Share your evidence for Christianity

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
It's easier to provide you with numerous books, which you'll have to decide whether or not you'll read for yourself.
Some are freely available (see first 4 below), and others will have a price.
I appreciate the effort but the scholarly works of Christians are almost all based on logical fallacies. None have empirical evidence for Jesus or god besides the stories in the Codex Sinaiticus.

The Christian books I've read usually say things like, "everyone agrees Jesus was crucified" or "every major scholar agrees the tomb was empty." Not only is that not evidence - these are actually examples of very well understood logical fallacies and should be immediately discarded (i.e. the Appeal to Authority fallacy and the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy).

Most of the Christian Scholars I've read would be disqualified from a High School debate team in the first round due to logical fallacy violations and clear lack of supporting evidence.

If you want to find empirical evidence for Jesus then it will be in a museum, not words in a book. Empirical evidence will be a physical thing that anyone can see and test that proves God is real. An example of empirical evidence from the time of Jesus might be the Pilates Stone as empirical proof that Pontius Pilate was the Roman ruler of Judea in 50 CE.

Otherwise these are just unfounded Christian claims that are no different than the claims of Muslim, Hindu, or Scientology scholars. There is no reason to believe any of them.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
Some people have pushed back on me saying I do not honestly consider the evidence for God and Jesus presented here. I think you might be right. So I thought I'd make a fresh start. What evidence is there that I am failing to consider?

I must say that I only consider empirical evidence when trying to figure out what is real (per the wildly successful scientific method). That is evidence we can see, measure, and test. An example of empirical evidence for God might be manna dropped from the sky or the sun turning to sack cloth. We can see, measure, and test those.

Sadly personal testimony, ancient unverifiable texts, and faith are not empirical evidence for miracles.

I can start us off. The oldest empirical evidence I know of for Jesus is the Codex Sinaiticus Bible. The oldest scrap of the NT is Unical 0189. Sadly the Codex was created 300 years after Jesus and nothing in it can be verified so it is not very compelling empirical evidence for claims of miracles. And Unical 0189 does not mention Jesus at all.

So - what evidence do you have that I am not considering?
It would be helpful if the believer would define evidence as they use the word.
You are a thoughtful individual who obviously cares whether your ideas are true or not in order to know and to hold as many accurate ideas about the world we live in as possible. Determining factuality or truthfulness requires a degree of work, less for trivial issues, more for critical issues.
Belief on the other hand is a kind of short cut. There's no work that needs to be done, one can believe whatever they want and we see this manifest in reality; there are all sorts of things believed and many that contradict other beliefs.
Belief is intellectual laziness, an attempt to comfort emotionally.
The believer should be aware that when they make a claim without supporting evidence, we do not consider it to be truth but rather something they merely believe which can be merely dismissed. Atheists and believers are not playing different games on the same playing field, we're on different fields. For the believer, belief that something is true is sufficient. For the atheist, generally it is insufficient. So the long drawn out conversations where the same thing is repeated (often by both parties) time and time again is due to a complete disconnect. The atheist is at least willing and able to communicate and describe the differences whereas often the believer resorts to ad hominem attacks and blames the atheist for not being able to understand due to their choice to reject Jesus. Its intellectually pathetic but what are ya gonna do?
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
It would be helpful if the believer would define evidence as they use the word.
You are a thoughtful individual who obviously cares whether your ideas are true or not in order to know and to hold as many accurate ideas about the world we live in as possible. Determining factuality or truthfulness requires a degree of work, less for trivial issues, more for critical issues.
Belief on the other hand is a kind of short cut. There's no work that needs to be done, one can believe whatever they want and we see this manifest in reality; there are all sorts of things believed and many that contradict other beliefs.
Belief is intellectual laziness, an attempt to comfort emotionally.
The believer should be aware that when they make a claim without supporting evidence, we do not consider it to be truth but rather something they merely believe which can be merely dismissed. Atheists and believers are not playing different games on the same playing field, we're on different fields. For the believer, belief that something is true is sufficient. For the atheist, generally it is insufficient. So the long drawn out conversations where the same thing is repeated (often by both parties) time and time again is due to a complete disconnect. The atheist is at least willing and able to communicate and describe the differences whereas often the believer resorts to ad hominem attacks and blames the atheist for not being able to understand due to their choice to reject Jesus. Its intellectually pathetic but what are ya gonna do?
Very well said. I left CARM for a year due to burn out. I felt like I was banging my head against a wall. I came back because I am bored out of my mind during quarantine.

