Where did God come from?

WILLOWTREE responds to me:

quote:

---

You are not acknowledging the first part of my argument.

---

Incorrect. I'm getting it all: You cannot see god until god gives you the "urge." But god won't give you the "urge" until you believe.Circular argument.

quote:

---

Atheism is a penalty from God for continually resisting Him.

---

Arrogance.Who the hell are you to tell other people that they have received the "urge" and have consciously and willfully chosen to ignore it?

quote:

---

"I never had the urge or desire for God " The Bible says you did

---

Arrogance.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Fair enough.. I must first state that I am extremely limited on time in fact this will be my last post for about a week. (Christmas vacation). I think the way you pose the question is a little off. I am not suggesting that we need god for morals. I am not saying that Christians have morals and Atheists don't. Nor am I saying that Christians are perfect and Atheists are evil. In reality, the theology is that we are equally evil in Gods eyes. Through Christ, we have redemption and salvation. Man is depraved and is in rebelion against God. This rebelios nature has driven man to exchange the glory and goodness of God for broken things(paraphrased from Pauls letter to the Romans-I think). God, in response to this(as Willowtree has eluded to), has turned us over to depraved minds. In other words, atheism is the end result of this rebelion and consists of the denial of fairly simple truths in order to fit a more complex construct(atheism and the lack of absolute truths). Man ends up worshiping the created rather than the creator. Some worship their own rational thought and self, even though there is an abundance of evidence suggesting a creator or some entity greater than themselves. If only the existance of absolute morality exists, then God exists. Why embrace a broken system with such vigor and zeal(atheism or even agnosticism)? The beatuy and glory of Christ is far more intellectually challenging and edifying than any system of thought denying His existance or the existance of a God. See J. Edwards "The end for which God created the world" or " Gods passion for His glory" by John Piper.I am amazed that atheism uses concepts of reason, logic and even moral arguments at times(how could a loving God do some act of evil?). Do you not realize that in doing this you are borrowing from a theistic interpretation of the world? You are assuming an absolute standard of goodness-it is that unspoken concept that you are comparing this alleged God to. The universe can not escape absolute truths- reason,logic and certainly the more obvious one morality. Think of how many atheists repeatedly assume exist? They will not claim they exist, but the unconscience assumption of their existance lingers in almost every post written by atheists even on this forum.So perhaps the better way to state this is not that we need god for morals, rather the existance of "concpets of morality" within man demonstrate that a moral God must exist.Most atheists even concede that the concepts of a loving God in heaven are nice and probably better than the logical conclusion of atheism. Atheism exchanges the glory and goodness of God for broken things. I am NOT saying here that one should believe just because it's a nice happy concept, rather that the facts speak for themselves. I maintain that if one argument for the existance of God is proved reliable(morality in this case), then this God does in fact exist.I'll have to address MEME's later..Take care and have a great Christmas everyone!
"Christe eleison"[This message has been edited by grace2u, 12-19-2003][This message has been edited by grace2u, 12-19-2003]

grace2u writes:

quote:

---

I am amazed that atheism uses concepts of reason, logic and even moral arguments at times

---

Why? Why are you amazed?See, this is the point that you need to grasp: The mere existence of atheists proves your claim false. Atheism is just as reasoned, logical, and moral as your religion. Therefore, one does not need god to come up with reason, logic, or morality.

quote:

---

Do you not realize that in doing this you are borrowing from a theistic interpretation of the world?

---

Incorrect. You're assuming that reason, logic, and morality come from god. Instead, they are completely non-theistic. The reason that atheists can use them is because they don't depend upon god.The mere existence of atheists proves your claim false.

quote:

---

You are assuming an absolute standard of goodness

---

Incorrect. One need only recognize the accepted standard.The rules of Monopoly are completely man-made and arbitrary. But if you break the rules, you're still cheating. Nobody claims that Monopoly is some god-given game, but we all agree that the rules are the rules.You are confusing "arbitrary" for "existence" by indicating that if something is not universal, then it must not exist.

quote:

---

the existance of "concpets of morality" within man demonstrate that a moral God must exist.

---

But the mere existence of atheists proves this wrong. They have no god and still have concepts of morality.

quote:

---

I maintain that if one argument for the existance of God is proved reliable(morality in this case), then this God does in fact exist.

