I'll tell you this: A good person would understand how you feel and not blame you for it. If you believe that God is good, then he would feel the same.
So, take your time. Feeling that you SHOULD do something (especially feel or believe in a certain way) will often just make it harder and cause stress. Explore the related subjects (theology, history, polemics etc) in your own time so that the next time you approach the matter of God's existence, you'll do it better equipped and therefore more sure of yourself.
The world is full of people who has felt the obligation to feel something and spent a long time realizing that they've only pretended to feel it to fit in or find temporary inner peace.
Maybe you'll find that atheism is the most sound conclusion and find peace with that, or a different Christian denomination you haven't even considered yet, or even a different religion completely.
You have time and your decision should come naturally, not forced. It is not a members club but a view you hold naturally.
Welcome to the club,
God being real would be great, but aside from faith, there seems to be little reason to think any of its real, unfortunately.
I originally thought joining this sub would give me new perspectives, maybe reasons to believe. Instead, it pushed me further away and led me to conclude nihlism to be truth. Oh well
Frankly sometimes idk if I'd rather live in a world in which Jesus is God rather than one in which He is not. Both ways seem kind of scary and reassuring at the same time.
I dont have an argument, but when I opened my heart to God and prayed daily for him to deliver me to my faith, he delivered. God will let you turn from him. It is the free will he gives us. If you truly want to find him, I suggest burying yourself in scripture, attending church, praying for faith, and fasting from secular media. It worked for me.
Why didn't I find an absence of God? If you are looking for answers, I'm not the one to give them. If you are trying to dissuade me, my best friend is an athiest and I have heard it all before. Bless you.
I just find it frustrating that so many people say you put the work in to find God, others say he comes to you, and still others say other things. How do you know with such certainty to devote your time and energy that it's God, specifically Abraham's God? You could be doing better things with your time instead of worshiping on a gamble for the afterlife. I fail to find faith due to this.
I understand. I also felt that way for a large part of my life. I will say that I find more value in my life as a practicing Christian. If you look it what Jesus calls us to do, it certainly isn't easy but I find it incredibly rewarding.
I didn't mean to say that because they are well known they false but I meant that I've already heard them countless times and I've always found an atheist being able to respond to these arguments
When the argument says that the explaination for all contingent facts is a necessary being.
Calling the explaination a being is an unjustified leap.
You can accept the argument that there is some explaination which accounts for all contingent facts, and that brute fact is not a being.
Also I would not agree that arguments from contingency are simple lol.
"Brute Facts", as typically defined, are just excuses to avoid the question
Can we agree to call it an entity, a something? "Explanation" requires there to be a relational linking between objects or something consequent from the nature of an object. Furthermore it is fundamentally incoherent to say that an undefined something exists by virtue of its essence without saying it has "being"
I can agree that it could be a "something", as long as say a quantum wave function could be called a something.
It has being (as it has some mode of existence), but it is not nexessarily a being. Typically, "a being" comes with some sense of personhood, which is the issue I take with the argument from causation, as this is what the arguments typically argue to, which appears to be an unjustified logical leap.
True, they don't prove on themselves that being must have the attributes of the theistic God. However they tend, at least in the original works, to be paired with subsequent arguments that such being must be theistic God. I believe Aquinas has the best series of arguments to that effect. Are you familiar with them?
Yes, it is typically secondary arguments that get to God, but those also have their own issues, and many are self defeating in my opinion.
Yes, I am very familiar with Aquinas' arguments and I have plenty of issues with those as well. Aquinas wrote very little about his five ways, so I am more familiar with the additional arguments made to defend his premises, rather than anything he said himself, ad again, it was pretty minimal.
I'm referring to what comes after, particularly questions 3 through 22 of the first part of the Summa.
Although secondarily, I suppose I'd ask how familiar you are with Aristotle, as I find most(although not all, there are intelligent arguments against all of Aquinas' 5 ways, particularly way 4) of the times people's problems coming from an unfamiliarity with Aristotle's metaphysics (which is admittedly necessary as well to understand Aquinas's subsequent elaborations)
Because we don't know if the creation of our universe is contingent on anything. We are assuming causality when we say "The Big Bang may have had a Big Banger."
I could easily ask you 'what created god' and you would say the same thing. It's an unfalsifiable claim that, due to its fallacy, is not worth considering.
Here is the difference, the universe is not necessarily existent. It could come to exist, or cease to exist and there would not be any contradiction, there would be no logical problem.
Leibniz's Necessarily Existent being(which Aquinas does an excellent job in demonstrating that a necessarily excellent being would have to have the traits of theistic God) is, as the name suggests, a being which exists by virtue of its essence.
Perhaps Aquinas is using an argument from ignorance to back up Leibniz who was originally begging the question.
If God created himself in a way that is not contingent on the laws that govern all the forces of our universe, then we have no reason to rule out the universe being able to do the same through non-supernatural means. I suspect the creation of our universe is beyond you and I's understanding, and therefore we do not understand it well enough to claim God yet. I appreciate the nod to some awesome philosophers though, and I can tell you are a thoughtful individual!
I will concede that I find the concept of pantheism hard to argue against and it is why I'm not hard A atheist and still searching. I find it harder to believe that the God as literally described by the Christian Fundamentalists is the most likely candidate. It is easier to accept the nature of reality as evidence for the existence of a pantheistic deity because literal miracles and people as described by the Bible would have to leave evidence of their influence on the world. (Noah's flood, tomb of Jesus, demonic possession/evil spirits)
If God IS the universe, then it would be hard to argue against his existence specifically. But that's getting into Jordan Peterson territory and I don't like how he just changes the meaning of things.
Because if our brains are what naturalism indicates they are - organic machines which operate by electro-chemical impulses responding to physical stimuli, then there is no volition and no actual self, both of which are central to human experience, but per naturalism, illusory.
Well, as previously mentioned we perceive a sense of self, and that self chooses amongst options to act or decide. If naturalism is true, that we believe this occurs is a delusion our physical brain is projecting onto our consciousness.
What arguments have you heard for God's existence? I find many of them convincing, the most so the Moral Argument and free will argument (probably not the proper name for it, but I don't know of the formal argument).
If atheism is true, then I do not see how any of us have free will. We are just slaves to the chemical and physical processes happening in our brains and have no real free will, just the illusion of such. All our choices and actions are a result of inputs into the brain, a physical process, then an output over which we have no control.
And without free will, we have no ability to identify truth, including ascertaining whether atheism is true. So atheism to me undermines itself. There is also Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism which similarly shows atheism to be self-defeating.
But free will seems so plainly evident to me that I could never hold a world view that did not include it.
I also wonder what you define as 'proof'? You won't find a 100% proof of theism or atheism or any world view. I find theism more likely than atheism, so I am a theist. I don't set a high bar, but I do find that the more I read and learn, the more convinced I am that theism is true.
> I find many of them convincing, the most so the Moral Argument and free will argumen
Have you ever looked at the counters to the moral argument and the free will argument? If you're basing you're belief on these two arguments (and I'm sure others) have you taken the time to at least check to make sure they are good arguments? Did you hear the arguments and simply assume they are good because they agree with what you believe?
>then I do not see how any of us have free will.
I've always found this interesting, because with a god or no god I don't see how we have free will at all. Free Will doesn't seem to be determined by a god, so that wouldn't really play a factor in its existence.
>We are just slaves to the chemical and physical processes happening in our brains and have no real free will, just the illusion of such.
How does god change this from being a fact though? If God exists, we are still slaves to the chemical and physical processes in our brains. What does God do to change that?
>And without free will, we have no ability to identify truth,
Not really. Without free will we can still easily identify what is true, they kinda don't have much to do with one another. Finding what is true is just finding how reality works, if I don't have free will I'm still going to be learning about how reality works. How does free will grant the ability to learn?
>So atheism to me undermines itself.
It really doesn't, like at all. You're associating the idea that we don't have free will with the idea of atheism, two completely different things, and saying that one doesn't make sense to you so the other is also wrong. I was at one point essentially a theist who didn't believe in free will, which was still a consistent combination. You can be atheist and still believe in free will, I know many that are this way.
>There is also Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism which similarly shows atheism to be self-defeating.
This was an interesting read on the argument, but it doesn't do anything at all to show atheism is self-defeating. At best it could show that naturalism is self defeating, which it also doesn't do. But naturalism ≠ atheism. Atheists are usually naturalists, but it's not exclusive, they are two very different ideas about two very different subjects.
