BTW, if differing opinions of the Bible renders its authority as “useless”, then the same can be said of opinions not based on the Bible since these also are only as falliable as the person who claims them. Not only that, but who can even call them falliable? They’re simply opinions. Today we kill Jews and cripples, tomorrow we say, “Well, that was a mistake, but now we’re right.”

As far as the ontological argument goes, is light as much dark as it is light or is dark the absence of light? How does God have two natures? That whole argument makes no sense to me. But then I said I would leave this alone and that is that. This may be fodder for another post someday.

My view has no problem with any of this. I know why the Earth is harder to move than a tree with roots, God made it that way! The analogy was obvously meant to be framed in a way where a more relavant question would have been, “Which is easier to move? A tree with roots or one floating in a deep lake?” Besides, I thought you said you weren’t relativistic.

This all seems to me to be straining at a gnat to swallow a camel.

The chemical elements were once considered to be the fundamental building blocks on which all matter was based. Then a couple hundred years ago the atom was proposed. The atom was the fundamental building block until protons, electrons and neutrons where proposed. Then quantum theory and quarks emerged. Who thinks that quarks are the most fundamental building blocks?

The “heavens” used to be thought of as a canope that was stretched over the earth like a tent, from which stars were hung. We know of no such boundary now and have no reason to believe “the heavens” do not go on for ever in all directions. Stars belong to galaxies which belong to clusters which belong to superclusters, etc.

It was once thought that if you sailed in one direction long enough that you would literally sail off the face of the earth. It is now known that you could sail in one direction indefinitely and never sail of the end because earth’s surface is circular.

Melissa, the basis of your first cause argument is that the causal chain cannot extend inifitely or be circular, but you have provided no reason here to believe that it is not just “turtles all the way down.”

Your point (4) above is also known as the ontological argument. The problem with this argument is that “evil” and “malevolence” are also qualities, which, by the same argument, must attribute their values to the uncaused creator, making God as infinitely evil as he is good.

The problem with point (5) is that you never define “order.” If it is just the opposite of entropy, then diamonds, crystals and snowflakes are just a few examples of order forming from disorder naturally without a divine intelligence. You can continue to claim that someone needed to “invent” the natural laws governing behavior of snowflakes, but who is to say that there is no infinite regression of inventors?

Even if these a priori arguments were valid support of the existence of an uncreated creator (and therefore absolute morality), accepting the existence of absolute morality is not the same thing as knowing what is morally absolute. Since many claim the existence of an uncreated creator, but have differing notions of morality, this concept remains useless. Whose version is accurate, and by what standard should we evaluate the accuracy of each?

The reason I said that your version of God was illogical is because he essentially has two wills, (1) that which he wants to do and (2) that which is his sovereign plan. He essentially wishes not to follow his own predestined plan but that will is powerless against the other. So he dislikes morality, but his plan requires it. He wants to save all men, but that is not the plan.

andersj says: I think it’s important to be able to say more than that it’s totally logical to believe in God. There were many logical and smart people who believed fervently in gods of all types, including the sun, moon, mountains, etc.

What do you mean that it’s important to be able to say more? What sort of thing should one be able to say?

That was an interesting line of thought and well said. My upbringing must have been similar to yours in regard to how to view morals. So with me too, it came as a surprise to me how well one could live one’s life outside of a theistic worldview at all.

But Christian theology can step in on this point and say that those who behave themselves are not anymore righteous than a thief or murderer, and those who do well are merely better at hiding their depravity. That’s exactly the accusation, however uncharitable it may seem, that they are hiding their problem and not confessing to and relying upon God.

I wonder if that’s how most Christians process the phenomenon you mention. If so, there’s backing in the book of Romans for it, so it wouldn’t need to be questioned on the basis of its being pessimistic toward the judgment of others.

Relating this back to the discussion at hand, how can Christians recognize that the unbeliever can do good things for good reasons and still claim religion as necessary to morality? Speaking from my experience, I would say that first off, there’s great motivation to advocate your religion on all fronts regardless of whether that front is critical to belief. Thus in the case of God being the basis for morality, you’d still argue the point because it speaks well of the Faith.

Second, with religion historically being at the forefront of certain moral issues, it’s not altogether impossible to claim.

Third, you believe that God has made a positive difference in your life and without this difference, you would be evil, even if possibly outwardly moral. That is, there’s a personal aspect to this, which has been evident to me in some of the arguments.

Thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify, my point was not to say that morals based on natural law are superior to morals based on divine law. Just the opposite, many of us were taught that divinely-inspired morals are superior. That without the divinve, there can’t be true morality. Therefore, any “morality” based on anything other than the divine is a false morality.

