There are a couple points that caught my attention in this thread that I wanted to share my thoughts on. If I broke any forum rules, I apologize in advance. Please have mercy on a newbie!
Does lack of evidence for God justify atheism?
It appears to me that many people believe that we need proof to believe in God's existence and that in the absence of such proof, we shouldn't believe that God exists. The thing that puzzles me about this view is that if there are no good reasons to think that God exists and no good reasons to think that He doesn't, then I'd think we're left with agnosticism, not atheism. And it seems to me that in a truly neutral intellectual position on the existence of God, choosing to believe in God's existence would be the more pragmatic option given the choice between eternal salvation or damnation. Now, maybe some of you will argue that there are better reasons to think that God doesn't exist than otherwise, in which case, I'd say you're rationally justified in taking the atheist position. I'd argue though, that there are many good reasons to think that God exists and no good reasons to think that He doesn't, and thus that the atheist is simply mistaken.
Evidence for God:
I'm simply shocked that some comments in this thread have mentioned there being no "proof" or "evidence" of the supernatural, much less God. It seems to me that there is an abundance of good reasons to think that God exists.
1. The Contingency Argument: If the universe exists contingently, then there must be a necessary first cause. That cause must be extremely powerful, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, self-existent, and in possession of a conscious mind. We call this first cause God.
2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The universe came into existence from nothing, and we call the transcendent cause of the universe which shares all the above properties God.
3. The Modal Ontological Argument: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then by the nature of His being maximally great, He does exist. We call that being God.
4. The Teleological Argument: The best explanation for the extraordinary fine-tuning of the universe of the existence of life is a highly intelligent transcendent being. We call that being God.
5. The Moral Argument: Objective moral values exist and must be grounded in an objective standard. We call this standard God.
6. The Historical Argument: The best explanation of the historical facts surrounding the apostles' claims of Jesus' resurrection, boldness in proclaiming the Gospel, and eventual martyrdom, as well as the rise of early Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus, the best explanation of which is God.
7. Testimony: The vast number of widespread, independent eyewitness testimonies of miracles, answered prayer, transformation of character, and personal experience with God give us good reason to believe that God does exist.
I'm sure none of you are strangers to these classical arguments but I think it's highly unfair to dismiss them as bad arguments. If you were really skeptical, I'd think you'd regard them as contentious at worst, and less plausible than positive arguments for atheism at best, but not entirely dismiss them to say that there's "no evidence" of God's existence!
Grounding morality on human happiness
I don't see how morality can be objectively grounded on human happiness or the prevention of pain. In order for something to be objective, it must remain true regardless of whether anyone agrees with it. Even if every human being on earth agreed that happiness was equivalent to the good, that wouldn't make it any more true than if every human being agreed that 2+2=5. And it seems like it's often the case that people do disagree with whether everyone's happiness matters equally (eg. Hitler), so I find it especially implausible for objective moral values to be grounded in something as fickle and arbitrary as the majority's conception of human happiness. The problem with grounding objective morality in happiness rears its ugly head in the plethora of unintuitive consequences that arise from utilitarianism as a moral theory (eg. condoning sadism and sacrificing some for the benefit of others). Now, if the argument is that morality is subjective and that's ok, then it would seem to me that because there's no objective standard with which to compare moral actions, morality itself would be illusory. Under moral relativism, the Holocaust will share the same moral status as aiding the poor; one action cannot be said to be more right than the other and morality is reduced to mere human taste and preference. If you share my intuition that there's something horribly wrong with this view, then I think you'd agree with me that there are such things as objective moral values.
God as the source of objective morality
So, if objective moral values do exist, then I think in virtue of being the maximally great being, God is the perfect candidate for being the objective source of morality. This doesn't mean that people who don't believe in God can't know or do good, nor does it mean that we don't have a responsibility to think hard about what is right or wrong. Positing God as the source of objective morality is an ontological statement, not an epistemic one. The Bible and God's revelations are certainly ways in which we can discover what these objective moral values are, but they definitely don't preclude reason, emotion, and intuition as tools of discernment.
Euthyphro Dilemma
I would argue that this is a false dilemma and that a third option exists. I don't think objective moral values are abstract concepts that God pays homage to because He recognizes their inherent goodness, nor do I think that something is deemed morally correct merely because God commands it. Rather, I would argue that God's nature IS the good; that is, every moral action, value, and duty is evaluated against God's very nature (just, kind, loving, honest, etc).