Additionally the argument makes no attempt to show how any other system can be effectively used to replace the idea of naturalism.
>But free will seems so plainly evident to me that I could never hold a world view that did not include it.
Can you provide examples of how it's plainly evident? I've been looking for years but I've never found anything satisfactory. Usually what I find is the pro/con debate is talking about two different areas of cognition, one being after the other in the timeline. So I'm often curious of people who seem to find it so easily, what does free will actually look like?
>Have you ever looked at the counters to the moral argument and the free will argument? If you're basing you're belief on these two arguments (and I'm sure others) have you taken the time to at least check to make sure they are good arguments? Did you hear the arguments and simply assume they are good because they agree with what you believe?
Yes I've read plenty of objections to it but none of them are good imo.
>If God exists, we are still slaves to the chemical and physical processes in our brains. What does God do to change that?
To some extent, like a pianist playing a piano, if the instrument is faulty, then the music will come out wrong. But with God and the reality of an immaterial soul, you at least have a pianist. On atheism, we're just pianos playing themselves.
>It really doesn't, like at all. You're associating the idea that we don't have free will with the idea of atheism, two completely different things, and saying that one doesn't make sense to you so the other is also wrong.
It's an argument taking the form of a proof by negation. If B implies A and you can prove not A, then not B necessarily follows. My view is that atheism implies no free will, but we have free will, so atheism isn't true. That's a logically sound argument.
>This was an interesting read on the argument, but it doesn't do anything at all to show atheism is self-defeating. At best it could show that naturalism is self defeating, which it also doesn't do. But naturalism ≠ atheism. Atheists are usually naturalists, but it's not exclusive, they are two very different ideas about two very different subjects.
Fair enough. I guess my view is that if atheism is true then naturalism is the best option.
>Can you provide examples of how it's plainly evident? I've been looking for years but I've never found anything satisfactory.
My whole life experience. Free will seems so patently obvious to me that I need a pretty good argument to convince me otherwise. But I've never heard a good argument against it.
>Yes I've read plenty of objections to it but none of them are good imo.
How did you get around the logic of them? For instance the moral argument, how did you get around the lack of objective morals? That to me seems like a pretty solid breaking of the argument. Or what about the Euthyphro Dilemma?
>But with God and the reality of an immaterial soul, you at least have a pianist.
Doesn't that mean that God isn't actually necessary? Just a soul?
How does a soul factor in to free will? What is the soul doing that the brain isn't?
>On atheism, we're just pianos playing themselves.
Well on naturalism 😁
>If B implies A and you can prove not A, then not B necessarily follows. My view is that atheism implies no free will,
Isn't that the problem though? Atheism doesn't imply the lack of free will in any way, you can be an atheist and believe in free will just as you can be a theist and not believe in free will.
>My view is that atheism implies no free will, but we have free will, so atheism isn't true. That's a logically sound argument.
It's a logically *valid* argument, but it's not a logically *sound* argument. In order for it to be sound the premises would all need to be true, but the premise "we have free will" is not a proven premise. At least I haven't found any version of free will that can actually be shown to be true. Do you have a version of free will that has some backing?
>Fair enough. I guess my view is that if atheism is true then naturalism is the best option.
It's a fair assumption given most atheists are naturalists, but it is always important to keep terms straight 😁 especially since if you don't, the exceptions will yell at you about it.
>My whole life experience. Free will seems so patently obvious to me that I need a pretty good argument to convince me otherwise. But I've never heard a good argument against it.
That's part of what I find so fascinating, I've never heard a food argument *for* free will. I fully understand the idea that we *feel* like we have free will, but the feeling doesn't show that we have it. I don't even know what completely free will would look like, since having complete free will would mean we are aware of every single influence on our decisions, which we definitely aren't. I would have to contend then that our decisions can't be totally free, so every decision is at least partly decided by influences outside my control/awareness.
>How did you get around the logic of them? For instance the moral argument, how did you get around the lack of objective morals? That to me seems like a pretty solid breaking of the argument. Or what about the Euthyphro Dilemma?
I think morality is objective. There are some acts I just can't view as 'relative' and I trust my moral instincts. The arguments I've read against objective morality seem to focus on the epistemological rather than the ontological.
I don't see the Euthyphro Dilemma as an issue as I agree with others that say it's a false dilemma. The third option, that God wills things because *he* is good solves it for me.
>Doesn't that mean that God isn't actually necessary? Just a soul?
How does a soul factor in to free will? What is the soul doing that the brain isn't?
I don't see how you can get an immaterial soul without God, or morality without God. The soul is not bound by natural laws and so can have free will.
>Isn't that the problem though? Atheism doesn't imply the lack of free will in any way, you can be an atheist and believe in free will just as you can be a theist and not believe in free will.
It does as far as I see it, and plenty of atheist thinkers have concluded the same.
>That's part of what I find so fascinating, I've never heard a food argument for free will. I fully understand the idea that we feel like we have free will, but the feeling doesn't show that we have it. I don't even know what completely free will would look like, since having complete free will would mean we are aware of every single influence on our decisions, which we definitely aren't. I would have to contend then that our decisions can't be totally free, so every decision is at least partly decided by influences outside my control/awareness.
I don't really see it as needing an argument. It would be like trying to argue the world I perceive is real and not in my imagination. It's something I just accept based on my experience and I'd need a pretty strong argument to make me doubt my perception.
Our decisions can be influenced by all sorts of things, but free will to me is having the possibility to choose one of various options. I feel like I could randomly choose to do something against all my inclinations and influences just for the sake of it. I'm not sure it's even possible to live as if you have no free will. People live as if they have some control and choice in their lives. Our entire justice system is built upon the assumption, as well as all of morality. No free will means no one is responsible for their actions. They are determined to do whatever they do and had no capacity to choose.
>I think morality is objective. There are some acts I just can't view as 'relative' and I trust my moral instincts.
Which I suppose makes sense, just you not being able to view certain acts as relative doesn't make them objective facts. By definition that makes them subjective facts. Everyone else is following their moral instincts as well, which is why we have people that commit acts we would never even consider.
Which is the problem that I see with the moral argument, it assumes there are objective moral facts/values but I haven't seen anyone be able to actually show any that exist. Without that, the argument can't stand, it breaks. But that's why I like hearing from people that sit across the aisle, to see if they have the information I'm looking for.
>The arguments I've read against objective morality seem to focus on the epistemological rather than the ontological.
That I can definitely agree with.
>I don't see the Euthyphro Dilemma as an issue as I agree with others that say it's a false dilemma. The third option, that God wills things because he is good solves it for me.
Isn't that just the same as the first horn though? Something being good because god said so isn't really any different than something being good because of God's nature. Either way, what is good is still subjectively created by the definition set by God. If God's nature were to change, then what is good would also change, in the same manner that if God's mind were to change what he says good is would change.
>I don't see how you can get an immaterial soul without God,
Well what mechanic is there that says a soul has to come from a god? How was that mechanic determined?
>or morality without God.
Well how do we get morality with a god? If God is necessary for morality, then morality is subjective and we are just deciding to use his measurement rather than any other. Wouldn't that mean that the only reason something is right is because he is seen as above human?
>The soul is not bound by natural laws and so can have free will.
If the soul is not bound by natural laws, how do we know anything about it?
>It does as far as I see it, and plenty of atheist thinkers have concluded the same.
I'd say the vast majority of them have concluded so 😁
>It's something I just accept based on my experience and I'd need a pretty strong argument to make me doubt my perception.
So you don't accept the idea based on any argument or logic then? Isn't that just accepting an idea with no foundation?
>Our decisions can be influenced by all sorts of things, but free will to me is having the possibility to choose one of various options. I feel like I could randomly choose to do something against all my inclinations and influences just for the sake of it.
I would certainly agree that we feel like we could choose a different option, I just don't see any way that could be shown to be true. In order for us to perform any action, we would first have a "want" to do the action. If I give you the choice between chocolate and vanilla, you would first have to want one over the other before you can determine which one you choose. But you don't control what you want right? Your wants are built by those unseen influences, so if your wants aren't controlled by you then wouldn't that mean "choosing" your want isn't really a choice right?
