Does Hell Exist, if so Why?
Questions and Objections About Hell
1. "A God of love would never send anybody to Hell."
I find it very interesting that so many people are confident that God is so loving. Where does mankind get the idea that God loves the whole world, including sinners?
–The Buddhist scriptures, the Tripitaka? No. It's not taught there.
–The Hindu Vedas? No. No loving God there.
–The Qur'an? Nope. Allah loves everyone except sinners.
–The Hindu Vedas? No. No loving God there.
–The Qur'an? Nope. Allah loves everyone except sinners.
The idea that God is a loving, merciful, forgiving God comes from the Bible. It is the Bible alone, amongst these books, that presents God as gracious, loving, merciful and forgiving of sinners. People get their idea that God is loving from the very same book that teaches us about Hell!
The problem though is that people want to treat the Bible like a salad bar. “Oh yeah, I’ll have a little bit of that, a scoop of that. Oh, I don’t like that. Ewww, none of that.”
They do that with God!
"Yeah, I’ll take some of the love. I’ll pass on the judgment. Oh yeah, I’ll take some of the mercy! Yuck, none of that Hell stuff.”
They do that with God!
"Yeah, I’ll take some of the love. I’ll pass on the judgment. Oh yeah, I’ll take some of the mercy! Yuck, none of that Hell stuff.”
They take what they like from the Bible and leave out the other stuff.
The same divinely inspired book that reveals to us that God is loving also assures us that God is holy, pure, moral, just, that He hates sin, and that unrepentant, unforgiven sinners will be judged and cast away from His presence forever in Hell.
Nonbelievers are right in believing that God is loving but they have seriously erred when it comes to His holiness and His justice. And because He is holy, because He is just, adulterers, murderers, thieves, liars, fornicators, idolaters, and so on, will be punished.
Nonbelievers are right in believing that God is loving but they have seriously erred when it comes to His holiness and His justice. And because He is holy, because He is just, adulterers, murderers, thieves, liars, fornicators, idolaters, and so on, will be punished.
Let’s imagine that a little child has been the subject of some terrible crime. But thankfully the police have apprehended the criminal. Now, the day comes when the criminal stands before the judge. Question: What if the judge listened to the overwhelming evidence pointing to this man’s guilt, started laughing and said, “Its obvious that this man did these things, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with those things. Let this man go!”
What would you think? Would you consider that judge loving? Is a judge who lets rapists, child molesters, drug dealers and thieves off the hook, loving?
No. That would be an unloving act against humanity wouldn’t it? A loving judge condemns the lawbreaker in order to love his neighbors.
The same is true of God. It would be unloving for Him to welcome sinners into Heaven with out justice being meted out for the evil things they did in this life. Can you imagine Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin walking around in Heaven, laughing and saying, “Yeah, God just laughed and let me off the hook!”
That seems outrageous to even consider! Well, you can rest assured that is not going to happen. God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31).
That seems outrageous to even consider! Well, you can rest assured that is not going to happen. God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31).
So if a person ever tells you, “A God of love would never send anybody to Hell” you might say, “The Bible says He will because He’s not only loving, He’s holy and just!” Of course it would also be good to remind them though how God has, in His love, made a way for mankind to be forgiven through Jesus’ death and resurrection. Explain to them how Jesus took the punishment for mankind’s sins upon Himself, that we might be freely forgiven and God might remain just.
Well, the skeptic raises a second objection...
2. "God may send some people to Hell, but He's not going to send good people to Hell."
Many people who believe in Hell's existence, and who even believe others are going there, have deceived themselves into thinking that God will not send them there.
Why? "Well," they reason, "I'm a good person."
So let me ask you a question. Will God send good people to Hell? The answer is, No. Good people go straight to Heaven. But here's the bad news. According to the Bible there are no good people. Did you realize that? The Bible says we are all sinners!!
Jesus Himself said "No one is good but One, that is, God" (Luke 18:19).
Romans 3:10: "There is none righteous, no, not one;"
Isaiah 53:6: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way."
Jesus even referred to His disciples as being evil: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" (Luke 11:13)
On man's scale a person might appear pretty good, but according to the Word of God, the Bible, each one of us, in our natural state is an unrighteous, evil person. Those are the people who deserve to end up in Hell. Sinners. People like you and me (before we were forgiven). And those are the people, if they reject God's offer of forgiveness, who will end up there.
A third and somewhat related question is this:
3. "Why would God have created us, if He knew in advance that so many people would be eternally lost?"
I believe the simplest answer is this: Just as the Lord knew many would reject Him, the opposite is also true; He also knew that many would freely receive Him and enjoy eternity with Him. Apparently, even knowing that many would reject Him and end up in Hell, He felt it worth it, so that we who would receive Him, could have fellowship with Him, and Him with us.
Should God have refused to create humans, just because some would refuse to submit their lives to Him? I don’t think so. That would allow evil to triumph over good!
Should Christians refuse to start families even though we realize that some of our kids, grandkids, or great grandkids may turn their backs on God and end up in Hell? No! Why? Because we know that many of our kids and grandkids will not. And if some turn away from God and end up in Hell it will be of their own free accord (choice). By us giving birth to them, we are not in any way forcing any of them to go to Hell. They, like all people, will have the option to receive God’s mercy and forgiveness.
Should Christians refuse to start families even though we realize that some of our kids, grandkids, or great grandkids may turn their backs on God and end up in Hell? No! Why? Because we know that many of our kids and grandkids will not. And if some turn away from God and end up in Hell it will be of their own free accord (choice). By us giving birth to them, we are not in any way forcing any of them to go to Hell. They, like all people, will have the option to receive God’s mercy and forgiveness.
So I’m not going to withhold (deny) the blessings of eternity from my children and other descendants because of the foolish and sinful decisions of others. I think this is also true with God. He knew in advance that many would reject Him, but He also knew that many would receive Him.
That’s why He created us! Well, the skeptic raises another question...
4. "Couldn't God have just created a world in which no one would end up in Hell?"
Sure. He certainly could have. But it would not have been a world of humans; it would have been a world of robots. Why? Well, it would have to have been a world in which sin never takes place. Why? In a universe created by a holy and just God, sin requires judgment and punishment (Hell). So, to prevent people from going to Hell, God would have to prevent people from sinning. To do that, God would have to have created people without free will (i.e., without the freedom to sin). The creatures would have to have been creatures that God pre-programmed to always do what God wanted them to do.
Could God have created creatures like that? Of course. He certainly could have done that, but the fellowship, the worship, etc. would all have been meaningless to God.
