asajoseph
Nonbeliever-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation
0 NeutralAbout asajoseph
- Birthday 05/21/1983
Contact Methods
-
Website URL
http://
Profile Information
-
Gender
Male
-
Location
London, England
-
Interests
Philosophy, Theology, Skiing, Football (the English kind!), Rugby, Reading....<br /><br />Ummm....
Recent Profile Visitors
846 profile views
-
So far, since I've been on here, I feel that I've been fairly pro-Christian in my musings. But now perhaps it's time for me to write something a little more negative, about the biggest concern I have with the concept of an omnipotent and omniscient God. So I'll start at the beginning - did God create all evil? Imagine you're at T0 - the very instant that God created the universe. Now, God's sitting there, whilst all matter is still at singularity, and, being omnipotent, he has the potential to create an infinite number of different universes. He goes ahead and creates this one. He creates the universe in which natural disasters wipe out thousands. He creates the universe in which Hitler massacred 6 million jews, in which Stalin causes the death of two, three, maybe four times that. The result of the actions of evil humans you say. But wait... At T0, God is sitting there not just omnipotent, able to create an infinite number of different universes, but also supposedly omniscient. He is, if omniscience is as we understand it, also able to see exactly what will happen in the future in the universe he is about to create. He sees the Indonesian Tsunami, the Stalinist purges, the Nazi Holocaust. He sees all this, but he goes ahead and creates the universe anyway. There is evil in this world, and then there is EVIL - and I must wonder to myself, could God, the omniscient, omnipotent being who supposedly is directing the whole show, not have created the universe in which there was just a little bit less? So what's the answer? Open theism - a doctrine said by many orthodox christians to be heretical, and stripping God of his majest? Calvinism, a doctrine that strips man of his accountability? Or Molinism, and it's inherent philosophical difficulties?
-
What makes an atheist so scary
asajoseph replied to ethical.atheist's topic in Defense of the Gospel
As someone who knows a great number of atheists, I can assure you of one thing for certain - they DO have morals. What they usually don't have, however, is a consistent philosophical and logical grounding for those morals that can sustain the same challenges that objectivist morality can - but instead of accusing them all of doing the devil's dirty work, shouldn't they be encouraged to continue with those behaviours that are considered to be moral, and encourage them to question why they hold the views that they do? -
Hey nebula - thanks very much for those links! I do know Ravi Zacharias - or, to be more accurate, I know of him. Haven't actually read much by him however, so I'll be sure to listen to those links. Leonard - I've always been fairly impressed by the cosmological argument. The ontological I have more problems with, as framed by both Anselm and Descartes - but I think that's a discussion for elsewhere, perhaps.
-
Thanks for your perspective Len (mind if I call you that?). Richard Dawkins (that oh so civil bastion of unbelief ) has something that he calls an 'Ultimate 747 argument', which, in my opinion, is nothing more than a glorified exercise in begging the question. But nevertheless, thinking along the same lines - there are a number of standard arguments that can be made for the existence of God. I outlined a few of them in my sub-title, but there are others. Would you mind me asking, if, for the sake of argument only, I asked you to pick one as that which you find the most compelling, what would it be?
-
Wow Carol, talking to someone in the Shetlands - I'm muchos impressed! Anyhoo, you said: Then again, Jesus did say "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations[...]" (Matt 28:19), so even if God doesn't strictly need your help, he has kinda asked for it in this regard, wouldn't you agree? Clearly, as a Christian you are called, to some degree, to spreading your faith. I know that for many hearing the personal testimony of how God has impacted someone's life can be very powerful (I've enjoyed some of the testimonies on this forum, actually). However, I also know that for others, the concept of God is about as meaningful as the concept of Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or Bertrand Russell's tea pot - so, when you encounter these people, do you make efforts to explain the reality of God to them?
-
Christ Sheep, Grungekid and Trusting Jesus, Thank you all for your responses - hopefully that which I've left for Wayne will act partially in response to the posts you've all written for me. As I've said before, when I call myself an agnostic, I am genuine in that belief (or uncertainty) - I don't disbelieve in God, but I just can't quite get my head around him existing. I've been interested in Christianity for a fair few years now, initially being struck several books and speakers on the historicity of the New Testament, and the likliehood that Jesus isn't just some fairytale character made up to scare young children. The existence of God, however, is never something I've really been able to fathom, and, despite reading an unbelievable amount of literature (I've read books by most of those on systemstrike's list), I've never quite been convinced enough. But this thread wasn't really intended to be thrown out as a challenge to 'convince the unbeliever' - if you want to have a go at that, fine ( ), but in actuality, I'm just genuinely interested to hear what sort of arguments you guys find convincing, without any real desire on my part to try and break them down.