---

But since the exact opposite is the case, morality is not reliable in the slightest, then what does that say for the existence of your god?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I have yet to see any evidence that suggests a greater entity. Please will someone provide some. You are contradicting yourself. You say that morals don't have to come from god, but then you say that the fact that we have morals proves there is a god. You can only have one or the other not both. Facts? What facts? How is atheism or agnosticism a "broken" system? What is this intellectual challenge are you referring to? Like the profound concept of believing everything you’re told and not questioning what the bible says?

You are an intelligent person, yet now, you've chosen to intentionally mis-quote me.Your quote " You cannot see god until god gives you the "urge". But god won't give you the "urge" until you believe."This is not what I said and you know it.Now you can say I said this all you want but that still doesn't mean I said it.I said the urge originates from God, then the person recieving the urge somehow discovers that God wants faith....... I went through this in detail in post#56 but you have chosen to ignore everything I said.The only reason for you to stubbornly maintain this circular argument nonsense is because you have no argument to refute AND because as an atheist you believe that persons having relationship with God are basically crazy/irrational. This is the only belief in our exchange that is arrogant.You obviously are bailing out from this argument - too bad.

WILLOWTREE responds to me:

quote:

---

you've chosen to intentionally mis-quote me.

---

Hmmm...did you or did you not say this? And then did you or did you not say this? So you've hit the circular argument: You cannot see god until he gives you the "urge," but god won't give you the "urge" until you believe. You won't get faith until you choose faith, but you won't choose faith until you get faith.And then there's this. Did you or did you not say: And did you or did you not follow it up with: So you're saying that god is the one to give out the "urge" and yet he will not give it out to everyone...thus they will never seek god. You can't get god until god decides to get you but god won't decide to get you until you get god.And then the claim that started it all. Did you or did you not say this: And then did you or did you not continue with: So what are we to conclude? A person cannot come up with the "urge" on his own and god doesn't want to deal with people who don't have the "urge."You can avoid this all you want, but the fact still remains that you're making a circular argument.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The continuance of selective quoting to prove your point is nonsense.You cannot prove or contend circular argument from what I wrote.This is what I wrote:God - urge/desire - person - trust/faith - promise recieved/or conflict.How is this circular ?It is not.It only becomes circular when you add to it or misconstrue.

Willowtree,
How about providing some evidence and suggests that the "urge" for god comes from god. You and Rrhain can argue about how cicular the argument is after some evidence is shown.

Mr.Thor :This is a very good question.The answer is theological.You must also remember that God can neither be proven or disproven.The Bible teaches that it is the nature of a Person to want to reveal Himself. Contrary to the beliefs of ancient Jewry who subjectively decided the opposite when they refused to even write His name when making copies of Holy Writ. God's Hebrew name of JEHOVAH (via the German) is pictoral, it means "wanting to burst forth".God is OTHER than me.And this OTHER wants to reveal Himself to others. He does so by originating a desire for Him and placing it into others. NOBODY can self-manufacture any urge for God, to have urge for God means that God has "activated your receiver".At some point this urge is develpoed by God to make you understand that He wants you to commense an activity called faith. When a person finally embraces God this way and genuinely trusts Him by faith - God promises to react to this "obedience" and reveal Himself special to you. When God reveals Himself special to you THEN you will know for sure that the initial urge from God was indeed from God. And you also receive what you were acting in faith for. God is establishing the mode by which we/I/you can relate to Him : Faith.Some people reject this and demand that God jump through their hoops before they even consider doing what He wants.God is much like any earthly boss in this life - they being the boss want everything on their terms (they are the boss it is their way or the highway) God is exactly the same : It is His way (His terms of condition before He promises to reveal Himself) or the highway (to hell).Basic atheistic ideology want the argument to be circular so they can claim that the believer is originating the urge and thus no Other exists.Thank you for your question which gave me an opportunity to explain this basic theology.

WILLOWTREE responds to me:

quote:

---

The continuance of selective quoting to prove your point is nonsense.

---

Indeed. If you can show any instance of me quoting you out of context, please do so. All the comments of yours I pulled are from this thread, so it should be easy for you to find them.

quote:

---

This is what I wrote:

​

God - urge/desire - person - trust/faith - promise recieved/or conflict.