In order for a meaningful, genuine, loving relationship to exist between God and people, people must be free, free to love Him or free to hate Him.
And not only would a robotic population of creatures be meaningless to God, that kind of world is the very kind of world that people today would dread! Do a little survey on the street sometime. Ask people if they would like to live their lives in accord with all of God’s holy commandments twenty four hours a day with no freedom to do otherwise.
Well, of course the answer on the streets will be, “Absolutely not!” Most people want the option to move freely about, often times from one unholy pursuit to another. So in this respect, God has given mankind the very world that mankind actually wants to live in, a world in which true freedom exists. Unfortunately, our misuse of the freedom God has given us is what has led to our own condemnation.
Well, the skeptic raises a fifth question...
5. “What about those who have never heard of Jesus? Will they be condemned to Hell?”
Some will. But it will not be because they have never heard of Jesus. People will end up in Hell because they have lived their lives ignoring or even retreating from the truth that God has revealed to them.
Skeptic: “But some people have never even heard of God.”
Well, in response to this, we believe they will still be without excuse on the day of judgment. Why?
God has revealed Himself to all people in at least two ways:
A. Creation. (Romans 1:20, Acts 14:17, Psalm 19:1-4)
Romans 1:19-20 says: "...that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. [How has God made it evident to them?] 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
Acts 14:17 says, "Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness."
B. Conscience. (Romans 2:14-15)
Romans 2:15 says: "[The Gentiles] show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness..."
God has inscribed evidence of His existence and His moral laws on the heart (or conscience) of every person. So all of mankind can know through an examination of creation and their own conscience that God exists and that they have failed to live up to His laws written in their hearts.
If a person will respond to the truth that God has revealed to them through creation or the convicting work of their conscience, God will give them additional light about Himself, in order that they can be saved.
Hebrews 11:6 says God, "is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Jesus said, "Seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" (Matthew 7:7). God said, "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13, also see Acts 10:35).
There are lots of ways that God can reveal Himself to a person. He may send them a missionary, allow a radio program to penetrate their part of the world, send them a Bible, a tract, an angel or give them a vision so that they can know the truth about Jesus.
There are lots of ways that God can reveal Himself to a person. He may send them a missionary, allow a radio program to penetrate their part of the world, send them a Bible, a tract, an angel or give them a vision so that they can know the truth about Jesus.
Skeptic: "Why doesn't He just do that with all people?"
Christians have been sharing the truth about God with millions of people and many refuse to hear it! They refuse to respond.
For God to give more light (truth) to the hard-hearted people who He knows will not respond to the gospel would only result in their greater guilt and condemnation.
Why? Greater light brings about greater responsibility.
Luke 12:48 says, “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required.”
Skeptic: “It just seems that some people who live in third world countries are at such a disadvantage geographically when it comes to hearing the gospel.”
Well, in addition to God’s assurance that He will respond to those who seek Him (Heb. 11:6, Jer. 29:13) the Bible says that God has actually placed each person in a specific place geographically that he or she might be more prone to call upon the Lord.
Turn over to Acts, Chapter 17. I want you to see something that Paul points out here...
Acts 17:22-27
22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having [What?] determined [What?] their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 so that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us…”
Paul tells us here in Acts 17 that God “determined” ahead of time the “times” in history that each of us would be born and the geographical “boundaries” (v. 26) of our dwelling place. Why?
Verse 27, there in Acts 17, tells us, in order that we might “seek the Lord” and “find Him.”
It is amazing to know that every person (including you) has been born, by the sovereign will of God, in the place (both in time and geographically) that would be most advantageous to them actually finding the Lord.
There are no geographical disadvantages or mistakes.
A person will not go to Hell because of some historical or geographical misfortune, which somehow prevented him from hearing about Christ.
If a person seeks to know God, God will be found.
If a person seeks to know God, God will be found.
In the end, all will receive what they actually chose in this life, either to be with God or to be without Him.
As J. P. Moreland has pointed out in Lee Strobel's book The Case for Faith, if a person constantly ignores God, constantly mocks Him by the way he chooses to live, saying “I couldn’t care less about what You put me here to do, Your values, or Your Son’s death for me. Leave me alone! I want to live my life without You!” Well, God will honor that decision and in the end, that person will have his preference.
C. S. Lewis said, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’”
Separation from God is not simply a sentence that is handed down out of the blue on judgment day. It is the end of a path that is chosen, to some degree, in this life right here and now, day by day.
C. S. Lewis said, “I believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful rebels to the end; that the doors of Hell are locked on the inside.” What he’s saying is that ultimately it’s not God who condemns a person to Hell, but individual sinners and the choices that they make.
Well, the skeptic raises another question at this time....
6. "Gnashing of teeth, outer darkness, flames, everlasting fire? Why does Hell have to be so bad? Why will Hell be so severe?"
Some might say, "Well, Hell was originally prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). That's why it's so severe!"
I'm not sure that is a very good answer.
Jesus did say that one day He would say to the unrighteous, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). But God, being omniscient, knew ahead of time that Hell was also the place where He would send human persons who would reject Him.
Why is Hell so severe? Here are three reasons.
A. Hell is a place of separation from God.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 says, "And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power."
When man chooses to separate himself from God (Isaiah 59:1-2) and God finally gives him over to the desire of His heart and finally allows him to have his way and to be left alone, the consequences, by default, are going to be severe! Why?
The Bible teaches that God is the sole source of all that is good, all that brings joy, and comfort.
James 1:17 says, "Every [not most, but every] good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."
Hell is a place of separation from the very source of...
• all that is good
• all that would cause joy
• all that would bring comfort.
• all that would cause joy
• all that would bring comfort.
Remove all that is good, all that would cause joy, or bring comfort, and you're going have an utterly miserable place!
Is separation from God too severe for the sinner? No.
Remember God is absolutely just and fair. If Hell is where sinners end up, its punishment must fit the crime. I believe the only reason Hell may seem too extreme is because mankind does not understand how extremely wicked, nor how sinful he is!
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) argued that if a person had a true spiritual awareness, he would not be amazed at Hell's severity, but at his own depravity!
Regarding the severity of Hell, Peter Kreeft wisely said in his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics: "Hell's punishment [separation from God] fits sin's crime because sin is to separate oneself from God. The punishment [separation from God] fits the crime because the punishment is the crime."
The punishment (Hell) will fit the crime. In fact, in the end, all will receive what they actually chose in this life, either to be with God or to be without Him. If a person chooses all their lives, to say "I want nothing to do with You God," God will honor that decision.
