Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[RedFish]

Can I offer 1 Corinthiians 13 for consideration? Revised standard. You don't want me to type the whole thing out, right?
...And hot chicks...

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

I didn't think you were referring to anyone in particular. I was talking about my reasons for being atheist because I can't speak for all atheists.

There are no 'moral absolutes'. I tried explaining this to you earlier about how if you were born elsewhere your 'moral absolutes' would be different. If moral absolutes can be different depending on where you are born, they aren't absolute. Moral absolutes seems to mean morals that are established or 'vaguely referenced' by very old text that is said to be the word of a deity through humans and if that is the case then then Christian morals are just as absolute as Muslim morals. I don't know why Christians think they get their morals from the Bible. The Bible says that Christians are immune to snake poison and that you should stone homosexuals. I'm pretty sure there are even details about how to deal with rape victims in the Bible that are absurd: the victim must be paid by the suspect and the suspect and victim must get married (if i recall correctly).

"we are inherently good, but we become corrupted by the evils of society." jean-jacques rousseau

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate

[fr0d0]

God's morals are fixed and the law of the Torah is mostly superseded with Jesus who interpreted God's law accurately. That's what 'fulfil' means.

Fulfilling the Torah was the task of a first century rabbi. The technical term for interpreting the Scripture so it would be obeyed correctly was -fulfill-. To interpret Scripture incorrectly so it would not be obeyed as God intended was to -destroy- the Torah. Jesus uses these terms to describe his task as well (Matt. 5:17-19). Contrary to what some think Jesus did not come to do away with God's Torah or Old Testament. He came to complete it and to show how to correctly keep it. One of the ways Jesus interpreted the Torah was to stress the importance of the right attitude of heart as well as the right action (Matt. 5:27-28 ).

Source - http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2753

[tackattack]

@flying skeptic- was that to me? What you're referencing is not a moral absolute, it's a societal local moral. I see it as scalable from
0- no moral
1-subjective morality
2-societal morality (local)
3-societal morality (universaly)
4-absolute morality
most people fall under 2,3and 4 in some level, based of the situation. to say a moral absolute doesn't exist is facetious,bcause at the very least it exists as a concept nad that's how I'm using it here. As a concept for honing or personal morals into a grander perspective and a more objective tool. Christians shouldn't get their morals from the Bible, morality is, at it's core, subjective and Christians should use the laws written on their hearts by God as a standard, the same as atheists (they just claim that no one wrotethem there).
I of course fundamentally disagree with the jean-jacques rousseau quote. I've seen time and time again, left to their own devices the majority fails regularly to be self-less while all at some point can not help but take for their own. I think society is a reflection o self and that's why jean-jacques rousseau sensibility movement with high emphasis on subjectivity and introspection was such a goo step to improving society.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

@flying skeptic- was that to me? What you're referencing is not a moral absolute, it's a societal local moral. I see it as scalable from
0- no moral
1-subjective morality
2-societal morality (local)
3-societal morality (universaly)
4-absolute morality
most people fall under 2,3and 4 in some level, based of the situation. to say a moral absolute doesn't exist is facetious,bcause at the very least it exists as a concept nad that's how I'm using it here. As a concept for honing or personal morals into a grander perspective and a more objective tool. Christians shouldn't get their morals from the Bible, morality is, at it's core, subjective and Christians should use the laws written on their hearts by God as a standard, the same as atheists (they just claim that no one wrotethem there).
I of course fundamentally disagree with the jean-jacques rousseau quote. I've seen time and time again, left to their own devices the majority fails regularly to be self-less while all at some point can not help but take for their own. I think society is a reflection o self and that's why jean-jacques rousseau sensibility movement with high emphasis on subjectivity and introspection was such a goo step to improving society.

What behaviors would you classify as 'laws written by God in our hearts'? I bet whatever you come up with will happen to be a behavior that increases our survivability, consistent with evolutionary biology. I'm not completely faithful to my quote of Rousseau. I prefer to say most people don't 'do bad' for their own good.

Don't you think atheists have no basis for morality? (a belief held by many Christians I have argued with)

[tackattack]

sacrifical altruism, relentless curiosity, introspection, trust. I dont deny there have been some solid research in kin selection on some of these points. I don't deny that most, if not all, were accounted for by survivability. I don't think it's coinsidence that we're designed for survivability. Why wold a creation striving toward evolution to transcendence not need survivability as an ingredient. I'm not farmiliar with the timeline of necessity for evolutionary biology, but I'd like to do some personal reseach on the subject. My question would be how long would it take a species of self-serving mammals to form a society then develop altruism?
As far as athesits having no basis for morality; I think people (atheists and theists) have a common intuitive basis for morality skewed by society and nuturing . I think we all have the potential to be more alike and less unique than is commonly accepted.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

sacrifical altruism, relentless curiosity, introspection, trust. I dont deny there have been some solid research in kin selection on some of these points. I don't deny that most, if not all, were accounted for by survivability. I don't think it's coinsidence that we're designed for survivability. Why wold a creation striving toward evolution to transcendence not need survivability as an ingredient. I'm not farmiliar with the timeline of necessity for evolutionary biology, but I'd like to do some personal reseach on the subject. My question would be how long would it take a species of self-serving mammals to form a society then develop altruism?
As far as athesits having no basis for morality; I think people (atheists and theists) have a common intuitive basis for morality skewed by society and nuturing . I think we all have the potential to be more alike and less unique than is commonly accepted.

correct me if i'm wrong but your question seems to assume that society should come before altruism. If i'm correct in my interpretation, I see altruism coming before what we call society. *looks up definition of 'society' on onelook.com.

▸ noun: an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization
▸ noun: the fashionable elite
▸ noun: a formal association of people with similar interests ("They formed a small lunch society")
▸ noun: the state of being with someone ("He enjoyed the society of his friends")

if you were referring to society as in the first definition, I believe altruism is simpler than society. if you refer to 'society' as in the third or last definition, I see altruism and society as one. We aren't the only species that demonstrates altruism. Whale hunters knew this when they would wound a baby whale knowing that its family would respond to its distress. I would call the adult whales response to their offsprings' cries 'altruism'.

From what I've read, our species took about 90,000 years to civilize (e.i. the first definition of society). We have only started thoroughly recording our history for what? 200 years?

As far as athesits having no basis for morality; I think people (atheists and theists) have a common intuitive basis for morality skewed by society and nuturing

Yeah, you know what the consequences of killing someone else is, now you go to jail, but if it weren't for today's justice system then humans would respond in the same way as whales of course and seek revenge (inspiring Moby Dick), an eye for an eye.

[tackattack]

When I said society I was referenceing a group of people communally living together for a benefit to the whole. Community would have been a better term and yes I'm presuming we formed groups and a heirarchy anf lived communally before the invention of altruism.

Actualy on your last point the Christian teachings are against "an eye for an eye" which is more messianic law.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

When I said society I was referenceing a group of people communally living together for a benefit to the whole. Community would have been a better term and yes I'm presuming we formed groups and a heirarchy anf lived communally before the invention of altruism.

Actualy on your last point the Christian teachings are against "an eye for an eye" which is more messianic law.

I didn't mean that Christianity was for 'eye for an eye'. Why do you think society comes before altruism?

[tackattack]

Because to have a belief in helping others at some cost to yourself for the betterment of the whole is by definition assuming to have a whole to better. That whole would be community thus altruism comes after community.