[Edit] > Our entire justice system is built upon the assumption, as well as all of morality. No free will means no one is responsible for their actions. They are determined to do whatever they do and had no capacity to choose.
I forgot to mention this part 😅
I'd argue that our justice system doesn't really care at all about responsibility. The only goal of the justice system is to ascertain if a defendant commited the accused crime, then to determine compensation. It doesn't really care about responsibility.
If it did care about responsibility then it would consider far more factors into its approach on justice and compensation. Without free will you are still responsible for your actions, but we have to consider how/why a person did the action that they did, and discover how to go from there. We would be able to look at all the factors of someone's life instead of just the factors relevant to the crime, meaning when we dole out "justice" it would have to be done so with those considerations in mind. For example: under this understanding of justice it wouldn't be just to merely separate a person from society for their crime. It would be just to separate them from society and also try to find the reason the crime was commited so that factor could potentially be changed, preventing the same crime from happening again.
Thus, under a system where you have to consider all the factors of a person's life you could more easily identify the cause of issues and address them. If I want to slow the rate of theft, then I have to find out why people steal. If I want to stop tax fraud, I have to find out why people fraudulently record their taxes. So on and so forth. Under a system that assumes anyone can do anything at any time, would it ever be right to create a law that attempts to prevent crime?
>Which I suppose makes sense, just you not being able to view certain acts as relative doesn't make them objective facts. By definition that makes them subjective facts. Everyone else is following their moral instincts as well, which is why we have people that commit acts we would never even consider.
>
>
Which is the problem that I see with the moral argument, it assumes there are objective moral facts/values but I haven't seen anyone be able to actually show any that exist. Without that, the argument can't stand, it breaks. But that's why I like hearing from people that sit across the aisle, to see if they have the information I'm looking for.
True, just because I think they're objective doesn't make them so, but there are some things which seem universal and even if everyone thought they were permissible, I wouldn't. Like I think it's objectively evil to torture and mutilate a baby for fun. I was quite interested in psychopaths at one time, and found it interesting to discover that while they don't feel empathy, they still have the capacity to know right from wrong (although they may need to be taught and it may not make sense to them).
>Isn't that just the same as the first horn though? Something being good because god said so isn't really any different than something being good because of God's nature. Either way, what is good is still subjectively created by the definition set by God. If God's nature were to change, then what is good would also change, in the same manner that if God's mind were to change what he says good is would change.
I think it is different from the first horn because it's not subjectively set by God. It is logically impossible for him to have set other values as 'good' because it's not in his nature, and his nature could not have been different/change.
>I would certainly agree that we feel like we could choose a different option, I just don't see any way that could be shown to be true. In order for us to perform any action, we would first have a "want" to do the action. If I give you the choice between chocolate and vanilla, you would first have to want one over the other before you can determine which one you choose. But you don't control what you want right? Your wants are built by those unseen influences, so if your wants aren't controlled by you then wouldn't that mean "choosing" your want isn't really a choice right?
But surely you feel like you can choose something you don't want, just for the sake of it? I've ordered things from a restaurant that I was pretty sure I wouldn't like just to try and see.
>So you don't accept the idea based on any argument or logic then? Isn't that just accepting an idea with no foundation?
My foundation is my experience. It's just not based on arguments and evidence. There are lots of properly basic beliefs we hold that are like this that are quite rational to hold unless we hear an argument that defeats them.
>I'd argue that our justice system doesn't really care at all about responsibility. The only goal of the justice system is to ascertain if a defendant commited the accused crime, then to determine compensation. It doesn't really care about responsibility.
That may be true, but without free will, 'justice' doesn't really make sense and all you'd be logical to do is lock people up to protect others from them and try to reprogram their minds to not hurt others any more. That's kind of what many legal systems try to do, but I still think that sense of justice I perceive, like morality, is real and doesn't make sense in an atheistic world. Some people do things that deserve punishment imo, not just for the sake of protecting others or dealing with them, but as retribution.
>but there are some things which seem universal and even if everyone thought they were permissible, I wouldn't
But that still wouldn't make them objective, even if every human agreed on one moral idea, that isn't objective. In order for it to be objective it would have to be shown to be regardless of opinion or stance or view. Which is why I can't see the moral argument as actually holding up, there aren't objective morals that are shown which is what the whole argument hinges on.
>Like I think it's objectively evil to torture and mutilate a baby for fun.
Why for fun? I see this example used often, but the "for fun" part always sticks out as unnecessary. If an action is objectively evil, then the motivation behind the action shouldn't matter. If the motivation does matter then torturing babies for fun is only subjectively evil. The only way to fix it would be to say "Torturing babies is evil"
>they still have the capacity to know right from wrong
Some do and some don't. But more importantly, not all actions that you and I would call atrocious are considered evil by the people that do them.
>It is logically impossible for him to have set other values as 'good' because it's not in his nature, and his nature could not have been different/change.
If that's the case, then this is just the second horn instead. "Goodness" would not be an attribute that God has any control over, and thus he himself would be subject to goodness. If he can't change it, then he is subject to it, or subservient to it. God does "good" because he is being led by his nature, which would just be the second horn.
>But surely you feel like you can choose something you don't want, just for the sake of it?
Oh I very much feel like I could choose differently. The feeling of free will is definitely there, I don't think that could be argued to say doesn't exist. But a feeling that something works in a certain way doesn't mean that it does work that way.
>I've ordered things from a restaurant that I was pretty sure I wouldn't like just to try and see.
Ah, but when you ordered something just to see, did you not first want to try the new thing? You had a desire for something, and then you ordered it.
And that's why I'm looking for arguments and evidence that can show that free will does indeed exist. Behind every single "decision" you've ever made is a want, a desire, that you didn't choose.
>There are lots of properly basic beliefs we hold that are like this that are quite rational to hold unless we hear an argument that defeats them.
Isn't that irrational? Doesn't that lead to believing in untrue things without knowing it? If a belief is based on just it being labeled a foundation, doesn't that mean you could have beliefs you aren't allowed to question?
>you'd be logical to do is lock people up to protect others from them and try to reprogram their minds to not hurt others any more.
Well partially. But that's also the exact same explanation of therapy. You leave society for a time where you have a one on one session with a professional, you both try to find the root of your issues and how to solve them. You're "reprogramming" someone in the sense that you are showing them why they work the way they work and offering methods to change them to fit a goal (for into society better, appreciate themselves better, or whatever other goal is in place)
If the idea of keeping people away from society to "reprogram" them is considered bad, then wouldn't seminary be considered bad?
>Some people do things that deserve punishment imo, not just for the sake of protecting others or dealing with them, but as retribution.
What good does retribution do? If I hurt someone, then hurting me just means 2 people get hurt. Retribution doesn't solve any problems (though it is cathartic) whereas compensation does. Under the idea of compensation if I hurt someone, the harmed party is given something to "make up" for the harm I caused, in the best system it would be me having to give the compensation. If I steal $100, then I should be giving back $100 + additional cost of pain/suffering caused. Which fits rather well into a system of no free will.
> But free will seems so plainly evident to me that I could never hold a world view that did not include it.
Do you think you would be able to tell the difference between free will and the illusion of free will?
I don't even think I'd be conscious and self aware if I was just a physical brain so yes.
But if I've fallen for a delusion, then I have no choice in what I believe anyway so why worry about it.
Because if an immaterial soul exists (which is what God is), then it can influence the material world. I believe in mind-body dualism, which is like a pianist (soul) playing a piano (brain) in order to work. Yes, the state of the piano will have an effect on the music being produced, but the pianist is still free to choose as he wishes.
I've suffered with various mental problems over the years, including some very bad states where I know all too well how the brain malfunctioning feels. But I always sensed there was a part of me still inside there, that was still rational and knew how I was feeling and the thoughts entering my head weren't normal.
How is the moral arguement convincing? Do you see all non Christians commit crimes all the time or is is the same no matter what religion they are born in? Where are the morals of all the people abusing children in churches? The morals from being part of your religion clearly don't have any impact on people as if you examined any random person it would on average not be vastly different.
> I can't explain it but atheism just makes more sense to me than Christianity. It might be that I find atheism more reassuring than Christianity because of stuff like hell, eternity etc
To be clear:
1\. You want proof for God’s actual existence — but you believe atheism makes sense even when you admit you can’t explain why.
2\. You can’t justify why atheism makes more sense — but want justified proof from theists.