However, it is clear that Christians think evidence is whatever you want it to be - a feeling, an ancient religious text that they like, and eyewitness claims of miracles.

I do not know why I bang my head against that. I think it is because I see people on the news every day believing in things without any need for evidence. They believe the wall is built and Mexico paid for it. They believe a hard drive has incriminating data. They believe Covid is a hoax. They believe masks do not save lives. It drives me crazy and it has an impact on my life.

But it is clear that people like this are no interested in evidence or truth. They just believe what they like - they believe what fits their world view or religion and fight to the death based on...nothing. It is maddening to me an causes so much unnecessary suffering. If we could all just demand empirical evidence for the wall, for Mexico's payments, for the lack of Covid...

Ah well. Probably time to take a break again.

Thanks Big Thinker :)
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
Very well said. I left CARM for a year due to burn out. I felt like I was banging my head against a wall. I came back because I am bored out of my mind during quarantine.

However, it is clear that Christians think evidence is whatever you want it to be - a feeling, an ancient religious text that they like, and eyewitness claims of miracles.
Anything that supports their beliefs. Otherwise its not evidence.
I do not know why I bang my head against that. I think it is because I see people on the news every day believing in things without any need for evidence. They believe the wall is built and Mexico paid for it. They believe a hard drive has incriminating data. They believe Covid is a hoax. They believe masks do not save lives. It drives me crazy and it has an impact on my life.
The reason to do it is for practice. Practice, not necessarily to convince anyone but rather practice getting our own thoughts sorted out, figuring out how to cogently articulate ideas in unambiguous ways, leaving the other person little to no room to argue at cross purposes or misunderstand our words.
But it is clear that people like this are no interested in evidence or truth.
As far as they're concerned, they have the truth. The bible tells us they have a plank in their eye.
They just believe what they like - they believe what fits their world view or religion and fight to the death based on...nothing. It is maddening to me an causes so much unnecessary suffering. If we could all just demand empirical evidence for the wall, for Mexico's payments, for the lack of Covid...

Ah well. Probably time to take a break again.
I'm interested in why it is the way it is, why is there disriminatory acceptance or reality. I'm interested in how the cognitive dissonance works, why people believe weird things. I was once a believer and at times I was reasonably certain that I was right -but only because I had never properly questioned any of it -not the big questions anyway. I was aware of denominational differences and had opinions about this or that. I thought there was something to learn, I was aware that I wasn't as close to God as I thought I needed to be and not as close as other people seemed to be but figured that was something that would eventually come.
But there's no marked progression, no milestones, no degrees, no expert or master levels of understanding. Most importantly, there's no refining of knowledge. A measure of a person's knowledge of any topic is the number of distinctions they can make regarding the topic.
Believers here have exceptionally little knowledge of God and not only cannot, they are unwilling to make definitive, testable statements about the nature of God because they don't know. Instead they believe.
Thanks Big Thinker :)
Its my pleasure. Thanks for posting and interacting.
Remember, the point of being here is for our own purposes. And its healthy to take a break. Just like Facebook relies on dopamine hits to keep users engaged, replies on online forums act the same way. There's nothing wrong with taking a break. -BTW The Social Dilemma is a great documentary if you haven't seen it. Frightening but very good.
Cheers!

BT
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
The reason to do it is for practice. Practice, not necessarily to convince anyone but rather practice getting our own thoughts sorted out, figuring out how to cogently articulate ideas in unambiguous ways, leaving the other person little to no room to argue at cross purposes or misunderstand our words.
I would never say any of this in real life. I get my debate on here on CARM because Christians willingly step in to a debate forum. I would never unleash my empirical evidence [email protected] on a Christian at a BBQ. When any of my Christian friends say things about God I just nod and smile.

