Christians and Their Homework!

[Succubus]

...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....

With this sort of reasoning it's hardly surprising you're puzzled. There are a thousand and three reasons to think God exists, unfortunately, they are all unevidence. This alone is reason enough to conclude no such entity exists. Please furnish just one fact, just one piece of irrefutable evidence for the existence of God, any god. And please do not quote scripture it will only do your case a power of harm.
Incidentally, agnosticism and atheism are two unrelated positions and if you took a little time to browse this site before jumping in eyes wide shut you would know this.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

Atheism is saying no to the question "do you believe in god" so atheism and agnosticism are not separate entities. It is perfectly possible to be an agnostic atheist.
I personally am an atheist because I have never been presented with any evidence that I find convincing FOR gods. But if some were to be presented I would evaluate it and make up my own mind based on that evidence.

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.

This is a poor argument for a number of reasons firstly which belief system should you adhere to? there are many thousands now and even more that have withered away. So you could believe in the "wrong" god very easily.

But I would say my main reason for non-belief is that its silly.
I've always found the idea to be childish like belief in the tooth fairy or santa clause.

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.

Seriously the 5 ways again! these have all been so totally destroyed that its just getting boring.

I cant be bothered now so heres a video. enjoy.

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.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

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.

Eye witness accounts are not proof. Or do you believe in UFOs?

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!

But they really are bad arguments and we have looked at all of them in extradinary detail.

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.

Morality is subjective.
How do I know?
Because morality has changed. Until recently it was considered immoral to be homosexual but now being bigoted against homosexuals is immoral.

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.

How is this god as morality arbiter supposed to work? Seriously, if someone does something immoral does god appear and tell you that's enough of that sort of thing. Or is it the society that you are in that judges you. And its the society you live in that in fact sets the rules and enforces them.

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).

The "nice" god is a new development isn't it.
The god of the old testament was a relentless git at one time killing everyone except a small family and only some of the animals.
One of the most cruel characters in all fiction is held up as theists perfect being. I just don't get it.

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.

You are wrong.

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.

Well then you are a shit.

[Whateverist]

That last bit about the Canaanites made me wonder just what kind of being a person killed as an infant is supposed to be in heaven. Most of us are greatly transformed by the experience of maturation. Would a person killed as an infant spend eternity cooing like a babe? Or would it just mysteriously become what it would have become had it not skipped all the developmental stages?

Don't mind me. This is one small oddball thing among many. It just caught my eye.

[Edwardo Piet]

A Christian who kudosed my post about annilingus......... how can THAT be a true Christian?! Lol.

Eats in the same cafeteria as you, evidently.   I don't recall anything in the buybull that prohibits it.

Ah I see. It's okay to lick an arse just not fuck one

Actually technically, it's okay to fuck arse. Unless you're a male and it's another male arse. Also no shellfish.

[Whateverist]

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!

I'm not aware of any rules you've broken but functionally a post covering so many separate points doesn't lend itself well to a forum discussion.  

Regarding the Canaanite passage, I believe the better response is to reflect on the manner in which the bible was put together and how that does not justify the height of the pedestal you all want to place it on.

[Angrboda]

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.

"Don't quit your day job."

[Minimalist]

.Figures you would cite one of the very few passages in the entire biblical text which says something like this.

Sadly for shitheads like you, there are many such passages.

Fear not, though.  They are all fantasy.  None of it every happened.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

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.

There's not one verse in the Bible that says that children go to heaven.  

The idea that children go to paradise is an Islamic idea, not a biblical one.  

[GrandizerII]

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.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can be an atheist and not believe in God, but also not confidently know whether their lack of belief reflects reality or not. Furthermore, even if a God did exist, he wouldn't necessarily be the God that you happen to worship. Therefore, for Pascal's Wager to be taken seriously, you not only need to demonstrate that a God exists, but you need to also demonstrate that such a God would be petty enough to harm you for eternity if you choose not to believe in him by the end of your current lifetime.

That said, what are good reasons to believe God exists given that such a grand entity is utterly lacking in evidence?

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.

For you to be shocked, this probably means you haven't read much on the counterarguments against the arguments for God. That, or you're just saying you're shocked for some drama effect.

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.