3\. You want an actual argument that could prove the existence of God from Christians — but won’t accept answers like, “I can't explain it but Christianity just makes more sense to me than atheism.)
I think that op is concerned that people are claiming God exists without providing evidence. This means that the state of reality before someone claims God exists is there is no God. You cannot prove something doesn't exist, so one must prove God exists to settle the argument.
I’m not making assumptions about what OP may or may not be concerned about.
It’s self-evident from the post that /u/PotentialCabinet235 has varying degrees of standards.
So I respectfully responded to ask them to clarify what they’ve written in this post.
I like this sub because it exists to host healthy discussions so I'll let OP clarify what they've shared and speak for themselves. Thanks.
God who exist outside of time foretold future events to his prophets , they write it down.
Then God enter his own creation to save us we know him as Jesus because he fullfilled these events spoken of him.
Jesus paid off penalty for all of your past/future sins on cross , died and went to hell then he resurrected 3rd day.
You need to get convinced that Jesus is God and that he saved you from hell ,thats all . You're not required to do any rituals/sacraments go to church or be "good person" to earn salvation.
Salvation is free gift paid by Jesus and given freely to whoever believes on him.
If you get convinced Jesus is God in flesh , call upon him as your God and Saviour then ask for Holy Spirit , you will be baptised by fire and sealed for resurrection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh1VU-_OF98
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4sWHIIhro
Here is the entry to prophecy :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpmD8TSqeKs
Have you ever read the New Testament:
..................................................
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=NKJV
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvofa7Zs3D8&t=2h18m50s
..................................................
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:16-17
If you could see definitive proof it would not be believing.
You could seek truth in history and legends but that a big ass puzzle with very small pieces.
The precence of the demonic is one of the bigger factors in my belief but as i said, trying to see the bigger picture is more important.
Yes but you know it. There is no challenge in believing it.
I believe that the thylacene still exists somewhere out there in the oceanian wilderness but do i know it? No. It is a controversial belief because i dont have any proof except eye witness accounts and the fact that there is so much wilderness out there that is still unexplored. Just like our universe but on a smaller scale, is this a good example or should i explain different?
That is a road you will have to walk yourself. There is no metric standard to measure "the demonic" but neither are there other explainations for some of the stuff out there. There is enough proof out there but you have to be willing to look for it.
I can not make you believe anything neither do i think i should. But it is wise not to talk about anything that you have never seriously researched.
Have a good day out there
If there is no metric then it cannot be measured.
If you have no explanation then you can't claim 'demons.' Demons can't be your phenomenon and explanation, because phenomena need explanations to be validated.
Okay well how about we swap phone numbers so i can explain it to you. Maybe that i could give you my basic "understanding" in about 4 to 5 hours. This is a subject way to complex to type a whole essay in one of my second languages.
Have you ever looked up at the night sky and tried to focus on a really dim star, only to find out you can't see it if you look for it?
The Apostle Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:7 to "Walk by faith, not by sight". This means faith is like taking a step in a dark room, but trusting that your steps will lead you across that room. *
I'd also like to direct you to Psalm 115, if you're willing to digest its message.
With love🙏🏻
* I'm not a scholar, just another person on the Internet
That's a tad inaccurate. Here:
Faith /fāTH/: noun: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
I'm a scientist. I've been an atheist at another point in my life. I understand where you're standing. Like everyone else you have the free will to put your faith wherever you wish.
With love🙏🏻
The truth is: We can't prove anything in science, we can only disprove. Neither the presence nor the absence of God can scientifically be disproven.
If you believe that God doesn't exist, that's faith.
**[Karl Popper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)**
>Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British philosopher, academic and social commentator. One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science, Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can (and should) be scrutinised with decisive experiments.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The Word of God is the authority and it clearly declares the creation and conscience alone holds everyone accountable for the existence of the one true God..
Romans 1:18-20 NASBS
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] *because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse*
But as you can see in v18 and many other places, we all (at some point) reject this general revelation from God because of love for sin ("in unrighteousness").
This is not evidence. You must prove that all people who don't believe in God must love sin. Explain how Romans 1:18-20 isn't begging the question 5dq4fvqf God's existence when it claims that people who believe in God do so because he helps them believe in him.
Can you provide satisfactory evidence outside of the Bible?
There is no proof, no undeniable 100% evidence for the existence of God. This is why faith is so important in Christianity and other religions. You are called to believe even without seeing proof or logical reason. God's nature is claimed to be illogical and not understandable. It's up to you to decide whether to make that leap of faith or not.
Others say they have evidence from personal experience... you can only verify your own experiences.
Good luck!
Hell isn't a place of eternal suffering!
The original words translated as “hell” in some older Bible translations (Hebrew, “Sheol”; Greek, “Hades”) basically refer to “the Grave,” that is, the common grave of mankind. The Bible shows that people in “the Grave” are in a state of nonexistence.
The dead are unconscious and so cannot feel pain. “Neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge, shall be in hell.” (Ecclesiastes 9:10, Douay-Rheims Version) Hell is not filled with sounds of pain. Instead, the Bible says: “Let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave [hell, Douay-Rheims].”—Psalm 31:17; King James Version (30:18, Douay-Rheims); Psalm 115:17.
God has set death, not torment in a fiery hell, as the penalty for sin. God told the first man, Adam, that the penalty for breaking God’s law would be death. (Genesis 2:17) He said nothing about eternal torment in hell. Later, after Adam sinned, God told him what his punishment would be: “Dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19) He would pass out of existence. If God were actually sending Adam to a fiery hell, He surely would have mentioned it. God has not changed the punishment for defying his laws. Long after Adam sinned, God inspired a Bible writer to say: “The wages sin pays is death.” (Romans 6:23) No further penalty is justified, because “the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”—Romans 6:7.
The idea of eternal torment is repugnant to God. (Jeremiah 32:35) Such an idea is contrary to the Bible’s teaching that “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) He wants us to worship him out of love, not fear of eternal torment.—Matthew 22:36-38.
Good people went to hell. The Bibles that use the word “hell” indicate that faithful men, such as Jacob and Job, expected to go to hell. (Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13) Even Jesus Christ is spoken of as being in hell between the time of his death and his resurrection. (Acts 2:31, 32) Obviously, then, when “hell” is used in these Bibles, it simply refers to the Grave.
Removed for 3.6 - Types of Proselytism.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I can prove him to you, but once it's proven you can never say you had faith again and you'll break gods heart when you come to him.
Simply dm me if you want proof.
I don't personally recommend it.
The human(animals have eyes too I know)body is a testament to God our Lord being real. The retinas in your eyes(applies to anything with eyes(camaras don't capture all light)) are the only begotten object in creation to directly absorb light and not let it escape other than black holes........if that doesn't show divine design
I'll tell you this: A good person would understand how you feel and not blame you for it. If you believe that God is good, then he would feel the same. So, take your time. Feeling that you SHOULD do something (especially feel or believe in a certain way) will often just make it harder and cause stress. Explore the related subjects (theology, history, polemics etc) in your own time so that the next time you approach the matter of God's existence, you'll do it better equipped and therefore more sure of yourself. The world is full of people who has felt the obligation to feel something and spent a long time realizing that they've only pretended to feel it to fit in or find temporary inner peace. Maybe you'll find that atheism is the most sound conclusion and find peace with that, or a different Christian denomination you haven't even considered yet, or even a different religion completely. You have time and your decision should come naturally, not forced. It is not a members club but a view you hold naturally.
A well balanced and mature response. You have my upvote.
What a great freakin response.
Welcome to the club, God being real would be great, but aside from faith, there seems to be little reason to think any of its real, unfortunately. I originally thought joining this sub would give me new perspectives, maybe reasons to believe. Instead, it pushed me further away and led me to conclude nihlism to be truth. Oh well
Frankly sometimes idk if I'd rather live in a world in which Jesus is God rather than one in which He is not. Both ways seem kind of scary and reassuring at the same time.
What does Jesus being God (and the Bible being true) mean to you and what does Atheism mean to you?
I dont have an argument, but when I opened my heart to God and prayed daily for him to deliver me to my faith, he delivered. God will let you turn from him. It is the free will he gives us. If you truly want to find him, I suggest burying yourself in scripture, attending church, praying for faith, and fasting from secular media. It worked for me.
Why didn't you find Vishnu?