I see no value in using any of this language with friends an family. Let them believe what they like :)
As far as they're concerned, they have the truth. The bible tells us they have a plank in their eye.

I'm interested in why it is the way it is, why is there disriminatory acceptance or reality. I'm interested in how the cognitive dissonance works, why people believe weird things. I was once a believer and at times I was reasonably certain that I was right -but only because I had never properly questioned any of it -not the big questions anyway. I was aware of denominational differences and had opinions about this or that. I thought there was something to learn, I was aware that I wasn't as close to God as I thought I needed to be and not as close as other people seemed to be but figured that was something that would eventually come.
But there's no marked progression, no milestones, no degrees, no expert or master levels of understanding. Most importantly, there's no refining of knowledge. A measure of a person's knowledge of any topic is the number of distinctions they can make regarding the topic.
Believers here have exceptionally little knowledge of God and not only cannot, they are unwilling to make definitive, testable statements about the nature of God because they don't know. Instead they believe.
I think this is true for humans in general. We all practice cognitive bias and dissonance. I think it is in our nature to believe my religion is right, my politician has answers, my state is better than your state, my Constitution is the best in the world

Tribalism maybe? I don't know but dispassionate, evidence based discourse seems very, very rare.
Its my pleasure. Thanks for posting and interacting.
Remember, the point of being here is for our own purposes. And its healthy to take a break. Just like Facebook relies on dopamine hits to keep users engaged, replies on online forums act the same way. There's nothing wrong with taking a break. -BTW The Social Dilemma is a great documentary if you haven't seen it. Frightening but very good.
Cheers!
Thanks brother (or sister!)

Your words hit home and are appreciated.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I appreciate the effort but the scholarly works of Christians are almost all based on logical fallacies. None have empirical evidence for Jesus or god besides the stories in the Codex Sinaiticus.

The Christian books I've read usually say things like, "everyone agrees Jesus was crucified" or "every major scholar agrees the tomb was empty." Not only is that not evidence - these are actually examples of very well understood logical fallacies and should be immediately discarded (i.e. the Appeal to Authority fallacy and the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy).

Most of the Christian Scholars I've read would be disqualified from a High School debate team in the first round due to logical fallacy violations and clear lack of supporting evidence.

If you want to find empirical evidence for Jesus then it will be in a museum, not words in a book. Empirical evidence will be a physical thing that anyone can see and test that proves God is real. An example of empirical evidence from the time of Jesus might be the Pilates Stone as empirical proof that Pontius Pilate was the Roman ruler of Judea in 50 CE.

Otherwise these are just unfounded Christian claims that are no different than the claims of Muslim, Hindu, or Scientology scholars. There is no reason to believe any of them.
Gee! I guess that solves it then.
There is no way you've left yourself to get to the truth.
I so love these.
Well, have fun going around in circles.
Ciao.
 

Torin

Well-known member
I think for Plato 'divine' was Zeus. There is no way he could have been thinking about 'divine theory' of Christianity 400 years before Jesus. And this dilemma can be used for God then it can be used for Allah, Brahma, Zeus, and any god.

I think it is interesting. However I fail to see how it could possibly be considered proof that anything in The Bible is true.
Ok. What you claimed, though, was that "the original Euthyphro Dilemma was used to prove that the Greek gods were true." The original Euthyphro dilemma was not used to prove that the Greek gods were real. It was used to prove that the Greek gods were not the source of morality. It had nothing to do with whether or not the Greek gods were real.