Key word here is "if". If the universe exists contingently. What if it exists necessarily? Until you can demonstrate that the universe (or, rather, the cosmos) does not exist necessarily, there is no need to posit as an explanation such a logically problematic entity as your God (for which evidence is utterly lacking anyway).

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.

Except the universe didn't come into existence from nothing. This is a common misundnerstanding of the Big Bang theory, and it is nothing more than a misunderstanding. Therefore, no such logically problematic God required.

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.

Again, the key word here is "if". For such a God that is utterly lacking in evidence, do you even know it is even possible for the sort of "maximally great" being you're referring to to exist? I strongly doubt you do. You're just parroting current standard arguments for God without really thinking about the validity/soundness of such arguments. Perhaps that partly explains why you're shocked that we are saying there are no good reasons to believe God exists.

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.

Says who? The universe may be part of a wider cosmos, which may contain an infinite number of universes, and as such, some of them may be bound to be "fine-tuned" for the existence of life. As in 100% bound. And what makes you even think this universe is actually fine-tuned for life anyway? Does it look like this universe is fine-tuned for life, considering most of it is actually without life? It seems egocentric to boldly assert that this universe is fine-tuned for life.

And why do you Christian apologists keep committing the "universe/cosmos" equivocation fallacy? Could you stop treating this local universe that we observe to be "all there is"?

5. The Moral Argument: Objective moral values exist and must be grounded in an objective standard. We call this standard God.

Objective moral standard = God? Says who?

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.

And this is based on scant evidence (if any), along with questionable asserted "historical facts". And besides, even if we agreed with the "historical facts", using Bayes' theorem in this case would not lead to the resurrection of Jesus being the most credible, simply because the probability of someone rising from the dead is so incredibly low that you would need incredibly clear evidence for such a phenomenon in order to compensate for the incredibly low initial credence reasonably assigned to it. This means that one could easily come up with better explanations for the "historical facts" you mention without involving the resurrection of anyone, and it doesn't really matter which one of such explanations exactly, because (so long as they're reasonable) they would all be better than the explanation you posit.

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.

Or good reason why we should take anthropology/sociology/psychology seriously. And in fact, naturalistic explanations given by experts in relevant fields for such phenomena are far more credible than positing an entity which we don't really need in order to explain such collective human behavior, especially one for which there is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate its existence.

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!

I'm sorry, but terribly bad arguments for God are terribly bad reasons to believe God exists.

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.

I'm still very skeptical when it comes to the need for morality to have an objective grounding, but let's suppose that objective morality is a logical necessity. If human happiness can be objectively defined (or pain can be objectively defined), and especially if the definition is reasonable and solid, then perhaps no one needs to agree with the definition in order for human happiness (or the prevention of pain) to be the grounding for objective morality. After all, if every person on this planet believed that 2+2=5, it wouldn't change the fact that 2+2=4.

And nothing is more fickle and arbitrary than the idea of some God being the arbiter of moral truths. It's not like it is clear that God exists, and that he would clearly reveal all moral truths to us (in a clearly unambiguous manner) if he did exist.

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).

And how would, pray tell, positing God as the arbiter of moral truths resolve such dilemmas?

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.

So what would be the logical problem here?

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.

Do you think most people on this planet think the Holocaust was as morally right as aiding the poor? Please don't be silly.

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.

Not necessarily. Morality could still be subjective even if all agreed about the moral rightness of each action ever committed.

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.

As I argued above, obective moral values (should they exist) need not be grounded in such a logically (and morally) problematic being as the God that you worship.

And the Bible is a terrible way to discover objective moral values. Why? Because the Bible contains multiple contradictions when it comes to morality. For example, the Bible commands Israelites not to commit murder, yet God nevertheless commands them to do just that on several occasions. It also doesn't say much (if anything) about most moral truths out there.

As for God's revelations ... what revelations?

And don't you think "emotion" and "intuition" seem a little too subjective?

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).

So is it in God's "good" nature to send human beings to hell? To allow people to commit sin, even at the expense of others? To allow all sorts of sufferings and miseries to occur to people?

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.

Duty to obey? Commands? This sounds like the kind of thing dictators expect from the people they rule. When I think objective morality, or morality for that matter, I don't think commandments or duties. I think welfare, equity, justice, and such.

