God loves us enough to call some things sin because sin damages or destroys relationships.
DaleCutler
A remarkable from Aldous Huxley admitting Tureck's last point explicitly: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption...(312). The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...(315). "For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever" (316).Huxley, Aldous. Ends and Means. New York: Greenwood, 1937.
K
Dean from OhioThank you for your well thought out response. I enjoyed your "recursive filter" analogy and I will be reading the Four Ethical Approaches article you referred to as it appears interesting. My position, as I hopefully stated, was one of a Christian trying to understand how to best argue from an unbeliever's point of view because unless we can enter their universe, their fortress and show them that their trust is in walls made of shadows, we stand little chance of them hearing what we say. When we use phrases such as "without God" or "moral laws" etc., we often close the door before we can engage the person. God didn't start pummeling us the moment we emerged from the womb, he worked on us slowly. There is a time for a "turn or burn" message, but being fully capable of delivering that message, I am seeking to be able to "... become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some."In conclusion, I enjoyed the "pleasantness" of the discussion on this forum and would thank you all for your input. That being said, I must bid adieu and wish you all the best in Christ.
jrmbasso
God, Himself, speaks about atheists in Psalms 14 and 53. Both start with "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."". There are no atheists only those who choose not to believe. Excellent interview! No fancy intricate arguments just direct confrontations about why people choose not to believe.
FXJ6305
@grP........The presence of 'good' proves that God exists because without God there really is no such thing as 'good' and 'evil'. Without God, the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are simply human constructs, and they would then be determined merely by the majority in the culture, or by whoever happens to be in power. EXAMPLE: Adolf Hitler considered what he did as being 'good'. Without God, the things that you or I consider 'evil' are then only personal preference or opinion, so that we have no over-arching standard for which to judge what Hitler did as being 'evil'. So the very concept of there being a universal standard of 'good' and 'evil' points to the existence of God. Otherwise, we're just the product of evolution and random chance, and moral concepts such as 'good' and 'evil' have no real universal meaning at all. .
William Peck 1958
grP, the difference with up/down, hot/cold, is that good/evil is a moral distinction. What is the standard for morality ? And where does the standard come from ? Yes, the article doesn't really explain it, agreed. 1. Moral laws are not physical - like hot/cold, up/down, but they are undoubtedly real. So there is more to the world then the physical universe. And science can't have access to this, so natural law can't explain it.2. Moral laws are a kind of communication, intelligent statements of meaning from one mind to another. 3. Moral laws act on us as a force prior to any behavior. So we all inherently know what we ought to do.4. Violation of moral laws brings discomfort (eventually), including the dread of facing up to awareness of the wrong-doing.So, what are the options to the answer to good/evil1. Morality is an illusion (not much discussion needed here)2. Moral rules exist, but they are the product of chance, mere accidents.3. Moral rules are the product of intelligenceNow, laws have force only when there is appropriate authority, in the proper jurisdiction. They must be the result of an intelligent designer. And universal moral laws require an author whose domain is the universe, who has the authority to enforce the laws, and the power to mete out perfect justice.So the best explanation is a personal God whose character provides an absolute standard of goodness. Moral laws suggest a moral law giver.Sure, an atheist can behave in a moral way. But why should he ? What's to prevent him from stealing and thinking nothing of it (the moral law, of course). A moral atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn't believe in farmers, trucks, or cooks. He thinks the food just appeared, and he really doesn't bother about it.Morality grounded in God explains our hunger for justice--our desire for a day of final reckoning when all wrongs are made right, when innocent suffering is finally redeemed, when all the guilty are punished and the righteous are rewarded.from Stand to Reason
K
Please excuse my ignorance; although I see how evil cannot exist without good also existing as one requires the other for both contrast and definition. However, I don't see how the presence of good proves that God exists. If hot exists, then cold must exist; if up exists then down must exist; however, neither prove the existence of God. I do believe in the existence of God from other arguments, but am not understanding the leap you are making. Even if evil and good are considered moral attributes, I don't believe that morality proves the existence of God. Please help me understand.