I think the poster you're talking to is trying to use the Euthyphro dilemma to prove some sort of religious doctrine. My only point here is that that's not what it was originally intended to show.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
The Euthyphro Solution ~ by ReverendRV

Psalm 33:5 NIV; The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a supposed debate between Socrates and Euthyphro, told to us by Plato; and Atheists use it to Debunk Theism. It basically asks, ‘Is Morality Good because God says it is Good, or does God say it’s Good because it is Good?’. This is like asking ‘Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg’, but asks which came first, Morality or God? The question makes us wonder if Morality exists outside of God instead of reflecting God’s Nature; thus there is no need for God to exist, for Morality to exist. Christians use the existence of Morality to try and prove the existence of God. Atheists remove this argument from the Arena of Ideas by raising on the dilemma. ~ A big problem for the Euthyphro Dilemma is Morality as a factor. Most Atheists believe in Moral Relativism, as in Morality is Relative to the Individual; IE “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Here’s the issue; Morality has to be Objective for Euthyphro to even have a Dilemma. If Morality is external to God, and if Morality is Arbitrary; Morality can’t be Good in and of itself. This is self-defeating in two ways. Atheists have to accept the existence of Objective Morality if they want to use the Euthyphro Dilemma; and secondly, Moral Relativism can’t be Good in and of itself…

If Objective Morality is Transcendent, and if it’s outside of God it is Transcendent; then we can still be judged, even if God doesn’t exist. We judge people based on our Consciences all the time. ~ Have you ever told a Lie? What do you call people who Lie? If someone Lied about paying you back, then they’re Liars and Thieves! We know a Lie when we hear it; and when we speak it. Thou shalt not Lie is Inherently True to all of us, not Relative to some of us. Have you had another God other than the God of the Bible? This violates the First of the Ten Commandments; just as having your own Subjective Ethic which says you Can Lie and Steal, violates your Inherent Ethic. ~ These are only three of the Ten Commandments; if God judges you by Objective Morality, would you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell?

The Euthyphro Dilemma is actually Evidence FOR the existence of God. Since God is Moral, he has to Hate Sin; but also has to make a way of escape. ~ For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal Life. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived a Sinless Human life and deserved his Righteousness. God is pleased by Holiness, so in order to be Saved, you need that kind of Righteousness. Jesus died in our place by shedding his blood on the Cross, but arose from the grave to newness of Life! We’re Saved by God’s Grace through Faith in the risen Jesus Christ, not by Works lest we Boast. Repent of your Sin and Confess Jesus Christ as your LORD God; then you will be Righteous, as he is Righteous. ~ Your Subjective Morality can’t exist outside of you, but can only exist because of you. If Subjective Morality exists because of you, you’ve proven that if God exists, he could be the Source of Morality; a Morality that is ‘because’ of him. God Objectifies Morality…

Luke 6:31 NIV; Do to others as you would have them do to you.
 
Last edited:

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Gee! I guess that solves it then.
There is no way you've left yourself to get to the truth.
I so love these.
Well, have fun going around in circles.
Ciao.
Thanks. You still have provided no empirical evidence for me to evaluate. I look forward to it. Until then I'll remain an atheist due to a lack of empirical evidence.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Thanks. You still have provided no empirical evidence for me to evaluate. I look forward to it. Until then I'll remain an atheist due to a lack of empirical evidence.
Here it is re-edited to flow better...

The Euthyphro Solution ~ by ReverendRV

Psalm 33:5 NIV; The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a supposed debate between Socrates and Euthyphro, told to us by Plato; and Atheists use it to Debunk Theism. It basically asks, ‘Is Morality Good because God Decrees it to be Good, or does God recognize that Morality is Good in and of itself?’. This is like asking ‘Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg’ but instead asks ‘Which came first, Morality or God?’ The question makes us wonder if Morality exists outside of God instead of reflecting God’s Nature; ergo, there is no need for God to exist for Morality to exist. Christians use the existence of Morality to try and prove the existence of God. Atheists remove this argument from the Arena of Ideas by raising the dilemma. ~ A big problem for the Euthyphro Dilemma is Morality as a factor. Most Atheists believe in Moral Relativism, as in Morality is Relative to the Individual. Here’s the issue; Morality has to be Objective for Euthyphro to even have a Dilemma. If Morality is external to God, but this Morality is Arbitrary; Morality can’t be Good in and of itself. This is self-defeating in two ways. Atheists have to accept the existence of Objective Morality if they want to use the Euthyphro Dilemma; and secondly, Moral Relativism can’t be Good in and of itself…