Our moral duty to obey God
Thus, because God is the ultimate source of objective morality, we as moral agents have a duty to obey God's commands and aim to act in accordance with His nature. Even if no human being recognizes God's moral law as correct, it wouldn't change the fact that God's nature is the objective standard of morality and that by disobeying Him or acting against His nature, human beings are liable for punishment. In addition, if God is morally perfect (since morality is objectively grounded in His nature) and human beings are not, then it should not come as a surprise to us that we don't understand why God does or commands some of the things He does. With the knowledge that God is the source of objective morality, it seems to me that it's not only morally wrong for human beings to disobey His commands, but also horribly arrogant and unwise.
Slaughter of the Canaanites
Within the framework of objective morality I've discussed earlier, I think the slaughter of the Canaanites can be fully understood as an act of God's judgment. Certainly, as imperfect moral agents, we are normally prohibited from killing one another under God's moral law. However, under this version of Divine Command Theory, when God decrees a specific command to someone, that command takes moral precedence over the written law and it becomes that person's moral duty to obey that command. In the case of the Canaanites, God used Israel as an instrument with which to execute His will to punish the Canaanites for their sinfulness. If you were to ask why God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites instead of doing it Himself, I think God had a number of morally justifiable reasons. First, He was building Israel as God's nation, showing the Israelites a demonstration of His power so that they may revere Him as lord, and giving them the land promised to Abraham and his descendants. Second, God commanded the total annihilation of the Canaanites because he knew that paganism had to be completely wiped out or else it would have a corrupting influence on Israel. As we later learn, the Israelites disobeyed God and failed to destroy all the pagans, which ultimately led to Israel's fall into idolatry and rebellion against God in Judges. In the same way that He used Israel to bring judgment upon the Canaanites, God later uses the pagan armies of Babylon to bring judgment upon Israel for disobeying Him. Now, one more thing I might add is that God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. However, God doesn't take life arbitrarily; because He is the morally perfect being, He doesn't do anything without a morally justifiable reason. The Canaanite adults were being reasonably punished for their sin, but what about the children? If you believe, as I do, that young children who die go to heaven, then it seems to me that God did them no wrong by taking their lives early, but actually showed them mercy by preventing them from growing up into a life of sin and allowing them to have an eternity of joy in heaven in exchange for momentary pain.
Does lack of evidence for God justify atheism?
It appears to me that many people believe that we need proof to believe in God's existence and that in the absence of such proof, we shouldn't believe that God exists. The thing that puzzles me about this view is that if there are no good reasons to think that God exists and no good reasons to think that He doesn't, then I'd think we're left with agnosticism, not atheism. And it seems to me that in a truly neutral intellectual position on the existence of God, choosing to believe in God's existence would be the more pragmatic option given the choice between eternal salvation or damnation. Now, maybe some of you will argue that there are better reasons to think that God doesn't exist than otherwise, in which case, I'd say you're rationally justified in taking the atheist position. I'd argue though, that there are many good reasons to think that God exists and no good reasons to think that He doesn't, and thus that the atheist is simply mistaken.
Evidence for God:
I'm simply shocked that some comments in this thread have mentioned there being no "proof" or "evidence" of the supernatural, much less God. It seems to me that there is an abundance of good reasons to think that God exists.
1. The Contingency Argument: If the universe exists contingently, then there must be a necessary first cause. That cause must be extremely powerful, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, self-existent, and in possession of a conscious mind. We call this first cause God.
2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The universe came into existence from nothing, and we call the transcendent cause of the universe which shares all the above properties God.
3. The Modal Ontological Argument: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then by the nature of His being maximally great, He does exist. We call that being God.
4. The Teleological Argument: The best explanation for the extraordinary fine-tuning of the universe of the existence of life is a highly intelligent transcendent being. We call that being God.
5. The Moral Argument: Objective moral values exist and must be grounded in an objective standard. We call this standard God.
6. The Historical Argument: The best explanation of the historical facts surrounding the apostles' claims of Jesus' resurrection, boldness in proclaiming the Gospel, and eventual martyrdom, as well as the rise of early Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus, the best explanation of which is God.
7. Testimony: The vast number of widespread, independent eyewitness testimonies of miracles, answered prayer, transformation of character, and personal experience with God give us good reason to believe that God does exist.
I'm sure none of you are strangers to these classical arguments but I think it's highly unfair to dismiss them as bad arguments. If you were really skeptical, I'd think you'd regard them as contentious at worst, and less plausible than positive arguments for atheism at best, but not entirely dismiss them to say that there's "no evidence" of God's existence!