There are 2 more reasons why I think God purposely designed Hell to be severe.
B. Hell's severity causes sinners to seek Him.
The possibility that Hell is real causes many people to consider God. If the Bible taught that Hell was something let's say "lukewarm," less severe, or that the soul was just annihilated upon death, many millions would choose to just eat, drink and be merry in this life.
And millions would never experience the greatest joy of all, knowing God in this life and experiencing the glorious future He has in store for all those who love Him.
C. The severity of Hell brings about a saner, safer world.
The evil that takes place in the world is already bad enough, but you can rest assured that sin would run far more rampant if there were not a universal fear of punishment in the afterlife.
The thought that Hell might exist restrains a good amount of the evil that would be taking place.
Think of how crime would escalate if our police departments shut down and there was no longer any fear of punishment for crimes committed. That is a frightening thought.
Fear of punishment restrains evil and leads to a safer, saner world. It's been said that without a fear of Hell (divine retribution) in the afterlife, mankind would create Hell on Earth.
And so we can thank God that Hell is as severe as it is. It causes people to seek Him and it brings about a safer, saner world.
Well, the skeptic poses a seventh question at this time...
7. "Why doesn't God give people a second chance after death?"
The truth of the matter is that God is giving people a second chance.
Right now.
And a third chance and a fourth chance. Every hour that passes is an opportunity for a person to cry out to God and be a recipient of His mercy and grace. And God obviously thinks the chances He extends to us in this life are sufficient.
When a person dies it will be too late.
Hebrews 9:27 says, "It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.”
Well, the skeptic raises ann eighth objection...
8. "Why doesn't God seek to reform (change) sinners in some form of temporary purgatory?"
8. "Why doesn't God seek to reform (change) sinners in some form of temporary purgatory?"
This is similar to the last question about a second chance after death.
Purgatory (for those of you who may be unfamiliar with this term) is, according to the Catholic Church, a place of torment where people go for a time of suffering in order to be prepared for Heaven. It is an unbiblical teaching that has no basis in Scripture.
Purgatory (for those of you who may be unfamiliar with this term) is, according to the Catholic Church, a place of torment where people go for a time of suffering in order to be prepared for Heaven. It is an unbiblical teaching that has no basis in Scripture.
Skeptic: “But why doesn’t God try something like this in order to reform people?”
Well, God has tried to reform people. The time of reformation is called...LIFE.
For the lifetime of the individual, God’s Spirit patiently (2 Peter 3:9)...
For the lifetime of the individual, God’s Spirit patiently (2 Peter 3:9)...
• Strives with them (Genesis 6:3)
• Convicts them of their sin (John 16:8)
• Reminds them of God's righteousness (John 16:8)
• Warns them of coming judgment (Acts 24:25)
• Testifies to them through creation (Romans 1:20)
• Sends them messengers with the good news of salvation (Romans 10:15)
• Convicts them of their sin (John 16:8)
• Reminds them of God's righteousness (John 16:8)
• Warns them of coming judgment (Acts 24:25)
• Testifies to them through creation (Romans 1:20)
• Sends them messengers with the good news of salvation (Romans 10:15)
When they finally die, the reformation process is over. Those in Hell will be those who are unreformable.
A ninth objection that has been raised against the Bible's teaching regarding Hell is this:
9. "It seems unfair that God would give out the same punishment to everyone who ends up in Hell. Some people seem to be so much more guilty of terrible crimes than others.”
Some critics of Christianity believe that eternity in Hell is unfair because they imagine that your ordinary unbeliever is going to get the same punishment as someone like Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin (evil men who were responsible for the murder of millions of people).
Well, the person who raises this objection has overlooked or misunderstood what the Bible actually teaches regarding Hell. God is not going to indiscriminately throw the unrighteous into Hell to suffer the exact same judgment.
Revelation 20:11-15 says that every unsaved person is going to be resurrected to stand before God at a “great white throne” to be judged for every one of their deeds before they are sentenced.
Ecclesiastes 12:14 assures us that, “God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.”
Ecclesiastes 12:14 assures us that, “God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.”
Jesus said in Matthew 12:36, “I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment.”
This judgment of each individual’s deeds seems to suggest that a person will receive a greater condemnation or judgment based on what he has done. And this lines up precisely with what Jesus said in Mark 12:40, where He stated that the scribes of His day would “receive greater condemnation” than others.
There will be greater condemnation for greater sins.
Christian: “Hold on a second here Charlie. I read the Bible. Are you saying that some sins are more serious than others? I thought that sin was sin.”
Well, sin is sin, yes, and all of it is an offense to God, but some sins are greater than others. You don’t have to take my word for it. Jesus affirmed that this was the case. For example, in John 19, Jesus was standing before Pilate on trial. Notice what Jesus said to Pilate...
John 19:11
Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin.”
Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin.”
Jesus told Pilate that he who delivered Him over to Pilate (probably a reference to Caiaphas or Judas, we’re not sure) was guilty of a “greater sin” than Pilate.
There are greater sins and the Bible teaches that there will be “greater condemnation” for those sins.
There are greater sins and the Bible teaches that there will be “greater condemnation” for those sins.
On another occasion, in Matthew 11, Jesus tells the people of Capernaum that the judgment coming to the people of Sodom would be “more tolerable” than their judgment (Matthew 11:24), because the people of Capernaum were guilty of greater sin.
According to Jesus, those with the lesser sins will have a “more tolerable” (Matt. 11:24) judgment than those with the greater sin.
Now, don’t misunderstand; this is not to suggest that their suffering will not be horrible. Separation from God in Hell will be horrible for everyone who goes there, but it will be worse for others. What will a “greater condemnation” (Mark 12:40) result in?” We don’t know for sure. Perhaps some will suffer a greater degree of separation, isolation, emptiness, and regret. The bottom line is: You do not want to go there!
Well, the skeptic raises a tenth and final objection...
10. "I could never be happy in Heaven knowing that my loved ones are in Hell."
The thought of being apart from your friends and family who do not know the Lord is a heart wrenching thought. But God assures us in His Word that in Heaven our joy will be absolutely full.
Psalm 16:11 says, “In Thy presence is fullness of joy; in Thy right hand there are pleasures forevermore.”
All who go to Heaven will experience “fullness of joy.”
Revelation 21:4 tells us, "He [God] shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."
Quoting C. S. Lewis again, "If you are concerned about your loved one's that won't be in Heaven, the most irrational thing you could do if you are truly concerned about those on the outside is to remain outside yourself."
The best thing you could ever do is to make sure you’re going to Heaven and then do all that you can to help wake up your loved ones!