If Objective Morality is Transcendent, and if it’s outside of God, it is Transcendent; then we can still be judged, even if God doesn’t exist. We judge people based on our Consciences all the time. ~ Have you ever told a Lie? What do you call people who Lie? If someone Lied about paying you back, then they’re Liars and Thieves! We know a Lie when we hear it; and when we speak it. Thou shalt not Lie is Inherently True to all of us, not Relative to some of us. Have you had another God other than the God of the Bible? This violates the First of the Ten Commandments; just as having your own Subjective Ethic which says you Can Lie and Steal, violates your Inherent Ethic. ~ These are only three of the Ten Commandments; if God judges you by Objective Morality, would you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell?

The Euthyphro Dilemma is actually Evidence FOR the existence of God. Since God is Moral, he has to Hate Sin; and also has to make a way of escape. ~ For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal Life. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived a Sinless Human life and deserved his perfect record. God is pleased by Holiness, so in order to be Saved, we also need that kind of Righteousness. Jesus died in our place by shedding his blood on the Cross, but arose from the grave to newness of Life! We’re Saved by God’s Grace through Faith in the risen Jesus Christ, not by Works lest we Boast. Repent of your Sin and Confess Jesus Christ as your LORD God; then you will be Righteous, as he is Righteous. ~ Your Subjective Morality can’t exist outside of you, but can only exist because of you. If Subjective Morality exists because of you, you’ve proven that if God exists, he could be the Source of Morality; a Morality that is ‘because’ of him. God Objectifies Morality…

Luke 6:31 NIV; Do to others as you would have them do to you.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Thanks. You still have provided no empirical evidence for me to evaluate. I look forward to it. Until then I'll remain an atheist due to a lack of empirical evidence.
The empirical evidence you seek will be given you when you do what Jesus said.

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
The empirical evidence you seek will be given you when you do what Jesus said.

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
To be clear - you do not have any empirical evidence to support your claims. You say that evidence 'will be given to me' after I believe the things that you cannot support. Like a Hindu saying, "believe me and do what Lord Brahma says and then you'll get evidence for Lord Brahma."

So your apologetic defense is "believe my claims first and then someone will show you evidence."

No thanks :)
 

SteveB

Well-known member
To be clear - you do not have any empirical evidence to support your claims.
To be more clear---- you can continue to play this game of yours, or you can come find out what empirical evidence actually is.
Because your use of the phrase-- empirical evidence--- it doesn't mean what you want it to.

You say that evidence 'will be given to me' after I believe the things that you cannot support.
You should actually read what Jesus said.
What do the words ACTUALLY say? NOT what you WANT them to say, but what they actually say.

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.


Like a Hindu saying, "believe me and do what Lord Brahma says and then you'll get evidence for Lord Brahma."
So, you're going to compare eating human flesh with doing what Jesus said?
Why do you do this to yourself?

So your apologetic defense is "believe my claims first and then someone will show you evidence."

No thanks :)

And yet you have no problem whatsoever promoting cannibalism.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
To be more clear---- you can continue to play this game of yours, or you can come find out what empirical evidence actually is.
Because your use of the phrase-- empirical evidence--- it doesn't mean what you want it to.
Its not like I am using some strange definition. This is the universally accepted definition used by every scientist on the planet:

"Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría)."

And you have no evidence that can be evaluated using the senses by other people. Your 'evidence' is stories you cannot verify, feelings that others cannot see or test, and words in an ancient book that cannot be corroborated or tested.

You have evidence. It is just not empirical.

All you have to say is that you believe in God based on evidence that you find compelling even though it is not empirical. There is no need for you to try and make your belief something it is not. But you are welcome to try I suppose.

You should actually read what Jesus said.
What do the words ACTUALLY say? NOT what you WANT them to say, but what they actually say.

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
I did read that. It is meaningless without a way to prove that Jesus was the son of God. This is exactly the same as anything written in any ancient religious text.