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.

Yeah, sorry, but this doesn't look like a moral and loving God to me.

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.

Atrocious actions are atrocious, regardless of who commits them. Don't be like the enabler who says to a victim of abuse that there is nothing wrong with the abuser.

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.

Just as it is horribly arrogant and unwise to fail to submit to an abusive human parent? And that's assuming God exists, and is the source of objective morality anyway, which thankfully isn't the case.

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.

You act as if there is nothing wrong with what you just said. If you experienced God commanding you to kill your loved ones, would you do it?

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.

Sounds like an insecure bully, if you ask me.

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.

Thankfully, these are just stories you read in the Bible, nothing more. That said, one wonders why your God didn't instead encourage the Israelites and the Canaanites to live together in peace or something? This God sounds like the kind of God that ancient people would've come up with all on their own, without any actual supernatural prompting whatsoever.

Now, one more thing I might add is that God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit.

If true, then your God doesn't have much respect for us human beings.

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.

He could've just not have hell exist in the first place. Why the need for a hell anyway? Or why the need to kill anyone? A perfect God would've created at least a much more ideal world than this one.

You see now why we don't think there are good reasons to believe God (and your God, specifically) exists?

[Crimson Apologist]

Wow, I’m very impressed by the seriousness with which you guys responded to my arguments. I’m really sorry these posts have been really long but I hope you’ll agree that this conversation has been very enjoyable and worth having. In the interest of addressing points instead of individual responses, I will attempt to formulate my thoughts in the form of responses to questions. If my questions misrepresent your thoughts in any way, I apologize in advance. Also, in the interest of creating shorter posts, I will try to post my thoughts in several smaller posts instead of one large post.

What do agnosticism and atheism mean?
Perhaps I neglected to establish or conform to some kind of accepted definition of these terms within this community, and for that I do apologize. When I said that having no good evidence for God’s existence or inexistence should result in agnosticism instead of atheism, I meant that lack of evidence either way should, in my view, rationally result in a neutral intellectual judgment and a functionally theistic lifestyle a la Pascal’s wager.

Can a person be saved if they believe in God purely through Pascal’s wager?
I’m not entirely sure but I wouldn’t immediately discount it. I hold that saving faith is trust in God’s existence and His promises in a way that would be reflected in the way one lives one’s life. This means that if someone logically thinks that God’s existence is improbable but nonetheless chooses to live their life as if He did exist, then I would say that the trust they place in God’s existence and promises could plausibly be sufficient for their salvation. Now, even if this kind of faith doesn’t immediately result in salvation, it’s not inconceivable to think that it could eventually lead to the kind of faith that does result in salvation.

---

What kind of evidence is necessary to believe that God exists?
I don’t think irrefutable evidence is a necessary requirement to believe in anything. In my view, you are justified in believing something if you have better reasons to believe in it than its negation. That being said, the warrant a person has for a particular belief is drastically increased by evidence we may consider irrefutable. However, I question the notion that if God existed, He would provide irrefutable evidence of His existence for everyone. After all, if God's goal is not to get people to believe that He exists, but to have a love and trust relationship with human beings, then it seems to me that the lack of irrefutable evidence is to be expected. In fact, I think it's quite plausible that if God’s existence was made more obvious to everyone, then more people would believe THAT God exists but even fewer people would believe IN God (ie. fewer people would choose to enter into that kind of relationship with God). Thus, I don't think the hiddenness of God is a very good objection to His existence.

Have the classical arguments for God’s existence been debunked?
Just as one user correctly pointed out that arguments do not equate to existence, I’d like to point out that objections do not equate to refutation. For as many objections that have been raised against the arguments for God’s existence, there have been equally as many, if not more, counterarguments defending the validity of these arguments. I’d like to offer some of these defenses in response to the objections posed in this thread.

Is the universe a contingent existence?
I don’t see what property of the universe would make it a necessary existence. That Big Bang cosmology essentially proves a finite beginning of the universe entails that the universe has not always existed and therefore does not exist necessarily.