Grounding morality on human happiness
I don't see how morality can be objectively grounded on human happiness or the prevention of pain. In order for something to be objective, it must remain true regardless of whether anyone agrees with it. Even if every human being on earth agreed that happiness was equivalent to the good, that wouldn't make it any more true than if every human being agreed that 2+2=5. And it seems like it's often the case that people do disagree with whether everyone's happiness matters equally (eg. Hitler), so I find it especially implausible for objective moral values to be grounded in something as fickle and arbitrary as the majority's conception of human happiness. The problem with grounding objective morality in happiness rears its ugly head in the plethora of unintuitive consequences that arise from utilitarianism as a moral theory (eg. condoning sadism and sacrificing some for the benefit of others). Now, if the argument is that morality is subjective and that's ok, then it would seem to me that because there's no objective standard with which to compare moral actions, morality itself would be illusory. Under moral relativism, the Holocaust will share the same moral status as aiding the poor; one action cannot be said to be more right than the other and morality is reduced to mere human taste and preference. If you share my intuition that there's something horribly wrong with this view, then I think you'd agree with me that there are such things as objective moral values.
God as the source of objective morality
So, if objective moral values do exist, then I think in virtue of being the maximally great being, God is the perfect candidate for being the objective source of morality. This doesn't mean that people who don't believe in God can't know or do good, nor does it mean that we don't have a responsibility to think hard about what is right or wrong. Positing God as the source of objective morality is an ontological statement, not an epistemic one. The Bible and God's revelations are certainly ways in which we can discover what these objective moral values are, but they definitely don't preclude reason, emotion, and intuition as tools of discernment.
Euthyphro Dilemma
I would argue that this is a false dilemma and that a third option exists. I don't think objective moral values are abstract concepts that God pays homage to because He recognizes their inherent goodness, nor do I think that something is deemed morally correct merely because God commands it. Rather, I would argue that God's nature IS the good; that is, every moral action, value, and duty is evaluated against God's very nature (just, kind, loving, honest, etc).
Our moral duty to obey God
Thus, because God is the ultimate source of objective morality, we as moral agents have a duty to obey God's commands and aim to act in accordance with His nature. Even if no human being recognizes God's moral law as correct, it wouldn't change the fact that God's nature is the objective standard of morality and that by disobeying Him or acting against His nature, human beings are liable for punishment. In addition, if God is morally perfect (since morality is objectively grounded in His nature) and human beings are not, then it should not come as a surprise to us that we don't understand why God does or commands some of the things He does. With the knowledge that God is the source of objective morality, it seems to me that it's not only morally wrong for human beings to disobey His commands, but also horribly arrogant and unwise.
Slaughter of the Canaanites
Within the framework of objective morality I've discussed earlier, I think the slaughter of the Canaanites can be fully understood as an act of God's judgment. Certainly, as imperfect moral agents, we are normally prohibited from killing one another under God's moral law. However, under this version of Divine Command Theory, when God decrees a specific command to someone, that command takes moral precedence over the written law and it becomes that person's moral duty to obey that command. In the case of the Canaanites, God used Israel as an instrument with which to execute His will to punish the Canaanites for their sinfulness. If you were to ask why God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites instead of doing it Himself, I think God had a number of morally justifiable reasons. First, He was building Israel as God's nation, showing the Israelites a demonstration of His power so that they may revere Him as lord, and giving them the land promised to Abraham and his descendants. Second, God commanded the total annihilation of the Canaanites because he knew that paganism had to be completely wiped out or else it would have a corrupting influence on Israel. As we later learn, the Israelites disobeyed God and failed to destroy all the pagans, which ultimately led to Israel's fall into idolatry and rebellion against God in Judges. In the same way that He used Israel to bring judgment upon the Canaanites, God later uses the pagan armies of Babylon to bring judgment upon Israel for disobeying Him. Now, one more thing I might add is that God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. However, God doesn't take life arbitrarily; because He is the morally perfect being, He doesn't do anything without a morally justifiable reason. The Canaanite adults were being reasonably punished for their sin, but what about the children? If you believe, as I do, that young children who die go to heaven, then it seems to me that God did them no wrong by taking their lives early, but actually showed them mercy by preventing them from growing up into a life of sin and allowing them to have an eternity of joy in heaven in exchange for momentary pain.