Again, this is evidence. But it is not empirical since we cannot observe or test that Jesus was the son of God.
So, you're going to compare eating human flesh with doing what Jesus said?
No. I am saying that God told people he was going to punish them by making them eat the flesh of their children. And I think that is bad. It has nothing to do with Jesus.

I am just stunned that you cannot admit that punishing people by making them eat their children is bad because you cannot bring yourself to criticize God in any way.

So you argue that baby drowning and eating kids is either OK or that is not what it says or whatever you need to do to avoid the obvious reality that God did some horrific stuff.
And yet you have no problem whatsoever promoting cannibalism.
I have no idea how you got here but let me assure you - I am anti-cannibalism. Your God uses the cannibalism of children as a punishment - your God is pro-cannibalism. But I am not.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Here it is re-edited to flow better...

The Euthyphro Solution ~ by ReverendRV

Psalm 33:5 NIV; The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a supposed debate between Socrates and Euthyphro, told to us by Plato; and Atheists use it to Debunk Theism. It basically asks, ‘Is Morality Good because God Decrees it to be Good, or does God recognize that Morality is Good in and of itself?’. This is like asking ‘Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg’ but instead asks ‘Which came first, Morality or God?’ The question makes us wonder if Morality exists outside of God instead of reflecting God’s Nature; ergo, there is no need for God to exist for Morality to exist. Christians use the existence of Morality to try and prove the existence of God. Atheists remove this argument from the Arena of Ideas by raising the dilemma. ~ A big problem for the Euthyphro Dilemma is Morality as a factor. Most Atheists believe in Moral Relativism, as in Morality is Relative to the Individual. Here’s the issue; Morality has to be Objective for Euthyphro to even have a Dilemma. If Morality is external to God, but this Morality is Arbitrary; Morality can’t be Good in and of itself. This is self-defeating in two ways. Atheists have to accept the existence of Objective Morality if they want to use the Euthyphro Dilemma; and secondly, Moral Relativism can’t be Good in and of itself…

If Objective Morality is Transcendent, and if it’s outside of God, it is Transcendent; then we can still be judged, even if God doesn’t exist. We judge people based on our Consciences all the time. ~ Have you ever told a Lie? What do you call people who Lie? If someone Lied about paying you back, then they’re Liars and Thieves! We know a Lie when we hear it; and when we speak it. Thou shalt not Lie is Inherently True to all of us, not Relative to some of us. Have you had another God other than the God of the Bible? This violates the First of the Ten Commandments; just as having your own Subjective Ethic which says you Can Lie and Steal, violates your Inherent Ethic. ~ These are only three of the Ten Commandments; if God judges you by Objective Morality, would you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell?

The Euthyphro Dilemma is actually Evidence FOR the existence of God. Since God is Moral, he has to Hate Sin; and also has to make a way of escape. ~ For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal Life. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived a Sinless Human life and deserved his perfect record. God is pleased by Holiness, so in order to be Saved, we also need that kind of Righteousness. Jesus died in our place by shedding his blood on the Cross, but arose from the grave to newness of Life! We’re Saved by God’s Grace through Faith in the risen Jesus Christ, not by Works lest we Boast. Repent of your Sin and Confess Jesus Christ as your LORD God; then you will be Righteous, as he is Righteous. ~ Your Subjective Morality can’t exist outside of you, but can only exist because of you. If Subjective Morality exists because of you, you’ve proven that if God exists, he could be the Source of Morality; a Morality that is ‘because’ of him. God Objectifies Morality…