-
Hi Wayne, Been a busy few days for me - I've just been offered a fantastic new job, so making a few big decisions in my life at the moment. No decision yet (trading off a massive payrise, and better career prospects against the relative security of my current job, and ditching my company at a time when they're pretty dependant on the work I'm doing), but plenty to ponder on over the weekend. Anyhoo, thanks for taking the time again to reply - some very thoughtful points. So let's begin: Sure you could but read my entire statement. I stated, "the more people who testify that they too have a relationship with her (those she works with, her family and so on) does nothing but strengthen my belief that she is a real person." We are not talking about folks who know of her but those who actually have a personal relationship with her. The same applies to true believers in Christ. I understand what you're saying Wayne (I think), but as I tried to explain above, I don't really think that demonstrates to me that such an entity exists. When I talk about my girlfriend, I'm talking about a 26 year old female human being, of which there are literally millions around the world. So why does my testimony carry weight? Because the concept of a 26 year old single female is something you're already extremely familiar with, and the actions ascribed to her are exactly the actions you'd expect from such an entity. With God, however, it's different. Imagine I said to you that I had a personal relationship with a talking unicorn, and found 50 people to back me up. Would that be enough to convince you of the existence of the talking unicorn, or would you want to see more evidence to back this assertion up? The fact is, I don't see God, I don't feel God, and I don't think I've ever experienced God - so when you tell me about his existence and your personal relationship with him, it's not quite enough for me to be convinced. Once again my friend, it isn't about sincerity. It isn't about knowledge, commitment, or even belief. It is about a simple relationship...a relationship much like you have with any other real person. The same interactions are possible with God. Now you may consider me "mental" but the more people who have experienced the same as I have can testify along with me to the same but unique experience. C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest thinkers of our time testified that seeing the relationship with God that others spoke of is what actually got his attention to seek out a relationship with the living God himself. He stated that his conversion experience was a process rather than an event. Mine has been much of the same. Don't worry Wayne, I don't think you're mental! However, surely before 'relationship', must come belief - before you can build any kind of relationship with anyone, human or deity or otherwise, surely you first have to recognise their existence? This is what I have trouble doing - I'm not interested in following any set of beliefs because I perceive them to be 'nice' or 'cool' or even 'spiritual'. I'm only interested in what is true, and will follow that wherever it leads. Well, for the simple reason that lots of people truly believe lots of different things - Once again, it isn't about what we believe but rather what we experience. Sure Wayne, but I don't experience anything. And what's more, without knowledge, how do I know how to interpret what I do experience? Surely the two come hand in hand? Anyway, hope you're enjoying your weekend - I look forward to hearing any further thoughts you may have. Back to the floor then (before I look through a few other posts) - I'm not trying to challenge anyone with this thread. All I'm asking is what people find to be the most convincing apologetic - I'm guessing Wayne would say his testimony of the relationship that he has (hope I'm not putting words in your mouth!). What would others say? Asa
-
Relational experience. You say you're out to visit your girlfriend. I live an ocean apart and do not know you or your girlfriend but I have little to no doubt of her existence. Why? ...because you obviously have a relationship with her. Now the more people who testify that they too have a relationship with her (those she works with, her family and so on) does nothing but strengthen my belief that she is a real person. Hi Wayne, Leaving in 5, so I'll have to leave my response to systemstrike until tomorrow, but here's my two-penneth-worth on your response. No, first of all, let me say that I certainly wouldn't belittle what anyone believes to be their own personal experiences. I would also tend to agree, that, at least in the Christian worldview, an intellectual conviction without a 'relational experience' (as you put it) to back it up wouldn't be much of a faith. However, beginning at the beginning... The fact is, I could be lying. I could, as it happens, just be a sad old man, whiling away the hours, inventing imaginary girlfriends just to pass the time, make myself feel less lonely, and appear more socially acceptable. I'm not making up my girlfriend (I don't think), but the fact that there are literally billions of men out there, billions of women, and many, many millions of those couple up and form relationships. It's an eminently plausible situation for me to be in, based on what we know about the world, and the way people operate in it. Now, you telling me about God is different from this, as, to me, God isn't necessarily an immediately plausible entity. I don't mean that God is implausible - just that, given the fact that I have far less familiarity with God than I do the concept of a boy and a girl falling in love, it takes more than just your word for me to change my stance on his existence. Hence my question - what apologetic would you (or anyone else) most recommend to someone if trying to convince them to even take the concept of God seriously? I have no doubt that you believe what you believe sincerely - I am just not 100% convinced that you are not mistaken. Which is fair enough - but, I'll be honest about myself for a moment (and this may be a fault on my behalf), that's just not enough to convince me to make such a massive paradigm shift in the way I see the world. Well, for the simple reason that lots of people truly believe lots of different things - the sincerety of your belief is not enough to make it convincing, though it certainly is enough for me to treat your views with the respect that they deserve. Why should I trust your word, though, for example, any more than I trust that of an Islamic suicide bomber? After all, it's fairly evident that they really, really believe in their faith too. I await your response
-
Good evening all! It's just approaching 7PM here in the slightly chilly UK, and I'm getting ready to head out to visit my girlfriend for the evening. I've been away on business today, and, to cut a long story short, I had plenty of time to think to myself on the train on the way home. Now, those who read my introductory post yesterday, and were kind enough to welcome me here will know, I'm an agnostic - though I don't consider myself to be ignorant of the cases that can be made for either side of the theistic discussion. I don't, in my heart, feel convinced enough of any firm position to commit myself to either atheism or theism, but I am genuinely searching. By nature, I'm an evidentialist, and a logical thinker - I feel that I'm quite good at understanding the logic in argumentation, and understanding when premises do, or do not, lead to the conclusion they're being used to support. So, as I was wondering to myself on the way home today, what is the best, most effective way of arguing (for lack of a better word) for the existence of God / truth of Christianity? What do you guys feel is the best, most logically consistent apologetic going? Asa P.S. Don't feel limited to those arguments that I've mentioned in the sub-title - that was just a feeble attempt at being amusing