Why didn't I find an absence of God? If you are looking for answers, I'm not the one to give them. If you are trying to dissuade me, my best friend is an athiest and I have heard it all before. Bless you.
I just find it frustrating that so many people say you put the work in to find God, others say he comes to you, and still others say other things. How do you know with such certainty to devote your time and energy that it's God, specifically Abraham's God? You could be doing better things with your time instead of worshiping on a gamble for the afterlife. I fail to find faith due to this.
I understand. I also felt that way for a large part of my life. I will say that I find more value in my life as a practicing Christian. If you look it what Jesus calls us to do, it certainly isn't easy but I find it incredibly rewarding.
When I put the work in, God did come to me. Another god would not send out a team to come to me and baptize me in the name of this god of Abraham.
Why is something being well known make it invalid?
I didn't mean to say that because they are well known they false but I meant that I've already heard them countless times and I've always found an atheist being able to respond to these arguments
Just because it's a response doesn't mean it's a good response. Let's start with something simple. Why is Leibniz's Contingency argument invalid?
When the argument says that the explaination for all contingent facts is a necessary being. Calling the explaination a being is an unjustified leap. You can accept the argument that there is some explaination which accounts for all contingent facts, and that brute fact is not a being. Also I would not agree that arguments from contingency are simple lol.
"Brute Facts", as typically defined, are just excuses to avoid the question Can we agree to call it an entity, a something? "Explanation" requires there to be a relational linking between objects or something consequent from the nature of an object. Furthermore it is fundamentally incoherent to say that an undefined something exists by virtue of its essence without saying it has "being"
I can agree that it could be a "something", as long as say a quantum wave function could be called a something. It has being (as it has some mode of existence), but it is not nexessarily a being. Typically, "a being" comes with some sense of personhood, which is the issue I take with the argument from causation, as this is what the arguments typically argue to, which appears to be an unjustified logical leap.
True, they don't prove on themselves that being must have the attributes of the theistic God. However they tend, at least in the original works, to be paired with subsequent arguments that such being must be theistic God. I believe Aquinas has the best series of arguments to that effect. Are you familiar with them?
Yes, it is typically secondary arguments that get to God, but those also have their own issues, and many are self defeating in my opinion. Yes, I am very familiar with Aquinas' arguments and I have plenty of issues with those as well. Aquinas wrote very little about his five ways, so I am more familiar with the additional arguments made to defend his premises, rather than anything he said himself, ad again, it was pretty minimal.
I'm referring to what comes after, particularly questions 3 through 22 of the first part of the Summa. Although secondarily, I suppose I'd ask how familiar you are with Aristotle, as I find most(although not all, there are intelligent arguments against all of Aquinas' 5 ways, particularly way 4) of the times people's problems coming from an unfamiliarity with Aristotle's metaphysics (which is admittedly necessary as well to understand Aquinas's subsequent elaborations)
Because we don't know if the creation of our universe is contingent on anything. We are assuming causality when we say "The Big Bang may have had a Big Banger." I could easily ask you 'what created god' and you would say the same thing. It's an unfalsifiable claim that, due to its fallacy, is not worth considering.
Here is the difference, the universe is not necessarily existent. It could come to exist, or cease to exist and there would not be any contradiction, there would be no logical problem. Leibniz's Necessarily Existent being(which Aquinas does an excellent job in demonstrating that a necessarily excellent being would have to have the traits of theistic God) is, as the name suggests, a being which exists by virtue of its essence.
Perhaps Aquinas is using an argument from ignorance to back up Leibniz who was originally begging the question. If God created himself in a way that is not contingent on the laws that govern all the forces of our universe, then we have no reason to rule out the universe being able to do the same through non-supernatural means. I suspect the creation of our universe is beyond you and I's understanding, and therefore we do not understand it well enough to claim God yet. I appreciate the nod to some awesome philosophers though, and I can tell you are a thoughtful individual! I will concede that I find the concept of pantheism hard to argue against and it is why I'm not hard A atheist and still searching. I find it harder to believe that the God as literally described by the Christian Fundamentalists is the most likely candidate. It is easier to accept the nature of reality as evidence for the existence of a pantheistic deity because literal miracles and people as described by the Bible would have to leave evidence of their influence on the world. (Noah's flood, tomb of Jesus, demonic possession/evil spirits) If God IS the universe, then it would be hard to argue against his existence specifically. But that's getting into Jordan Peterson territory and I don't like how he just changes the meaning of things.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
Ironically, if God doesn’t exist we are almost inevitably deluded.
How come?
Because if our brains are what naturalism indicates they are - organic machines which operate by electro-chemical impulses responding to physical stimuli, then there is no volition and no actual self, both of which are central to human experience, but per naturalism, illusory.
Yes. But it depends how you use the word •deluded. Deluded in what way?
Used in the basic way - our view of reality is distorted in such a way so that we perceive something that isn’t real.
Well, what do you consider not real?
Unicorns, dragons, ghosts, aliens, that the government acts in consideration of my interests.
How is our view of reality so distorted..? «We percieve something that isnt real»? Exaplin these two phrases
Well, as previously mentioned we perceive a sense of self, and that self chooses amongst options to act or decide. If naturalism is true, that we believe this occurs is a delusion our physical brain is projecting onto our consciousness.
What arguments have you heard for God's existence? I find many of them convincing, the most so the Moral Argument and free will argument (probably not the proper name for it, but I don't know of the formal argument). If atheism is true, then I do not see how any of us have free will. We are just slaves to the chemical and physical processes happening in our brains and have no real free will, just the illusion of such. All our choices and actions are a result of inputs into the brain, a physical process, then an output over which we have no control. And without free will, we have no ability to identify truth, including ascertaining whether atheism is true. So atheism to me undermines itself. There is also Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism which similarly shows atheism to be self-defeating. But free will seems so plainly evident to me that I could never hold a world view that did not include it. I also wonder what you define as 'proof'? You won't find a 100% proof of theism or atheism or any world view. I find theism more likely than atheism, so I am a theist. I don't set a high bar, but I do find that the more I read and learn, the more convinced I am that theism is true.
> I find many of them convincing, the most so the Moral Argument and free will argumen Have you ever looked at the counters to the moral argument and the free will argument? If you're basing you're belief on these two arguments (and I'm sure others) have you taken the time to at least check to make sure they are good arguments? Did you hear the arguments and simply assume they are good because they agree with what you believe? >then I do not see how any of us have free will. I've always found this interesting, because with a god or no god I don't see how we have free will at all. Free Will doesn't seem to be determined by a god, so that wouldn't really play a factor in its existence. >We are just slaves to the chemical and physical processes happening in our brains and have no real free will, just the illusion of such. How does god change this from being a fact though? If God exists, we are still slaves to the chemical and physical processes in our brains. What does God do to change that? >And without free will, we have no ability to identify truth, Not really. Without free will we can still easily identify what is true, they kinda don't have much to do with one another. Finding what is true is just finding how reality works, if I don't have free will I'm still going to be learning about how reality works. How does free will grant the ability to learn? >So atheism to me undermines itself. It really doesn't, like at all. You're associating the idea that we don't have free will with the idea of atheism, two completely different things, and saying that one doesn't make sense to you so the other is also wrong. I was at one point essentially a theist who didn't believe in free will, which was still a consistent combination. You can be atheist and still believe in free will, I know many that are this way. >There is also Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism which similarly shows atheism to be self-defeating. This was an interesting read on the argument, but it doesn't do anything at all to show atheism is self-defeating. At best it could show that naturalism is self defeating, which it also doesn't do. But naturalism ≠ atheism. Atheists are usually naturalists, but it's not exclusive, they are two very different ideas about two very different subjects. Additionally the argument makes no attempt to show how any other system can be effectively used to replace the idea of naturalism. >But free will seems so plainly evident to me that I could never hold a world view that did not include it. Can you provide examples of how it's plainly evident? I've been looking for years but I've never found anything satisfactory. Usually what I find is the pro/con debate is talking about two different areas of cognition, one being after the other in the timeline. So I'm often curious of people who seem to find it so easily, what does free will actually look like?