Luke 6:31 NIV; Do to others as you would have them do to you.
On lying.
The secret police are at your door, looking for a family of minority X. You know the family is hiding in your barn.
The secret police ask you, "Is there a family of X on your property?"
The truth is, that yes, they are hiding in your barn. But if you report them, they will be killed.
You have the option to lie, and thereby save them. Or tell the truth, and let them be murdered.
Which is the moral option?
Your morality kills a family.
Mine saves them.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
On lying.
The secret police are at your door, looking for a family of minority X. You know the family is hiding in your barn.
The secret police ask you, "Is there a family of X on your property?"
The truth is, that yes, they are hiding in your barn. But if you report them, they will be killed.
You have the option to lie, and thereby save them. Or tell the truth, and let them be murdered.
Which is the moral option?
Your morality kills a family.
Mine saves them.
What happens is that the two Ethics cross Streams like in Ghostbusters. In Judaism and in Islam, that person may have a tougher choice than I would as a Christian; we are no longer under the Law of God but are now under the Law of Christ; I can Lie to save my Daughter. Saint James said that if we keep the Royal Law, which is 'Love your Neighbor as you Love yourself', as Christians we are doing well (though we could be doing better). Mr Laurier, I may be the better choice out of the Christians here to show you true Christianity. If we Love our Neighbor but one day tell a Lie, we're still doing well because we Love our Neighbor...
 
Last edited:

ReverendRV

Well-known member
The Royal Law ~ by Reverend RV

James 2:8 KJV
; If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

There was a time when Jesus commissioned several disciples and he was instructing them in the way of his ministry. During this time a lawyer spoke up and asked Jesus how to inherit Eternal Life, this is what was said; ~ “Behold, a lawyer stood up to put Jesus to the test. "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" The lawyer answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." Jesus said "You’ve answered correctly; do it, and you’ll live." The lawyer desired to justify himself, "Who is my neighbor?"” ~ Saint James taught about loving your neighbor, about not showing partiality; which the lawyer had in spades! ~ How could you ever keep this Royal Law with all your heart?

Jesus answered the lawyer’s question with an example of a foreigner who helped an injured man on a road. A Priest and a Levite wouldn’t stop to help the man. The lawyer knew that if this ever occurred, Jesus would be right; because those two wouldn’t touch anything unclean. Have you ever helped someone when they were in dire straits? Most people can answer yes to this; but none can say that they kept the Law of God by doing this! You object, “Saint Paul said that loving your neighbor as yourself fulfills the Law!” Yes he did; but only a royal Prince from Heaven can fulfill this Royal Law of God. A Pauper only has a Commoners Law that was given to Sinners; the Ten Commandments. These ten Laws were given to show us that we are guilty as Sin, and that we’re outlaws who will be locked away in a devil’s Hell for all Eternity. ~ The Baptist John Gill said this about the Royal Law; “Which is the law of love to men, without distinction of rich and poor, high and low, bond and free; and is so called, because it is the law of the King of kings, it is the law of Christ, who is King of saints; and because it is a principal law, the chief of laws; as love to God is the sum of the first and great commandment in the law, and may be called the king of laws; so love to the neighbour is the second and next unto it, and may very well bear the name of the queen of laws, and so has royalty in it; and indeed this last is said to be the fulfilling of the law, and it is also submitted to, and obeyed by such who are made kings and priests to God; and that in a royal manner, with a princely spirit, willingly, and with all readiness:”

What we need is to be made Kings and Priests of God in order to be able to fulfill the Queen of Laws and live! There’s only one way to receive this Coronation and it’s by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ the King of Kings; without Works lest we boast. His shed blood pays our Sin debt for us, but his Resurrection from the dead grants us our royal title. Repent from Sin, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God; and you will be Forgiven. Gain your commission from him and you’ll be Saved from your Sins; you will be spiritually born again with a Prince’s birthright! Jesus will grant it that you rule and reign with him in his kingdom forever in Eternity. You’re now able to keep the Royal Law of God since you’re under the jurisdiction of Heaven as a citizen who can exercise your new found rights. ~ Give up your life as a dying Pauper and exchange it for the life of an everlasting Prince; an Heir of the one true King. Read the Bible and find your Kingdom Agenda…

Revelations 1:5-6 KJV; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
If Objective Morality is Transcendent, and if it’s outside of God it is Transcendent;​
This seems like some possibilities and hypothesis - not evidence. So I am not really following this.