So those are concise answers to some of the questions that critics raise regarding the doctrine of Hell.
I’ll close with two questions: One for Christians. One for non-Christians...
Christian, do you have a loved one on their way to Hell?
I think we all do. May I encourage you to stand in their way with your love and your prayers?
Charles Spurgeon said: “If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies; and if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees...Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for.”
Christian, do you have friends or family members who are “unwarned” and “unprayed” for?
May the Lord help us to get in the way of those on their way to this dreadful place! Pray for your loved ones! Pray for your friends and co-workers! And pray for yourself that God would give you the courage and love to reach out to them with the gospel.
Non-Christian friend here tonight...
Would you like to escape the sentence of Hell? Would you like to know your sins are forgiven? Would you like to be confident you are going to Heaven?
Death could be right around the corner for some of you.How can you make sure you’re going to Heaven?
A. Acknowledge your sinfulness to God (Rom. 3:10, 1 John 1:9).
B. Believe Jesus died on the cross and rose again to pay for your sins (Romans 10:9-10).
C. Change direction. Turn away from your sinful way of living (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30).
D. Decide to receive Jesus into your life and follow Him as Lord (John 1:12-13)
Dustin,
ReplyDeletePlease take this as friendly criticism.
You keep cutting-and-pasting stuff from other sites. I don't find this very interesting at all (and I'm not sure anyone else does, either, given that you have 0 other comments).
I'm much more interested in what you think and have to say. You can and should link to things you find interesting, but the point of a blog (IMO) is for you to share your thoughts in your own words.
For example: this piece here is very clearly directed at liberal Christians. As an atheist, it doesn't speak to me at all. I think your God is made-up and your Bible is a book of stories, so I don't really care if Hell is within a fictional character's fictional attributes or not.
Make sense?
cheers,
-Andrew
Nonbelievers are right in believing that God is loving...
ReplyDeleteDude, do you even read this yourself? Nonbeliever, by definition, don't believe anything about god, other than that he is imaginary.
You seem to be confused about the fact that people might, for the sake of argument, take on your premises, in order to show a contradiction. This does not mean that they believe it themselves.
I might say, "if god is so loving, why does he condemn people to eternal torture?" This does not mean that I believe that god is loving. I'm simply recognizing that you believe it and I'm pointing out that this belief might contradict another belief of yours.
What he is saying is that people who claim to not believe in God, will often agree that He is a loving God. And your right, most of the time, they use that statement as an objection to something.
ReplyDeleteBut we are trying to reason with people who don't believe, that God has other attributes too: Holiness and Justice. People like to pick and choose attributes of God that they think works for them.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your input. I'm using this blog as a ministry for Christians and non-Christians. This site is suppose to help Christians be equipped in their faith (my many links) and to help nonbelievers come to know God. I couldn't possibly cater to everyone. But I like your idea of me writing some things down. :)
...people who claim to not believe in God...
ReplyDeleteSpit in my face some more, why don't you. It's so refreshing.
If people say they don't believe in god, then show them the courtesy of accepting that. Chances are they know what they believe a hell of a lot better than you do.
My bad Lukas. I should have said: " people who say they don't believe in God.." Not claim. Bad choice of wording. BUT, How can I be a true Christ-follower and show you the courtesy of accepting that there is no God? My whole goal is that you will not come to "accept" that in your heart. Because if you do, as I believe and as the Bible teaches, you are "without hope" and "without salvation."
ReplyDeleteThe message of salvation I'm trying to convince you of to receive, is at the Heart of the matter, sometimes very "offensive." Because it is directed at the heart of man and the accountability of his actions. People don't want other people telling them what to do or believe. It can become intrusive, I understand that Lukas! It even says in the Bible in Jeremiah 6:10: "To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of the LORD is 'offensive' to them; they find no pleasure in it."
I find no pleasure in revealing the bad news to people: That they are sinners who are guilty of breaking God's Law. And that the Law requires that anyone who breaks it will be punished. BUT, I find great pleasure in letting them know that there is GOOD NEWS as well! That Jesus came as the God-man and died for man and took the penalty His own justice demanded out of love for us, to give us a chance to receive forgiveness and eternal life free of charge!!!
ReplyDeleteThat is why I'm doing what I'm doing! To be an ambassador for God and plead with people to be reconciled to God through His Son Jesus!
How can I be a true Christ-follower and show you the courtesy of accepting that there is no God? My whole goal is that you will not come to "accept" that in your heart.
ReplyDeleteI meant simply that you accept that that is my current position. You're perfectly free to try to change my opinion on the matter, of course. I was objecting to what I perceived as a "deep down you really believe" position, which I've heard some christians take. I appreciate the correction.
With all this in mind; I'm fairly sure I understand what you believe, at least the broad strokes:
1) God exists
2) Heaven and hell are real
3) Jesus died for our sins
4) If we accept Jesus and live our lives according to the bible, we can get a pass into heaven, otherwise, we go to hell
I understand that you believe this. I don't see why you believe it and I don't see why I should.
Which brings us back to this post of yours. It's entirely founded on the idea that god exists, but since I don't accept that, it becomes completely irrelevant. I think this is what Andrew was referring to when he said he thought it was aimed at liberal christians, rather than atheists.
So, don't worry about giving me bad news. That's not the issue. I don't consider it bad news any more than if you told me that Goofy fell down a flight of stairs.
To me, your god and Goofy exist in the same realm; that of fictional entities. That will remain my position until you give me a good reason to change my mind.
Trust me Lukas! I want to give you a good reason to change your mind! I don't think it's fair to equate Goofy with the God of the Universe. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteThe article about Hell may or may have not been aimed at Liberal Christians. However, the content there would benefit anyone. Because it's simply stating what the Bible teaches. Can Atheists benefit from that? Of course, they can use their minds and reason with the answers provided.
First, WHY do I believe this? Let's say God DOES exist. Can you give me that option? I believe that if God does exist, He would most rationally and logically be the God of the Bible! Everything attributed to Him in the Bible makes sense: (Creator of the Universe, All-powerful, Loving, Holy, Just,etc) He predicts the future (prophecy, 1/3 of the Bible is prophecies); He defies the laws of science (walking on water, miracles) because if He created those laws, He can certainly defy them in order to prove His deity; He rises from the dead, conquering it! (God is immortal, everlasting); The problem of sin and the curse makes perfect sense by just looking at the world around us: ( cancer, death, war, suffering, natural disasters, evil, etc)which are all things caused by the fall of man, and not God!