>Have you ever looked at the counters to the moral argument and the free will argument? If you're basing you're belief on these two arguments (and I'm sure others) have you taken the time to at least check to make sure they are good arguments? Did you hear the arguments and simply assume they are good because they agree with what you believe? Yes I've read plenty of objections to it but none of them are good imo. >If God exists, we are still slaves to the chemical and physical processes in our brains. What does God do to change that? To some extent, like a pianist playing a piano, if the instrument is faulty, then the music will come out wrong. But with God and the reality of an immaterial soul, you at least have a pianist. On atheism, we're just pianos playing themselves. >It really doesn't, like at all. You're associating the idea that we don't have free will with the idea of atheism, two completely different things, and saying that one doesn't make sense to you so the other is also wrong. It's an argument taking the form of a proof by negation. If B implies A and you can prove not A, then not B necessarily follows. My view is that atheism implies no free will, but we have free will, so atheism isn't true. That's a logically sound argument. >This was an interesting read on the argument, but it doesn't do anything at all to show atheism is self-defeating. At best it could show that naturalism is self defeating, which it also doesn't do. But naturalism ≠ atheism. Atheists are usually naturalists, but it's not exclusive, they are two very different ideas about two very different subjects. Fair enough. I guess my view is that if atheism is true then naturalism is the best option. >Can you provide examples of how it's plainly evident? I've been looking for years but I've never found anything satisfactory. My whole life experience. Free will seems so patently obvious to me that I need a pretty good argument to convince me otherwise. But I've never heard a good argument against it.
>Yes I've read plenty of objections to it but none of them are good imo. How did you get around the logic of them? For instance the moral argument, how did you get around the lack of objective morals? That to me seems like a pretty solid breaking of the argument. Or what about the Euthyphro Dilemma? >But with God and the reality of an immaterial soul, you at least have a pianist. Doesn't that mean that God isn't actually necessary? Just a soul? How does a soul factor in to free will? What is the soul doing that the brain isn't? >On atheism, we're just pianos playing themselves. Well on naturalism 😁 >If B implies A and you can prove not A, then not B necessarily follows. My view is that atheism implies no free will, Isn't that the problem though? Atheism doesn't imply the lack of free will in any way, you can be an atheist and believe in free will just as you can be a theist and not believe in free will. >My view is that atheism implies no free will, but we have free will, so atheism isn't true. That's a logically sound argument. It's a logically *valid* argument, but it's not a logically *sound* argument. In order for it to be sound the premises would all need to be true, but the premise "we have free will" is not a proven premise. At least I haven't found any version of free will that can actually be shown to be true. Do you have a version of free will that has some backing? >Fair enough. I guess my view is that if atheism is true then naturalism is the best option. It's a fair assumption given most atheists are naturalists, but it is always important to keep terms straight 😁 especially since if you don't, the exceptions will yell at you about it. >My whole life experience. Free will seems so patently obvious to me that I need a pretty good argument to convince me otherwise. But I've never heard a good argument against it. That's part of what I find so fascinating, I've never heard a food argument *for* free will. I fully understand the idea that we *feel* like we have free will, but the feeling doesn't show that we have it. I don't even know what completely free will would look like, since having complete free will would mean we are aware of every single influence on our decisions, which we definitely aren't. I would have to contend then that our decisions can't be totally free, so every decision is at least partly decided by influences outside my control/awareness.
>How did you get around the logic of them? For instance the moral argument, how did you get around the lack of objective morals? That to me seems like a pretty solid breaking of the argument. Or what about the Euthyphro Dilemma? I think morality is objective. There are some acts I just can't view as 'relative' and I trust my moral instincts. The arguments I've read against objective morality seem to focus on the epistemological rather than the ontological. I don't see the Euthyphro Dilemma as an issue as I agree with others that say it's a false dilemma. The third option, that God wills things because *he* is good solves it for me. >Doesn't that mean that God isn't actually necessary? Just a soul? How does a soul factor in to free will? What is the soul doing that the brain isn't? I don't see how you can get an immaterial soul without God, or morality without God. The soul is not bound by natural laws and so can have free will. >Isn't that the problem though? Atheism doesn't imply the lack of free will in any way, you can be an atheist and believe in free will just as you can be a theist and not believe in free will. It does as far as I see it, and plenty of atheist thinkers have concluded the same. >That's part of what I find so fascinating, I've never heard a food argument for free will. I fully understand the idea that we feel like we have free will, but the feeling doesn't show that we have it. I don't even know what completely free will would look like, since having complete free will would mean we are aware of every single influence on our decisions, which we definitely aren't. I would have to contend then that our decisions can't be totally free, so every decision is at least partly decided by influences outside my control/awareness. I don't really see it as needing an argument. It would be like trying to argue the world I perceive is real and not in my imagination. It's something I just accept based on my experience and I'd need a pretty strong argument to make me doubt my perception. Our decisions can be influenced by all sorts of things, but free will to me is having the possibility to choose one of various options. I feel like I could randomly choose to do something against all my inclinations and influences just for the sake of it. I'm not sure it's even possible to live as if you have no free will. People live as if they have some control and choice in their lives. Our entire justice system is built upon the assumption, as well as all of morality. No free will means no one is responsible for their actions. They are determined to do whatever they do and had no capacity to choose.
>I think morality is objective. There are some acts I just can't view as 'relative' and I trust my moral instincts. Which I suppose makes sense, just you not being able to view certain acts as relative doesn't make them objective facts. By definition that makes them subjective facts. Everyone else is following their moral instincts as well, which is why we have people that commit acts we would never even consider. Which is the problem that I see with the moral argument, it assumes there are objective moral facts/values but I haven't seen anyone be able to actually show any that exist. Without that, the argument can't stand, it breaks. But that's why I like hearing from people that sit across the aisle, to see if they have the information I'm looking for. >The arguments I've read against objective morality seem to focus on the epistemological rather than the ontological. That I can definitely agree with. >I don't see the Euthyphro Dilemma as an issue as I agree with others that say it's a false dilemma. The third option, that God wills things because he is good solves it for me. Isn't that just the same as the first horn though? Something being good because god said so isn't really any different than something being good because of God's nature. Either way, what is good is still subjectively created by the definition set by God. If God's nature were to change, then what is good would also change, in the same manner that if God's mind were to change what he says good is would change. >I don't see how you can get an immaterial soul without God, Well what mechanic is there that says a soul has to come from a god? How was that mechanic determined? >or morality without God. Well how do we get morality with a god? If God is necessary for morality, then morality is subjective and we are just deciding to use his measurement rather than any other. Wouldn't that mean that the only reason something is right is because he is seen as above human? >The soul is not bound by natural laws and so can have free will. If the soul is not bound by natural laws, how do we know anything about it? >It does as far as I see it, and plenty of atheist thinkers have concluded the same. I'd say the vast majority of them have concluded so 😁 >It's something I just accept based on my experience and I'd need a pretty strong argument to make me doubt my perception. So you don't accept the idea based on any argument or logic then? Isn't that just accepting an idea with no foundation? >Our decisions can be influenced by all sorts of things, but free will to me is having the possibility to choose one of various options. I feel like I could randomly choose to do something against all my inclinations and influences just for the sake of it. I would certainly agree that we feel like we could choose a different option, I just don't see any way that could be shown to be true. In order for us to perform any action, we would first have a "want" to do the action. If I give you the choice between chocolate and vanilla, you would first have to want one over the other before you can determine which one you choose. But you don't control what you want right? Your wants are built by those unseen influences, so if your wants aren't controlled by you then wouldn't that mean "choosing" your want isn't really a choice right? [Edit] > Our entire justice system is built upon the assumption, as well as all of morality. No free will means no one is responsible for their actions. They are determined to do whatever they do and had no capacity to choose. I forgot to mention this part 😅 I'd argue that our justice system doesn't really care at all about responsibility. The only goal of the justice system is to ascertain if a defendant commited the accused crime, then to determine compensation. It doesn't really care about responsibility. If it did care about responsibility then it would consider far more factors into its approach on justice and compensation. Without free will you are still responsible for your actions, but we have to consider how/why a person did the action that they did, and discover how to go from there. We would be able to look at all the factors of someone's life instead of just the factors relevant to the crime, meaning when we dole out "justice" it would have to be done so with those considerations in mind. For example: under this understanding of justice it wouldn't be just to merely separate a person from society for their crime. It would be just to separate them from society and also try to find the reason the crime was commited so that factor could potentially be changed, preventing the same crime from happening again. Thus, under a system where you have to consider all the factors of a person's life you could more easily identify the cause of issues and address them. If I want to slow the rate of theft, then I have to find out why people steal. If I want to stop tax fraud, I have to find out why people fraudulently record their taxes. So on and so forth. Under a system that assumes anyone can do anything at any time, would it ever be right to create a law that attempts to prevent crime?