As far as I can tell morality is subjective - by definition morality is a human's singular opinion on right and wrong. I do not know how you can prove that morality is objective and exists outside of a human's mind. But I think you need to in order to proceed with the argument.
if God judges you by Objective Morality, would you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell?
Again we seem to just be wondering if God exists and not proving that he does. Its an interesting discussion but I do not see evidence for God yet.
Your Subjective Morality can’t exist outside of you, but can only exist because of you. If Subjective Morality exists because of you, you’ve proven that if God exists, he could be the Source of Morality; a Morality that is ‘because’ of him. God Objectifies Morality…
I do not see how my subjective morality proves that God exists. I agree that God could be the source of my subjective morality. The source of my morality could also be my own human consciousness or Allah or Shiva or Zeus or a small teacup orbiting Jupiter :)

This is an interesting thought experiment. But I do not see how any of this is evidence that God exists. Maybe I am missing a few connections.

Thanks for sharing though.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I do not see how my subjective morality proves that God exists. I agree that God could be the source of my subjective morality. The source of my morality could also be my own human consciousness or Allah or Shiva or Zeus or a small teacup orbiting Jupiter :)

This is an interesting thought experiment. But I do not see how any of this is evidence that God exists. Maybe I am missing a few connections.

Thanks for sharing though.
Thanks; sometimes 'getting close' is close enough. If it is interesting to an Empiricist, I feel good about all the Lurkers also finding it interesting...
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Here it is re-edited to flow better...

The Euthyphro Solution ~ by ReverendRV

Psalm 33:5 NIV; The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a supposed debate between Socrates and Euthyphro, told to us by Plato; and Atheists use it to Debunk Theism. It basically asks, ‘Is Morality Good because God Decrees it to be Good, or does God recognize that Morality is Good in and of itself?’. This is like asking ‘Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg’ but instead asks ‘Which came first, Morality or God?’ The question makes us wonder if Morality exists outside of God instead of reflecting God’s Nature; ergo, there is no need for God to exist for Morality to exist. Christians use the existence of Morality to try and prove the existence of God. Atheists remove this argument from the Arena of Ideas by raising the dilemma. ~ A big problem for the Euthyphro Dilemma is Morality as a factor. Most Atheists believe in Moral Relativism, as in Morality is Relative to the Individual. Here’s the issue; Morality has to be Objective for Euthyphro to even have a Dilemma. If Morality is external to God, but this Morality is Arbitrary; Morality can’t be Good in and of itself. This is self-defeating in two ways. Atheists have to accept the existence of Objective Morality if they want to use the Euthyphro Dilemma; and secondly, Moral Relativism can’t be Good in and of itself…

If Objective Morality is Transcendent, and if it’s outside of God, it is Transcendent; then we can still be judged, even if God doesn’t exist. We judge people based on our Consciences all the time. ~ Have you ever told a Lie? What do you call people who Lie? If someone Lied about paying you back, then they’re Liars and Thieves! We know a Lie when we hear it; and when we speak it. Thou shalt not Lie is Inherently True to all of us, not Relative to some of us. Have you had another God other than the God of the Bible? This violates the First of the Ten Commandments; just as having your own Subjective Ethic which says you Can Lie and Steal, violates your Inherent Ethic. ~ These are only three of the Ten Commandments; if God judges you by Objective Morality, would you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell?

The Euthyphro Dilemma is actually Evidence FOR the existence of God. Since God is Moral, he has to Hate Sin; and also has to make a way of escape. ~ For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal Life. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived a Sinless Human life and deserved his perfect record. God is pleased by Holiness, so in order to be Saved, we also need that kind of Righteousness. Jesus died in our place by shedding his blood on the Cross, but arose from the grave to newness of Life! We’re Saved by God’s Grace through Faith in the risen Jesus Christ, not by Works lest we Boast. Repent of your Sin and Confess Jesus Christ as your LORD God; then you will be Righteous, as he is Righteous. ~ Your Subjective Morality can’t exist outside of you, but can only exist because of you. If Subjective Morality exists because of you, you’ve proven that if God exists, he could be the Source of Morality; a Morality that is ‘because’ of him. God Objectifies Morality…

Luke 6:31 NIV; Do to others as you would have them do to you.
There's this complicated philosophical question about morality that no one can agree on, therefore God. Really?
 
Top