So I believe these things because it all adds up! I have been changed by God Himself and received His Spirit inside me. And He gives me this confidence! (refer to my testimony on bottom).
Why should YOU believe this? Because absolute truth exists! Mankind has been rebelling against the truth ever since the fall! They choose to believe lies rather than the truth! And if absolute truth is in the Bible and the Bible is true, you should start paying attention to it, because it gives answers to life! I hope that helps Lukas!
I don't think it's fair to equate Goofy with the God of the Universe. Just saying
ReplyDeleteI don't really expect you to. I'm simply pointing out that from my point of view, there's no significant difference.
Let's say God DOES exist. Can you give me that option?
I'm certainly willing to grant it for the sake of argument.
I believe that if God does exist, He would most rationally and logically be the God of the Bible! Everything attributed to Him in the Bible makes sense
I'll just interject that simply because something makes sense, doesn't mean it's true. Sure, "making sense" is necessary for something to be true, but it's not sufficient. Something can make perfect sense and still be wrong. In my teens, I used to hang with the Hare Krishnas, and their philosophy makes as much sense as christianity.
If making sense is the criterion, then why should I pick your faith over theirs?
Why should YOU believe this? Because [...] I hope that helps Lukas!
I'm afraid it doesn't, really. I'll need a bit more than your word to believe that the bible is really the Word of God. I've read the pentateuch and the gospels as well as bits of the rest. I haven't found anything even remotely impressive about it. It looks to me pretty much the same as any other religious writing; a lot of magnificent claims, no sensible arguments.
Maybe it would help if you explained exactly why you find the bible so impressive. It's all well and good to say that if it's the word of God, we should pay attention to it, but why should I believe that it is the word of God?
Andy,
ReplyDeleteLike I posted in my "Spiritual Truths" post, the natural mind (unconverted mind) doesn't understand the things of God, for they are foolishness to him. Check out that post and read what it says again about how one can fully know and understand the meaning and interpretation of scripture. I could debate with you all day about the Bible and Christianity claims. But until you acknowledge your sin and that you are responsible to repent from that sin and place your trust in Jesus Christ, you can never fully understand where I'm coming from.
I want to be able to compel you with evidence, but when your heart and mind are closed to accept what God has revealed in His word, I can't help you much.
And I agree with you that just because it makes sense, doesn't make it true. But with the Bible and everything the Holy Spirit has shown me through His Word, the things I described above makes perfect sense. That's all I'm saying.
ReplyDeletewith the Bible and everything the Holy Spirit has shown me through His Word, the things I described above makes perfect sense. That's all I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteGood for you. Why does that matter to anyone else?
But until you acknowledge your sin and that you are responsible to repent from that sin and place your trust in Jesus Christ, you can never fully understand where I'm coming from.
I want to be able to compel you with evidence, but when your heart and mind are closed to accept what God has revealed in His word, I can't help you much.
Question: Is there any way for us to have a discussion that doesn't start with me agreeing with you?
What are you hoping to get out of the discussion? I'll start by asking that? I will be upfront with what I hope to get out of it: I hope to compel you to move towards God and discover that he exists, and that you should trust in Him.
ReplyDeleteDo you hope that out of our discussion, you can somehow disprove that God exists, and therefore cheerful glory in that, and that you are okay with that, and somehow move through life without any conviction about Christianity? OR are you seriously seeking the truth and open to the possibility of God's existence and the Bible possibly being the way to Him?
My goal in this discussion was to get the following point across:
ReplyDeleteYour faith or personal experience does not constitute a good reason for me to believe
It occurs to me that there may be another point that's worth bringing in to the discussion:
are you seriously seeking the truth
YES! And that's the whole point. It is exactly because I'm serious about the truth that I simply will not accept an idea without good reason.
The god hypothesis is simply too important, the consequences, if true, so far-reaching, that it would be (if I may be excused for using the term) blasphemous to accept it for any but the most solid reasons.
...and open to the possibility of God's existence and the Bible possibly being the way to Him?
Sure. It's always possible that I could be wrong about something. However, I'd be lying if I said I didn't consider it a possibility so remote as to be merely hypothetical.
The evidence is simply so squarely against the god hypothesis, the arguments so ludicrous, that it's hard to take it seriously. I have literally never, ever heard a good argument in favour of it. Not one.
But... I'll consider it and I'll listen to whatever arguments you have, because I could be wrong and if I am, I'd like to know it.
Now, are you open to the possibility that you may be wrong about the bible and about the existence of god?
Lukas,
ReplyDeleteI have to say, that I believe 100% in what Christ has said: "And you shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."
The crux of the conversation seems to be finding the Truth about life! Before I became a Christian, I was seeking truth in all sorts of places: (philosophy,religions, purpose,etc). I've come to find that Truth exists, and it exists in God in the person of Jesus Christ!
I'm no longer open to the possibility that I may be wrong about the Bible and existence of God, b/c it has been proven to me in my mind, heart, soul, and personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
I realize you don't except "faith" and "personal experience" as a reason for you to believe. But I will not apologize for His very existence in my life and that He indeed was resurrected from the dead and lives on now forever!
I have to ask you: What lens do you interpret Truth through? (Science, Religion,Politics, etc). I believe Truth cannot exist outside of God! And maybe the reason you are still searching for truth in life, is because you've ruled out the very existence of God, which can only lead to a dead end!
( I would suggest you watch the video clip on the side of my blog titled: "What is truth?" It may help if you sincerely watch it)
Sorry for the delay. Real life, etc.
ReplyDeleteOK, I watched the video. What a load of self-important, intellectually vacuous drivel. Allow me to comment of a few things I noticed.
Let's start with the basic question; what is truth? That's a fair question.ow do they answer it? "Truth is fundamentally about who god is."
So, right off the bat, we're working on the presupposition that god exists.
Next, they make a distinction god's truth vs. the lies of the devil and the world. So, essentially they've chucked out all sense data as unreliable. What they're planning to replace it with, I don't know. Blind faith, I guess.
Also, notice that this is yet another presupposition which defines anything going against their faith as automatically false.
To reiterate my point: this video has no relevance for people who do not already agree with everything it says.
Now, back to your post:
I'm no longer open to the possibility that I may be wrong about the Bible and existence of God
Well, there's your problem, right there. This does not instill confidence in my at all. Some people think that the more certain a speaker is, the more you can trust that he's right. In my opinion, this is ass-backwards. If a speaker is absolutely certain, that's exactly when you should be doubtful.
b/c it has been proven to me in my mind, heart, soul, and personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
So, you've had certain experiences, which have convinced you. Is is possible that you may have misinterpreted those experiences? Is it possible you jumped to a conclusion that wasn't really supported?