---

Was the universe created from nothing?
I actually mistyped my earlier description of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and meant to say that the universe could not have come into being from nothing. The Law of Causality affirms that the universe could not have come into being from nothing uncaused and I posit that God is this cause of the universe. Now, it’s certainly possible that something existed prior to the universe but then you’re faced with an infinite regress of causes until you arrive at the first uncaused cause. On an unrelated note, I find it interesting that some are so eager to hold to some non-God entities existing prior to the universe when there is no evidence of such things, while asserting atheism on the grounds of having no evidence for God.

Is an infinite regress logically possible?
Why, of course it is! But the Contingency Argument and Kalam Cosmological Argument don’t depend on an infinite regress being a logical impossibility, but a physical impossibility. On the tensed theory of time, it can be shown that it is not possible to have an infinite number of past events and that there must be a first cause.

Must there be only one first cause?
Considering that causes need to be greater than their effects, the regression of causes leads us to the ultimate cause, and neither of two equally great causes can be said to be ultimate, I think we can confidently conclude that there can only be one first cause.

Is the first cause part of our universe?
If being a part of the universe means being a constituent, then no, because the first cause created the universe and therefore exists independently from it. If it means physical presence, then I would say that God does directly interact with the universe.

---

Does quantum mechanics provide an exception to the Law of Causality?
Not at all! There are many interpretations of the equations of quantum mechanics, only a few of which assert indeterministic quantum events. However, even these indeterministic events are not uncaused in that they require causal preconditions to even occur (eg. fluctuations in a quantum vacuum).

Does a multiverse solve the problem of a finite beginning of the universe or fine-tuning?
No, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that even the multiverse needs a finite beginning and the multiverse theory is fraught with problems as an explanation of the fine-tuning of this universe. For example, as the Kalam Cosmological Argument explains, a physical infinite is not possible, so there aren’t actually an infinite number of universes in a multiverse, meaning there’s no guarantee of a universe with constants as precise as ours. If there were a large number of universes out there, it’s a mystery why the highly probable chaotic collapse of all these universes wouldn’t trigger the collapse of our own. If there were such a large number of universes, then it would still be far less likely to end up in a universe as finely tuned as ours than a universe barely capable of supporting life. Lastly, the existence of a multiverse itself would require an incredible degree of fine-tuning (eg. a very precise critical density). Given all these problems, it seems to me that God is a far simpler and more plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe than such an extravagant theory as the multiverse, for which there is no evidence.

---

Can the Ontological Argument be used to show the necessary existence of the maximally great unicorn?
Not at all! The great-making properties of the maximally great being are logically incompatible with the necessary properties of a unicorn, making the possibility of the maximally great unicorn’s existence untenable. If you reduce the great-making properties such that we arrive at the greatest possible unicorn, then it no longer has the properties which make its existence necessary in every possible world. Now, if you diminish the necessary properties of the unicorn such that this unicorn shares the same properties as the maximally great being, then that unicorn is in fact God, just going by a different name.

Is it possible for the maximally great being to exist?
In my view, this is the only premise of the Ontological Argument that can be reasonably attacked but from what I can tell, there has not been any successful objection to this premise. Some historical attempts include the Problem of Evil (the logical version of which has been resolved with the free will argument) and the omnipotence paradox (which is resolved by defining omnipotence to mean that God can do anything that is logically possible). It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that the maximally great being cannot logically exist.

---

Are testimony and historical facts best explained by delusion/myth or God?
In regards to history, I’d argue that the scholarly consensus on certain historical facts obtained from the New Testament documents (eg. the crucifixion of Jesus, the empty tomb, the radical transformation of the apostles, the explosive rise of early Christianity following their leader’s death, the multiple independent eyewitness testimony of the risen Jesus, and the martyrdom of the apostles) are best explained by Jesus actually resurrecting from the dead, which is then best explained by God. In regards to testimony of miracles and experiences of God, I think the ubiquity of these claims (which share an uncanny number of commonalities) from independent sources worldwide are, in the absence of a powerful defeater, also best explained by God.

Does Bayes’ Theorem disprove Jesus’ resurrection?
Given that Bayes’ Theorem applied to history relies upon arbitrary probability values, the most bizarre of which is the intrinsic probability of the hypothesis (ie. that miracles are possible), I simply don’t think Bayes’ Theorem is reliable for calculating the likelihood of whether or not Jesus was resurrected and thus reject it as a good argument against the resurrection.