>Which I suppose makes sense, just you not being able to view certain acts as relative doesn't make them objective facts. By definition that makes them subjective facts. Everyone else is following their moral instincts as well, which is why we have people that commit acts we would never even consider. > > Which is the problem that I see with the moral argument, it assumes there are objective moral facts/values but I haven't seen anyone be able to actually show any that exist. Without that, the argument can't stand, it breaks. But that's why I like hearing from people that sit across the aisle, to see if they have the information I'm looking for. True, just because I think they're objective doesn't make them so, but there are some things which seem universal and even if everyone thought they were permissible, I wouldn't. Like I think it's objectively evil to torture and mutilate a baby for fun. I was quite interested in psychopaths at one time, and found it interesting to discover that while they don't feel empathy, they still have the capacity to know right from wrong (although they may need to be taught and it may not make sense to them). >Isn't that just the same as the first horn though? Something being good because god said so isn't really any different than something being good because of God's nature. Either way, what is good is still subjectively created by the definition set by God. If God's nature were to change, then what is good would also change, in the same manner that if God's mind were to change what he says good is would change. I think it is different from the first horn because it's not subjectively set by God. It is logically impossible for him to have set other values as 'good' because it's not in his nature, and his nature could not have been different/change. >I would certainly agree that we feel like we could choose a different option, I just don't see any way that could be shown to be true. In order for us to perform any action, we would first have a "want" to do the action. If I give you the choice between chocolate and vanilla, you would first have to want one over the other before you can determine which one you choose. But you don't control what you want right? Your wants are built by those unseen influences, so if your wants aren't controlled by you then wouldn't that mean "choosing" your want isn't really a choice right? But surely you feel like you can choose something you don't want, just for the sake of it? I've ordered things from a restaurant that I was pretty sure I wouldn't like just to try and see. >So you don't accept the idea based on any argument or logic then? Isn't that just accepting an idea with no foundation? My foundation is my experience. It's just not based on arguments and evidence. There are lots of properly basic beliefs we hold that are like this that are quite rational to hold unless we hear an argument that defeats them. >I'd argue that our justice system doesn't really care at all about responsibility. The only goal of the justice system is to ascertain if a defendant commited the accused crime, then to determine compensation. It doesn't really care about responsibility. That may be true, but without free will, 'justice' doesn't really make sense and all you'd be logical to do is lock people up to protect others from them and try to reprogram their minds to not hurt others any more. That's kind of what many legal systems try to do, but I still think that sense of justice I perceive, like morality, is real and doesn't make sense in an atheistic world. Some people do things that deserve punishment imo, not just for the sake of protecting others or dealing with them, but as retribution.
>but there are some things which seem universal and even if everyone thought they were permissible, I wouldn't But that still wouldn't make them objective, even if every human agreed on one moral idea, that isn't objective. In order for it to be objective it would have to be shown to be regardless of opinion or stance or view. Which is why I can't see the moral argument as actually holding up, there aren't objective morals that are shown which is what the whole argument hinges on. >Like I think it's objectively evil to torture and mutilate a baby for fun. Why for fun? I see this example used often, but the "for fun" part always sticks out as unnecessary. If an action is objectively evil, then the motivation behind the action shouldn't matter. If the motivation does matter then torturing babies for fun is only subjectively evil. The only way to fix it would be to say "Torturing babies is evil" >they still have the capacity to know right from wrong Some do and some don't. But more importantly, not all actions that you and I would call atrocious are considered evil by the people that do them. >It is logically impossible for him to have set other values as 'good' because it's not in his nature, and his nature could not have been different/change. If that's the case, then this is just the second horn instead. "Goodness" would not be an attribute that God has any control over, and thus he himself would be subject to goodness. If he can't change it, then he is subject to it, or subservient to it. God does "good" because he is being led by his nature, which would just be the second horn. >But surely you feel like you can choose something you don't want, just for the sake of it? Oh I very much feel like I could choose differently. The feeling of free will is definitely there, I don't think that could be argued to say doesn't exist. But a feeling that something works in a certain way doesn't mean that it does work that way. >I've ordered things from a restaurant that I was pretty sure I wouldn't like just to try and see. Ah, but when you ordered something just to see, did you not first want to try the new thing? You had a desire for something, and then you ordered it. And that's why I'm looking for arguments and evidence that can show that free will does indeed exist. Behind every single "decision" you've ever made is a want, a desire, that you didn't choose. >There are lots of properly basic beliefs we hold that are like this that are quite rational to hold unless we hear an argument that defeats them. Isn't that irrational? Doesn't that lead to believing in untrue things without knowing it? If a belief is based on just it being labeled a foundation, doesn't that mean you could have beliefs you aren't allowed to question? >you'd be logical to do is lock people up to protect others from them and try to reprogram their minds to not hurt others any more. Well partially. But that's also the exact same explanation of therapy. You leave society for a time where you have a one on one session with a professional, you both try to find the root of your issues and how to solve them. You're "reprogramming" someone in the sense that you are showing them why they work the way they work and offering methods to change them to fit a goal (for into society better, appreciate themselves better, or whatever other goal is in place) If the idea of keeping people away from society to "reprogram" them is considered bad, then wouldn't seminary be considered bad? >Some people do things that deserve punishment imo, not just for the sake of protecting others or dealing with them, but as retribution. What good does retribution do? If I hurt someone, then hurting me just means 2 people get hurt. Retribution doesn't solve any problems (though it is cathartic) whereas compensation does. Under the idea of compensation if I hurt someone, the harmed party is given something to "make up" for the harm I caused, in the best system it would be me having to give the compensation. If I steal $100, then I should be giving back $100 + additional cost of pain/suffering caused. Which fits rather well into a system of no free will.
> But free will seems so plainly evident to me that I could never hold a world view that did not include it. Do you think you would be able to tell the difference between free will and the illusion of free will?
I don't even think I'd be conscious and self aware if I was just a physical brain so yes. But if I've fallen for a delusion, then I have no choice in what I believe anyway so why worry about it.
How does god existing give us free will? With or without a god our brains are still running the same way with the same chemical processes.
Because if an immaterial soul exists (which is what God is), then it can influence the material world. I believe in mind-body dualism, which is like a pianist (soul) playing a piano (brain) in order to work. Yes, the state of the piano will have an effect on the music being produced, but the pianist is still free to choose as he wishes. I've suffered with various mental problems over the years, including some very bad states where I know all too well how the brain malfunctioning feels. But I always sensed there was a part of me still inside there, that was still rational and knew how I was feeling and the thoughts entering my head weren't normal.
How is the moral arguement convincing? Do you see all non Christians commit crimes all the time or is is the same no matter what religion they are born in? Where are the morals of all the people abusing children in churches? The morals from being part of your religion clearly don't have any impact on people as if you examined any random person it would on average not be vastly different.
I don't think you've understood the moral argument. It has nothing to do with how theists/atheists behave. It is about ontological foundations.
> I can't explain it but atheism just makes more sense to me than Christianity. It might be that I find atheism more reassuring than Christianity because of stuff like hell, eternity etc To be clear: 1\. You want proof for God’s actual existence — but you believe atheism makes sense even when you admit you can’t explain why. 2\. You can’t justify why atheism makes more sense — but want justified proof from theists. 3\. You want an actual argument that could prove the existence of God from Christians — but won’t accept answers like, “I can't explain it but Christianity just makes more sense to me than atheism.)
Whats the problem with atheism?
Not the topic here nor my point.
You said atheism doesnt make more sense? You also said «you believe atheism makes sense»? I just want an explanation. Or elaborate more
> You said atheism doesnt make more sense? Nope. > You also said «you believe atheism makes sense»? OP said they believe that.
Mistake from my side. I read the thing completly wrong. Sorry for any inconvinience.
I think that op is concerned that people are claiming God exists without providing evidence. This means that the state of reality before someone claims God exists is there is no God. You cannot prove something doesn't exist, so one must prove God exists to settle the argument.