Since I have lived virtually my entire conscious existence with that belief it has taken some time to try to at least understand people who did not grow up in that orientation and who nevertheless appear to have an inner code of conduct, mostly inherited I assume from family. It has intrigued me that some of these people, with no apparent concern how their conduct will be judged by the divine, hold firm moral views. I am not suggesting that such conduct will redeem them, but as I compare the underpinnings for my code versus their’s, it strikes me that their’s may be more remarkable. Perhaps they have a subconscious awareness of the divine or perhaps they exist in a perpetual state of denial, I don’t know. What I have in common with them is this: I was taught that there is a God and there are certain things that I ought to do and certain things I ought not to do. They have been taught that whether or not there is a God, as far as their family is concerned there are certain things they ought to do and certain things they ought not to do. Their moral principles are infused into their marrow as much as mine. I’m not saying one is necessarily superior to the other. I just find it intriguing and it has made me wrestle with some of my preconceptions about people who do not have faith. I think I looked down on them and felt superior to them. Ironically, I even felt morally superior to them when I was less outwardly moral than them.

Given that we are all concerned with the apparent rapid evaporation of moral underpinnings in our society, I just wonder if it might make more sense for us to consider embracing more fully people who feel inclined to respond positively to their conscience whether or not they acknowledge God as the author of the impulse. There are many such people and I’m ashamed to say their moral compasses have at times put mine to shame.

As for the children in the class, the analogy actually helps my point because there has to have been a definition of ‘behave’ in order for the children to misbehaved when the teacher wasn’t looking.
I understand, though, that this is not your point. As I understand it, your point is to say that if the children only obey because the teacher is looking, then it isn’t that the children have obedient characters, just that they can keep from getting caught. This is nice for keeping the order but not a deep commitment for integrity’s sake to be commended. Yes, I agree.

Applied, I believe you are saying that if I (in this case) only think killing for sport is wrong because of my belief in God, then that is somehow inferior to your belief that killing for sport is wrong because that is how you feel. As if your feeling is somehow more trustworthy than me basing my beliefs on something outside of myself.
to answer this I just say that I never said that I do not also hold the position in my heart that killing for sport is wrong. This is my point then, We all tend to agree on this. Why? Well, I have a reason, as you know. I just don’t think that without an Ultimate Authority, you do.

Warren, and all,

There is a lot of very good ‘evidence’ of a god. Then, if there is a god, has he spoken? I think he has, I also have ‘evidence’ convincing me of this. This leads me to the Christian Bible since simply the Jewish Bible would not be enough considering that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in the Old Testament.

I am not going to bother going through all this as I have other things to do. I will give you the very brief view of Thomas Aquinas’ 5 Proofs for the Existance of God:

1. Without a first cause nothing can be set in motion.
>If something is set in motion, something else must have done it and so on and so on but not to infinity because that would require a first mover.

2. Therefore there must exist a First Cause OUTSIDE of the “caused” that does not require a first cause itself.

3 There must have been a time when Earth was NOT.
>Things corrupt over time. Therefore there must be a time where it is possible to be and possible not to be.

4. Goodness and Justice, Universal qualities of man, must attribute their varying qualities to God (Particularily here, the uncaused Creator), the source of maximum and perfect justice.
>In classifying something there is always something which displays the maximum fullness of that characteristic. (for something to be sort of hot, we need to know what Hot is.)

5. The existance of order and natural laws presupposes a divine inelligence who authored the Universe into being. (First Cause again)
> Chance does not bring about order. Go ahead drop a cup, it will break into disorder. It will never happen the other way around. Before you pick at this illustration remember that you still must have first cause.

That is a very brief summary of a lot of information. As for the rest of my logic, you will have to do your own research. I won’t even reply to this part of the subject anymore on this thread. Whether or not my argument is perwuasive to you has no bearing on the logiic of my argument. (I would guess you would agree with me since whether or not you persuade me does not affect the voracity of your argument.) My point is simply to say that my belief, if you want to call it that (I do.), is not illogical or simply inherited. It has very good logic and Aquinas is only one of Many. And it Certainly does not disqualify me from using information based on it when I vote.

Also,
I don’t understand what you mean about my ‘version of God’ being illogical. Please explain.

Denying God’s existence is not denying an essential truth unless he exists. Of course, if he does not, then denying that he doesn’t exist is also denying an essential truth.

If it’s relevant that many former atheists are now Christians, then it must be relevant that many thousands more former Christians are now atheists based on evidence.

If there is persuasive evidence of God’s existence, please provide it.

It is, indeed, not illogical to believe there’s a God, but I do contend that your version is illogical because it is self-contradicting. I also say that just because it isn’t illogical, doesn’t mean it is therefore logical. I challenge you to demonstrate the logic which evidences the existence of God.

I’ve always been puzzled by this: If an elementary school student behaves in class because he thinks the teacher is watching, is that conduct in some way to be admired more than the student who behaves believing that no one is watching?