---

Is morality grounded in human well-being?
As I have argued, if objective moral values exist, then morality cannot be grounded in human well-being because it must exist apart from even the existence of human beings or any other contingent moral agents. Even if objective moral values did not exist, I still don’t see how human well-being would necessarily be the foundation of morality. Moral decisions would merely be governed by evolutionarily developed cognitive predispositions and whimsical decisions of those in power in a certain place and time, which would not likely result in the determination of human well-being as the foundation of morality. And even if it did in every scenario, there’s nothing giving these moral decisions any normative weight because what IS does not necessitate what OUGHT TO BE.

How can objective morality be grounded in God’s nature?
Because God is the maximally great being, part of that greatness entails moral perfection, and so morality is rightly grounded in God’s nature. This means that whatever is good is consistent with God’s nature. For example, justice is good because God’s nature is just and vice versa. And so, when I say that someone can do good without knowledge of God, what I mean is that they can act in accordance with one or more aspect of God’s nature without believing that God exists.

Is God evil?
If God’s nature is the standard of objective morality, then by definition, God and anything He does cannot be evil, regardless of what we may believe. If there is no such thing as objective morality, then clearly, human beings would be pragmatically disposed to oppose any command by God that would threaten their individual well-being. However, there would be no moral basis for accusing God of being evil because human morality would be subjective and therefore illusory. That is to say, if objective morality does not exist, then there would be no such thing as good and evil. In regards to the argument that God contradicts Himself in the Bible, I don’t think so. Again, under the version of Divine Command Theory I defend, God’s specific direct commands supercede His general moral law. For example, it is normally immoral for people to kill each other, but when God commands it, it becomes a moral obligation. God does not wrong anyone because every adult is liable for judgment and I believe young children who die go to heaven. In regards to the Problem of Evil, God is morally justified in permitting evil and suffering to exist if doing so results in a greater good than the universal well-being of all people, namely, the greatest number of people freely choosing to believe in God and be saved. In doing this, God is different from an abusive parent in that abusive parents are morally fallible and unaware of their actions’ consequences, whereas God is incapable of deviating from His nature and cognizant of the outcomes of every single one of His actions and commands. In regards to the Problem of Hell, I don’t see a problem with the consequence of eternal separation from God if people reject Him in their life on earth and I don’t believe in the eternal suffering of souls in Hell. I hold to the (admittedly controversial) doctrine of Annihilationism which proposes that souls that go to Hell are destroyed forever.

---

Is there biblical evidence that young children go to heaven when they die?
Actually, yes, sort of. In 2 Samuel 12:23, King David remarks of his deceased infant son: “I will go to him, but he will not return to me,” suggesting that he will meet his son again in heaven. Now, this doesn’t show that all young children go to heaven when they die, but that it’s possible for young children to go to heaven. Another passage I reference is Matthew 18:2-4, where Jesus says: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.” If Jesus holds young children in such high esteem, I think we can infer that God would be merciful towards children who die young.

Is there moral knowledge that God revealed which human beings could not have discovered on their own?
I don’t see how this could not be the case. Naturalistic or purely rational explanations of morality attempt to describe moral actions in terms of the benefit they confer on the survival of the individual, but I find that this is an inadequate explanation of our current moral views. It’s true that altruistic behavior is observable in some animal species, but they are a rare exception compared to the selfish kill-or-be-killed nature of most animal behavior. On the other hand, our moral views overwhelmingly favor altruism, often at the expense of our own well-being, which I don’t think natural selection even comes close to explaining. So I think the best explanation of the moral knowledge characterized by our culture of altruism is God’s revelation in history. I think my argument is further supported by the fact that God’s commandments and moral teachings at various points in history were extremely radical and counter-cultural in the patriarchal Jewish societies to which they were issued.

Is the Bible a reliable source of information about God?
I’d like to point out that belief in biblical inerrancy is not a requirement for being a Christian; it is very much an in-house debate. Although I personally believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible for philosophical reasons, I also hold that the sections of the New Testament that scholars almost universally regard as historically reliable (eg. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and Galatians 1:11-24, 2:1-10) are sufficient to justify belief in the core doctrine of Christianity (ie. Jesus’ crucifixion/resurrection and salvation through faith in Jesus)