I ask because, in my experience, talking to different kinds of religious people, they often do this. I know a guy who's absolutely convinced that there's a life after death because he had a dream about his mother, after she died.
It all boils down to this: Do you think you're infallible? No? Then you could be wrong.
And so, we get to:
What lens do you interpret Truth through?
Science, logic and a bit of philosophy.
Science is, as demonstrated by history, not only the most reliable way of finding out the truth, but, in fact, the only reliable way. No other method is even in the same league.
Science has several ingenious features, most importantly, in this discussion, the question; "if I was wrong, how would I know?" Given the earlier point about fallibility, this is a very important question.
I have not ruled out the possibility of god. I simply ask that I be presented with evidence before I accept it.
Assuming for a moment that God exists, we can distinguish two possibilities:
1) God interacts with the world, in some way
If this is true, then we can investigate God scientifically. We should be able to find evidence of such interactions. As such, the proper route would be to continue scientific investigation so that we may eventually uncover the nature of God.
2) God does not interact with the world, in any way (or he only interacts with the world in ways that he deliberately disguises as natural phenomena)
If this is true, then God is indistinguishable from the non-existent and we can, by definition, never know anything about him whatsoever. Religion would be an exercise in futility. It would be idiotic to make any statements about God, whether regarding his nature, motives, wishes or preferences (with the possible exception of concluding that God is apparently a bit of an asshole for deliberately keeping us in the dark).
As such, I feel quite justified in withholding belief until such a time that clear evidence for God appears. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Lukas,
ReplyDeleteSo you interpret truth through the lens of science, logic, and philosophy?
I have no problem with science, but it certaintly can't answer the big questions of life: Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going when I die?
I endorse scientific investigation of the physical world. The problem comes when science claims that matter is all there is and that everything, including human consciousness and morality, can be explained in scientific terms. That boast pushes God out of His universe; and man, no longer in God's image, becomes a stimulus-response conglomeration of protein molecules.
Science is legitimate when it examines the universe and acknowledges God's existence on the basis of observable intelligent design. But when it proudly denies the Creator, it leads to the very worship of creation.
For example: It is so obvious that human behavior can't be scientifically explained, yet the lie persists. C. S. Lewis wrote, "If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind. ..." That simple logic destroys Darwinism. If man is the chance product of impersonal evolutionary forces, then so are his thoughts—including the theory of evolution.
You say I'm working with the presumption that God exists. Then that would mean that you are working with the presumption that God "doesn't" exist. So, I have some question for YOU:
1. Seeing that you don't rule out the possibility of God altogether: Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia,etc)?
2. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
3. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce; b. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
4. Lastly, what is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc)?
Please answers these for me. You already know what my answer to these questions are!
1. Seeing that you don't rule out the possibility of God altogether: Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia,etc)?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. More to the point, neither do you.
2. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
I don't know exactly when or how. However, to claim that feelings should be a problem for evolution shows only that you don't know what you're talking about. Love, morality and such things evolved because they are beneficial on a group basis, especially for a social animal such as ourselves.
3. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce; b. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
Heaven save me, another "what evolved first" question. I'm so sick of these, since they only come up when the questioner is ignorant (pardon me, I mean this in the technical sense of "not knowledgeable").
The details again are obscured by time, but essentially the answers would be: a) In simple organisms, there's no difference between the ability and the urge to reproduce, b) Presumably RNA initially fulfilled the function of DNA, so it came first, but the jury's still out.
4. Lastly, what is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc)?
I don't know that there's really a definite answer to that. Personally, I get a feeling of responsibility, knowing that the universe doesn't give a crap whether we live or die. If things are going to get better, it's only through our own efforts that this will happen.
If you're trying to make a connection to social darwinism, then don't bother. Social darwinism makes as much sense as saying that gravity demands that we jump from tall buildings. It's confusing an 'is' with an 'ought'.
So, a question of my own: Is there any way to demonstrate the existence of god to a person who doesn't already believe?
Or, said in a different way: In what way does your god differ from all the other (presumably imaginary) gods?
Lukas
ReplyDeleteThose answers were pretty vague. Doesn't sound like a whole lot of "evidence" in evolution nor any confidence in it on your end. I "do" know where the laws of the universe came from: the Lawgiver (God himself).
Believing in evolution is like this: Example- You are shown a picture of a neatly put together living room. Someone tells you: "Yeah, isn't it great, the movers who put the furniture in that room just threw all the stuff in there all over the place, and it suddenly came together to form this neat, put together living room!" Awesome huh?. You would think the guy is crazy! The same goes for the order of our universe....evolution??? Come one! More logical to believe in a Designer!
That's a sad way to live that the universe doesn't give a crap about us! But I know that God does care about YOU Lukas! And you would think over the some "billions" of years mankind has been on this planet, we would have figured out how to make things better??? Nope, just evidence that we are fallen in sin! And that the earth isn't that old.
That's a logical place to start with evidence for a god. I don't have time to answer your 2nd question right now, but will 2mor nite!
Those answers were pretty vague. Doesn't sound like a whole lot of "evidence" in evolution nor any confidence in it on your end
ReplyDeleteYou expected a university level lecture? The answers to your questions are common knowledge, readily available to anyone who can be bothered to put in the time to read.
If you have a specific question, I'll be happy to clarify if I can, but I'm not going to spend hours doing your homework for you.
I "do" know where the laws of the universe came from: the Lawgiver (God himself).
You claim that that's where the laws came from, but until you can demonstrate it, it remains just that; a claim.
Believing in evolution is like this...
No, it's not. Your example is ludicrous and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Let me clear up common misunderstanding: evolution isn't random. Order doesn't just "suddenly come together".
Evolution is the non-random selection of randomly varying reproducing entities. The selection part is rather important.
Come one! More logical to believe in a Designer!
A designer who, by definition, would have to exhibit order at least as great as that of the universe. So, according to you, it's logical to believe that this designer was himself designed. You do seem to have a unique concept of logic.
And you would think over the some "billions" of years mankind has been on this planet, we would have figured out how to make things better???
First, I'm glad you put billions in quotes. Modern human beings have existed for only a few hundred thousand years. Even the earliest hominids are only a few million years old.
Second, you don't think things have gotten better? Take a look around you. Literally, take a look around you right now as you're reading this. How many objects do you see that haven't been made with technology invented in the last few hundred years?
Next time you're outside, take a look at the people around you. Realize that without modern medical science, half of them, at least, wouldn't be alive.
