclude outright the findings of scientific research and infact, is actively involved in scientific research.

Please don’t speak for me again.

Sarah x

Somehow you took a wrong reading on that. I went by the traditional meaning of A-theist, meaning “no God.” The church is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and that he was God in the flesh. I said you weren’t Catholic. I’m thankful you are interested in the Catholic church, and I now see your connection as it relates to “credibility”. Now this I find interesting. I applaude you for condoning a deist entity that persues scientific knowledge. I am very open to science, not conjecture, although I must admit at times it is cloudy. I have to say I wasn’t too sure Atheists were interested in the pursuits of the catholic church.

Well, we may have the Galleleo to thank for some of that. BTW I would never intentionally misrepresent someone. I am sorry if you took it that way.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread has become a debate about evolution. That’s a banned topic.

CLOSED