God loves us enough to call some things sin because sin damages or destroys relationships.
A remarkable from Aldous Huxley admitting Tureck's last point explicitly: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption...(312). The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...(315). "For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever" (316).Huxley, Aldous. Ends and Means. New York: Greenwood, 1937.
Dean from OhioThank you for your well thought out response. I enjoyed your "recursive filter" analogy and I will be reading the Four Ethical Approaches article you referred to as it appears interesting. My position, as I hopefully stated, was one of a Christian trying to understand how to best argue from an unbeliever's point of view because unless we can enter their universe, their fortress and show them that their trust is in walls made of shadows, we stand little chance of them hearing what we say. When we use phrases such as "without God" or "moral laws" etc., we often close the door before we can engage the person. God didn't start pummeling us the moment we emerged from the womb, he worked on us slowly. There is a time for a "turn or burn" message, but being fully capable of delivering that message, I am seeking to be able to "... become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some."In conclusion, I enjoyed the "pleasantness" of the discussion on this forum and would thank you all for your input. That being said, I must bid adieu and wish you all the best in Christ.
God, Himself, speaks about atheists in Psalms 14 and 53. Both start with "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."". There are no atheists only those who choose not to believe. Excellent interview! No fancy intricate arguments just direct confrontations about why people choose not to believe.
@grP........The presence of 'good' proves that God exists because without God there really is no such thing as 'good' and 'evil'. Without God, the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are simply human constructs, and they would then be determined merely by the majority in the culture, or by whoever happens to be in power. EXAMPLE: Adolf Hitler considered what he did as being 'good'. Without God, the things that you or I consider 'evil' are then only personal preference or opinion, so that we have no over-arching standard for which to judge what Hitler did as being 'evil'. So the very concept of there being a universal standard of 'good' and 'evil' points to the existence of God. Otherwise, we're just the product of evolution and random chance, and moral concepts such as 'good' and 'evil' have no real universal meaning at all. .
grP, the difference with up/down, hot/cold, is that good/evil is a moral distinction. What is the standard for morality ? And where does the standard come from ? Yes, the article doesn't really explain it, agreed. 1. Moral laws are not physical - like hot/cold, up/down, but they are undoubtedly real. So there is more to the world then the physical universe. And science can't have access to this, so natural law can't explain it.2. Moral laws are a kind of communication, intelligent statements of meaning from one mind to another. 3. Moral laws act on us as a force prior to any behavior. So we all inherently know what we ought to do.4. Violation of moral laws brings discomfort (eventually), including the dread of facing up to awareness of the wrong-doing.So, what are the options to the answer to good/evil1. Morality is an illusion (not much discussion needed here)2. Moral rules exist, but they are the product of chance, mere accidents.3. Moral rules are the product of intelligenceNow, laws have force only when there is appropriate authority, in the proper jurisdiction. They must be the result of an intelligent designer. And universal moral laws require an author whose domain is the universe, who has the authority to enforce the laws, and the power to mete out perfect justice.So the best explanation is a personal God whose character provides an absolute standard of goodness. Moral laws suggest a moral law giver.Sure, an atheist can behave in a moral way. But why should he ? What's to prevent him from stealing and thinking nothing of it (the moral law, of course). A moral atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn't believe in farmers, trucks, or cooks. He thinks the food just appeared, and he really doesn't bother about it.Morality grounded in God explains our hunger for justice--our desire for a day of final reckoning when all wrongs are made right, when innocent suffering is finally redeemed, when all the guilty are punished and the righteous are rewarded.from Stand to Reason
Please excuse my ignorance; although I see how evil cannot exist without good also existing as one requires the other for both contrast and definition. However, I don't see how the presence of good proves that God exists. If hot exists, then cold must exist; if up exists then down must exist; however, neither prove the existence of God. I do believe in the existence of God from other arguments, but am not understanding the leap you are making. Even if evil and good are considered moral attributes, I don't believe that morality proves the existence of God. Please help me understand.