How many slaves do you have? Oh, slavery's illegal, you say? How about that. Didn't use to be that way.
Things have gotten better and will continue to get better, no thanks to ancient religions.
Lukas,
ReplyDeleteThank you for all our conversations. I can see that you are not willing to accept the evidence and logic I have given you for A Creator, the God of the Bible, nor Jesus Christ. I pray that someday you will see the truth about these things and receive Christ as your Savior from sin! -Dustin
So, to summarize, your blank assertions and positively absurd notions of what constitutes logic have not been accepted, so you're just going to give up?
ReplyDeleteYour argument so far can be boiled down to a pure presupposition that god exists and using that as the fundamental premise for any argument.
Sorry to tell you, brother, but that's not logic. That's bullshit.
I don't intend to "give up" because I'm not confident in my position or feel I have logical evidence. I'm stopping this, because you don't want or seem to see where I'm coming from. EVEN, if I had undeniable evidence for God's existence and that the God of the Bible is the true and living God, I would honestly think that in your heart and mind, you would REJECT it!
ReplyDeletePeople like to create and fashion a god in their minds that suits their wants and desires. However, when faced with who the true God is, they reject him, because they hate him and don't want to submit to His laws or ways. That is the result of sin. And that is why there are so many religions out there creating so many gods out of their imagination.
That's why Exodus 20:3-4 says: "“You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, BUT showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."
I don't intend to "give up" because I'm not confident in my position or feel I have logical evidence
ReplyDeleteHow confident you are is irrelevant to whether you're right and I think your standards for what constitutes evidence are quite absurd.
This thing about confidence does seem to be a bit of a stumbling block for you. You keep highlighting your own confidence and you said that I don't seem confident, as if that was an argument for anything.
I don't think you know half as much as you've convinced yourself you do.
A few examples:
1)
Your quote from C.S. Lewis was actually two logical fallacies in the same argument. First, his argument was fallacious and second, you quoting him as if he was a relevant authority was fallacious as well.
2)
Your argument that went
a) Humans have been around for a long time
b) Things haven't gotten better (according to some undefined standard that apparently doesn't include life span, social justice, health care, education levels, technological advancement, the inventions of literature, art and culture, or the fact that we no longer have 10% of all children dying of smallpox)
Therefore:
c) We are all fallen in sin and can only be saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who is God the Almighty, creator of the universe.
And you wonder why I don't accept your "evidence".
I'm stopping this, because you don't want or seem to see where I'm coming from
I see where you're coming from. I just don't see why I should take it any more seriously than the guys down the street who tells me the aliens stole his dog. All your arguments rely on people already agreeing with you. You can't actually show that you're correct.
Prove me wrong. Construct a formal syllogism and let's see if it holds up.
Lukas,
ReplyDeleteIf you can't see that mankind hasn't gotten better but worse, you must be delusional. People still kill each other, the prison systems are overcrowded, cancer is still killing many each year. Natural disasters are occurring in an increasing rate; Wait let me go on: Unemployment, Inflation, Interest Rates, The Economy,Oil Supply/Price, Debt and Trade, Financial unrest,Leadership,Drug abuse,Divorce rates, Genocide, etc.
I agree with you that mankind has made "improvements" to some problems, BUT we have certainly not found the solution to all of this or eradicated sin from the earth!!
Once again, the simplicity of the message of Christ's atoning work on the cross makes you stumble. But the only solution right now, is to accept Christ for your part in this messed up world. And when Christ comes back to earth, He will set things straight and make everything new again!!! Which will definitely eradicate the sin problem and all those things listed above.
Too simple to understand? Well God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. He didn't provide this information for the "intellectual elite" but so that all mankind can know and understand, even a small child! That's why God is love!
There are so many things wrong, it's hard to chose which to pick on, but I think the following are the most productive.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the simplicity of the message of Christ's atoning work on the cross makes you stumble.
No, that fact that you haven't backed up you bald assertions is what makes me stumble. You seem to be suffering from the weird delusion that if you just repeat your claims over and over, then suddenly they'll be more convincing. They're not.
If you can't see that mankind hasn't gotten better but worse, you must be delusional.
Whereas you just keep missing the point. Ok, for the sake of argument, I'll accept it; the world is getting continually worse. I'll grant you that premise. Now prove that god exists. You can't because the problem isn't really with that one premise, although it is a problem, but rather with your construction itself. Your conclusion simply doesn't follow from the premises. I might as well make the argument that since grass is green, god doesn't exist.
This is why I asked you to construct a syllogism. The formal structure makes it much more easy to see whether an argument holds water or not. Yours doesn't.
Okay Lukas! I'm here for ya man! What "kind" of evidence would be "acceptable" to you for God's existence? And if I could show you, would you be willing to accept it, seeing that your presupposition is that God doesn't exist?
ReplyDeleteOh no, I'm not letting you do this again. You can't just skip a point as soon as it becomes inconvenient.
ReplyDeleteDo you recognize that your argument was flawed? If yes, please acknowledge it. If not, construct the syllogism and we'll take it from there.
Lukas,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I didn't construct a syllogism. I don't know how! LOL I'm still super willing to help you find God and answers to your questions though. I get frustrated like anyone else. But I truly want to see people come to know God!
A syllogism is simply a formal logical argument, where you clearly lay out your premises and show how they lead to your conclusion. This structure is more rigorous than that of normal conversation and so errors stand out more clearly, which is why I favour it, both for myself and for others.
ReplyDeleteLogic is not something you can just claim. It's a well-defined method. If you don't follow the rules of logic, you don't get to claim that you have a logical argument. The argument is not flawed "in my mind". It is flawed, period. I will demonstrate.
Your argument above can be described like so:
1) If the bible is true, then man is fallen and sinful
2) If man is fallen and sinful, then the world is imperfect
3) The world is imperfect, therefore man is fallen and sinful
4) Since man is fallen and sinful, the bible is true
This argument is flawed. It's what is known as Affirming the Consequent (google it), following the general structure:
1) If A is true, then B is true
2) B is true
3) Therefore A is true
The problem is that there may be other reasons why B is true besides A. This actually relates back to what we talked of earlier; just because a given explanation might fit the evidence, doesn't mean that this explanation is true.
A word on the scientific method, broadly speaking:
For any piece of evidence there is literally an infinite number of possible explanations. This is no exaggeration. The number of explanation you can come up with is limited only by your ingenuity and life span.
Given this, how do we choose which explanation to believe? We believe the simplest one. The one that requires the least number of factors (This is Ockham's Razor, which I mentioned earlier). It's always possible to add more pieces to a model of the world, so if we accept the addition of one additional element, then why not two, or thee, or a million?