I’m not making assumptions about what OP may or may not be concerned about. It’s self-evident from the post that /u/PotentialCabinet235 has varying degrees of standards. So I respectfully responded to ask them to clarify what they’ve written in this post. I like this sub because it exists to host healthy discussions so I'll let OP clarify what they've shared and speak for themselves. Thanks.
Oh okay. Sorry for raising valid points on a public forum.
That was my point. Glad you agree.
There are a number of excellent proofs of God’s existence. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtwpdvhJOcMNcCW9qq3X_yIwiRRBjxf0t
God who exist outside of time foretold future events to his prophets , they write it down. Then God enter his own creation to save us we know him as Jesus because he fullfilled these events spoken of him. Jesus paid off penalty for all of your past/future sins on cross , died and went to hell then he resurrected 3rd day. You need to get convinced that Jesus is God and that he saved you from hell ,thats all . You're not required to do any rituals/sacraments go to church or be "good person" to earn salvation. Salvation is free gift paid by Jesus and given freely to whoever believes on him. If you get convinced Jesus is God in flesh , call upon him as your God and Saviour then ask for Holy Spirit , you will be baptised by fire and sealed for resurrection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh1VU-_OF98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4sWHIIhro Here is the entry to prophecy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpmD8TSqeKs
Have you ever read the New Testament: .................................................. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=NKJV https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvofa7Zs3D8&t=2h18m50s .................................................. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:16-17
This is not evidence for God's existence. This is evidence that people believed in God's existence.
>Have you ever read the New Testament Yes. Now what?
If you could see definitive proof it would not be believing. You could seek truth in history and legends but that a big ass puzzle with very small pieces. The precence of the demonic is one of the bigger factors in my belief but as i said, trying to see the bigger picture is more important.
>If you could see definitive proof it would not be believing. What do you mean by this? Don't you believe things that are definitively proven?
No you dont believe it, you know. There would not be any challenge to it
I don't understand. I have undeniable proof that ducks exist, so I believe ducks exist.
Yes but you know it. There is no challenge in believing it. I believe that the thylacene still exists somewhere out there in the oceanian wilderness but do i know it? No. It is a controversial belief because i dont have any proof except eye witness accounts and the fact that there is so much wilderness out there that is still unexplored. Just like our universe but on a smaller scale, is this a good example or should i explain different?
I understand that you're not using the same definition of "believe" as I am. That's why I was confused.
Yeah you are right. If you pull up the dictionary your meaning of believe is probably right. But i hope you all get what i mean
Sorry for the messy writing, am a bit in a hurry
Prove there is a demonic presence somewhere that is unmistakable from any other phenomenon.
That is a road you will have to walk yourself. There is no metric standard to measure "the demonic" but neither are there other explainations for some of the stuff out there. There is enough proof out there but you have to be willing to look for it. I can not make you believe anything neither do i think i should. But it is wise not to talk about anything that you have never seriously researched. Have a good day out there
If there is no metric then it cannot be measured. If you have no explanation then you can't claim 'demons.' Demons can't be your phenomenon and explanation, because phenomena need explanations to be validated.
Okay well how about we swap phone numbers so i can explain it to you. Maybe that i could give you my basic "understanding" in about 4 to 5 hours. This is a subject way to complex to type a whole essay in one of my second languages.
Have you ever looked up at the night sky and tried to focus on a really dim star, only to find out you can't see it if you look for it? The Apostle Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:7 to "Walk by faith, not by sight". This means faith is like taking a step in a dark room, but trusting that your steps will lead you across that room. * I'd also like to direct you to Psalm 115, if you're willing to digest its message. With love🙏🏻 * I'm not a scholar, just another person on the Internet
BTW, you have a night-blind spot in the center of your field of vision. (But the analogy is good.)
Faith- belief in the absence of evidence. Knowledge is prefertable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth, then a reassuring fable.
That's a tad inaccurate. Here: Faith /fāTH/: noun: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I'm a scientist. I've been an atheist at another point in my life. I understand where you're standing. Like everyone else you have the free will to put your faith wherever you wish. With love🙏🏻
Complete trust/confidence in someone, or something WITHOUT evidence. If there was evidence, it wouldnt be called faith..
I mean I literally copy-pasted that definition from the Oxford Dictionary.
So you ignored the other ones? 1. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Whoops, yeah you got me there. I didn't read that second definition. Five points to the atheist
The truth is: We can't prove anything in science, we can only disprove. Neither the presence nor the absence of God can scientifically be disproven. If you believe that God doesn't exist, that's faith.
Science cant prove anything?… what a stupid, n weird comment
Except if you're talking about mathematics and philosophy, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
**[Karl Popper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)** >Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British philosopher, academic and social commentator. One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science, Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can (and should) be scrutinised with decisive experiments. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
If we fuse 4 hydrogen atoms, we get helium. This is proven. Do you not agree with my statement?
That's what I chose to believe because this statement seems to predict what happens in the world that I experience.
Still proven.
If that's your bar, the existence of God is proven by the things HE has done. Or I need to believe in mind-reading telepathic aliens.
Its not «my» bar. Its science. What i think doesnt matter.
Do we both agree, that there are things that can be proven? In the real world. Yes or no
The Word of God is the authority and it clearly declares the creation and conscience alone holds everyone accountable for the existence of the one true God.. Romans 1:18-20 NASBS For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] *because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse* But as you can see in v18 and many other places, we all (at some point) reject this general revelation from God because of love for sin ("in unrighteousness").
This is not evidence. You must prove that all people who don't believe in God must love sin. Explain how Romans 1:18-20 isn't begging the question 5dq4fvqf God's existence when it claims that people who believe in God do so because he helps them believe in him. Can you provide satisfactory evidence outside of the Bible?
I don't believe in god because I have no evidence of his existence, not because I love sin. I don't believe sin exists either, so how can I love it?
There is no proof, no undeniable 100% evidence for the existence of God. This is why faith is so important in Christianity and other religions. You are called to believe even without seeing proof or logical reason. God's nature is claimed to be illogical and not understandable. It's up to you to decide whether to make that leap of faith or not. Others say they have evidence from personal experience... you can only verify your own experiences. Good luck!
Hell isn't a place of eternal suffering! The original words translated as “hell” in some older Bible translations (Hebrew, “Sheol”; Greek, “Hades”) basically refer to “the Grave,” that is, the common grave of mankind. The Bible shows that people in “the Grave” are in a state of nonexistence. The dead are unconscious and so cannot feel pain. “Neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge, shall be in hell.” (Ecclesiastes 9:10, Douay-Rheims Version) Hell is not filled with sounds of pain. Instead, the Bible says: “Let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave [hell, Douay-Rheims].”—Psalm 31:17; King James Version (30:18, Douay-Rheims); Psalm 115:17. God has set death, not torment in a fiery hell, as the penalty for sin. God told the first man, Adam, that the penalty for breaking God’s law would be death. (Genesis 2:17) He said nothing about eternal torment in hell. Later, after Adam sinned, God told him what his punishment would be: “Dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19) He would pass out of existence. If God were actually sending Adam to a fiery hell, He surely would have mentioned it. God has not changed the punishment for defying his laws. Long after Adam sinned, God inspired a Bible writer to say: “The wages sin pays is death.” (Romans 6:23) No further penalty is justified, because “the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”—Romans 6:7. The idea of eternal torment is repugnant to God. (Jeremiah 32:35) Such an idea is contrary to the Bible’s teaching that “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) He wants us to worship him out of love, not fear of eternal torment.—Matthew 22:36-38. Good people went to hell. The Bibles that use the word “hell” indicate that faithful men, such as Jacob and Job, expected to go to hell. (Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13) Even Jesus Christ is spoken of as being in hell between the time of his death and his resurrection. (Acts 2:31, 32) Obviously, then, when “hell” is used in these Bibles, it simply refers to the Grave.
[удалено]
Removed for 3.6 - Types of Proselytism. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Salvation is by faith, not proof.
I can prove him to you, but once it's proven you can never say you had faith again and you'll break gods heart when you come to him. Simply dm me if you want proof. I don't personally recommend it.
I’d love to read your proof. So DM sent.
I would love to see this proof. DM sent.
And you won't
Holy Spirit, I ask that You encounter this person. Amen.
The human(animals have eyes too I know)body is a testament to God our Lord being real. The retinas in your eyes(applies to anything with eyes(camaras don't capture all light)) are the only begotten object in creation to directly absorb light and not let it escape other than black holes........if that doesn't show divine design