The simplest explanation might not be correct, but given the number of possible, more complex explanations, we are practically guaranteed to be wrong if we pick one of those and we have no way of discriminating between them, other than personal bias.
So, we pick the simplest and we trust that with accumulation of data we will slowly approach the truth. We might never get there completely, but we'll get closer, step by step. When data arrives which cannot be accounted for in our current model, we accept a slightly more complex one. If the data can be fitted to our model, we keep it.
You asked what evidence might convince me. One problem in this matter is that the god hypothesis, almost by definition, is less plausible than any other explanation. Because of God's fantastic qualities, the bar for proving his existence is set very high indeed.
ReplyDeleteAn example of what I mean: If you tell me that you own a cat, I might easily accept this. There's nothing amazing or unusual about this. I know that cats exist. I know that people often keep them as pets. I even had a cat myself as a child. Unless I know something that would make your claim implausible (e.g. that you have an allergy to cats), I'm likely to take your word for it.
If, however, you tell me that you own a unicorn, I'd need a lot more than your word. This is because unicorns, to the best of my knowledge, do not exist and are mere myths. Given the state of image-manipulation technology, I wouldn't even accept photographic evidence of it. I'd need to see it personally.
I have never seen God, I've never seen any evidence that couldn't be explained without a god. Every time someone tries to make an argument for the existence of god, it turns out to be horribly flawed. Finally, I notice that out of all the people who say that a god exists, few of them can agree about very much on the subject. This sets the stage for me being highly skeptical.
God is a being so outrageously unlikely, that not only would I need to personally witness his presence, I would also require that this experience was repeated multiple times to allow me to exclude the possibility that I was simply delusional. I'd also want to ask some questions of him, to ensure that he had knowledge beyond what could be faked by a human being.
It's possible that you have had such an experience, in which case I'd accept that it's rational for you to believe in god, but I haven't and so it's not rational for me to do so. Revelation is, by definition, first person. It's convincing only to the one that has it. To anyone else, it's hear-say, no more reliable than the ramblings of your average schizophrenic.
Sorry for being long-winded. Once I get going... :)
Cool! Thank you for that Lukas! You did a good job explaining that altogether. I think what will help me the most is when you stated:
ReplyDelete"God is a being so outrageously unlikely, that not only would I need to personally witness his presence, I would also require that this experience was repeated multiple times to allow me to exclude the possibility that I was simply delusional. I'd also want to ask some questions of him, to ensure that he had knowledge beyond what could be faked by a human being."
You have a great point here! Let me think on this some more and I will get back to you shortly! -Dustin
Okay Lukas! I may not be able to construct a perfect syllogism, but I want to lay some ground work so I can get some direction from you.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it seems to me that the evidence you just described that would be acceptable is the scientific method of testing if God exists.
1) "I need to personally witness his presence"- Would this mean you need physical evidence right in front of you?
2) "this experience was repeated multiple times to allow me to exclude the possibility that I was simply delusional."- So like testing things in a lab to show empirical evidence, like a pea-tree dish? or having multiple conversations with him?
3) " ask some questions of him, to ensure that he had knowledge beyond what could be faked by a human being."- So you assume he would be a personal being able to communicate with you and answer your questions?
Could you answer those to help me out here? Thanx
Oh by the way, I've never had God personally appear and have a conversation with me in the way you described above.
ReplyDeleteOh by the way, I've never had God personally appear and have a conversation with me in the way you described above.
ReplyDeleteOk. You never know. I've met people before who've said things like that.
1) "I need to personally witness his presence"- Would this mean you need physical evidence right in front of you?
That would certainly be nice. I suppose a spiritual vision of sorts might be acceptable, provided it fulfilled the other requirements. Vision or physical manifestation; it would present much the same way to me.
I would need to be able to tie it back to the physical in some way, perhaps by prophecy or other information that could be verified outside the experience itself. That I would consider the important point; that I could check it in some fashion.
2) "this experience was repeated multiple times to allow me to exclude the possibility that I was simply delusional."- So like testing things in a lab to show empirical evidence, like a pea-tree dish? or having multiple conversations with him?
In a way. The issue is consistency. If I was going insane, I might, by coincidence, have a hallucination that was convincing, but repeated, consistent experiences would make it more likely that I was in fact experiencing some, previously hidden, aspect of reality and not just going bonkers.
3) " ask some questions of him, to ensure that he had knowledge beyond what could be faked by a human being."- So you assume he would be a personal being able to communicate with you and answer your questions?
Well, all the descriptions of God I've heard say that he's a specific being with thoughts, desires and opinions. According to the bible, he did communicate personally with people on multiple occasions, so he should be able to do so again.
Even if this description is only an approximation, if he's omnipotent, then he should be able to present in such a fashion, for the purposes of communication.
Perhaps you have a different view of God? Could you clarify?
Well my view of God would line up most consistently with the biblical God. Meaning that in the Old Testament he revealed himself to the prophets and through many miracles, visions, etc. But now as Hebrews 1:1-2 puts it: "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son(Jesus), whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;"
ReplyDeleteSo my view of God is that of God being manifest in the flesh (Jesus Christ) who lived among men for approximately 33 years and then was crucified and rose again. I know you know this about me already, but you asked for me to clarify.
Lukas,
ReplyDeleteI've come to the conclusion that I can't give you the evidence "your" looking for. There is no way scientifically to "test" God. In fact, God wouldn't reveal Himself to you in that way.
I think He has revealed Himself to man very clearly! Although many do no accept it in this way, because it demands they make a decision about whether they are going to accept it or not. Lukas, would you like to know how God revealed Himself to man, so that man could ask Him questions, see His works more than once,hear His claims,etc?
Lukas,
ReplyDeleteI understand that the only way you will hear what i have to say, is if I can help to provide evidence of God in the way you described: See him face to face, over a period of time, having a conversation with him, etc. But is that reasonable to ask of me? Do you think I have the power to give this to you? You have to make your own decision whether or not you will investigate. I honestly think you've come up with a way to "pin" God against the wall and say: "Hey, if you don't prove yourself to me in this way....I ain't going to believe in you!"
But would God be God if he allowed us to make personal demands of him? No way! God is far above us and infinitely greater than us! We have to come to Him on His terms!!
He has provided a way for us to know Him: His Son Jesus Christ!!! If you reject this, your going to continue to go down the wrong path to find truth. That is if you are sincerely looking for it, or just looking for a way to "excuse" His existence away!