​

How is this circular ?

---

Because god won't start until you have the faith. Did you or did you not say the following: And did you not say the following: So there you have it: God won't talk to you in the first place unless you have faith. But according to your other statement, god is the source of faith. So you've got a circular argument...you need to have faith for god to deal with you but only god gives faith.Absolutely, perfectly circular.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Everything you concluded using what I said was taken out of context to support YOUR assertions.Everything I wrote I reduced into this "equation" :God - urge/desire - person - trust/faith - promise received/or conflict.Every quote that you cut and pasted was selectively lifted to slightly twist the meaning INTO the point you are claiming.There is no circular argument in the above "equation".For the sake of argument I withdraw everything I wrote prior and now I stand on this "equation" to best reflect my view/claim :God - urge/desire - person - trust/faith - promise received/or conflict.Tell me, BY THIS EQUATION, how is it circular ?

WILLOWTREE responds to me:

quote:

---

Tell me, BY THIS EQUATION, how is it circular ?

---

Because by your own admission, god doesn't even start until you have faith. But since god makes faith, you've made your argument circular.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I'm just curious, how do you respond to the following:
In the course of this debate, you have alleged other peoples arguments to be circular. Do you not concede that YOUR very own argument hinges on a series of circular arguemnts? In other words you use the laws of logic(or perhaps reason at a minimum) in an attempt to discredit Willowtrees claims.1) Do you acknowldege this?How do you establish these laws of logic or reason as being valid tools? Do you not have to use reason or logic in order to do this?2) Please respond..yes or noIf yes-> Then isn't YOUR argument circular? (using resaon to prove reason or logic to prove logic)
If no -> Then what is your basis for using them?I would maintain, that this example I've given demonstrates my point. You can not escape the circular nature of YOUR very own argument. That is you must use reason or logic to prove reason or logic. You PRESUPPOSE the existance of such things in order to prove they exist. Is this not hypocritical?? You alledge that theist like Willowtree use circular arguments yet if more thought was put into your own argument you would certainly conclude your very own argument is circular. To deny this fact is to demonstrate your bias to the subject matter.What is your response ?This simple example demonstrates once again atheisms inability to deal rationaly with the world in which we live. You are quick to (attempt) to find fault in Willotrees argument, and in so doing demonstrate the absurd nature of atheism as a system of thought. The requirements you place on theists is a requirement that your own worldview can not sustain. Theism is different. We acknowledge the existance of universal absolute truths (reason,logic and morlaity for example) and know that they reflect the very nature and glory of Christ. When Willowtree uses logic, he is using a tool that can be accounted for within theism or Christianity.Again, I won't be able to get back for a couple days on this one but am eager to see your response."Christe eleison"

quote:

---

Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) : attempting to support a proposition with an argument that presupposes the proposition, or the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

---

This is one definition of circular reasoning.What exactly is Rrhain propostion and what is he presupposing?I think you are saying that he is saying the argument is circular and using the definition of a circular argument for that. You seem to feel that to continue his demonstartion of that he has to somehow independently prove the validity of the definitions of various fallacies of reasoning.However, here are what I take the propostion and his presupposition to be:
1) Presupposition(s) --- there is a form of reasoning fallacy called a "circular argument". It is as defined above. (There is also a language called English with certain definitions of the meaning of its words).
2) Proposition:
WT's argument is circular based on the definition given.Rrhain demonstrates that WT's argument is circular by comparing the nature of that argument to the definition of a circular argument. He does NOT presuppose that it is circular.You are confusing the presupposition of the existance and definition of such a fallcy with a statment that WT's argument is circular. They are not the same thing at all.For example, I can take a carefully formed definition of the idea of a lie and then examine a statement that someone has made to see if it is, indeed, a lie.In doing so I have NOT presupposed that the statement made is a lie. I have taken as a starting point only that there is something that we have agreed defines a lie.Now you may think there is something wrong with the definition of a circular argument (or any other type of fallacy of reasoining). If you do so you can back up and support your conjecture.If you think there is actually something circular you will have to show exactly what you think the proposition and the presupposition is.There is no circle involved here. It is a straight line from the basic meanings of English, through the definition of different fallacies to the reasoning comparing the definition to the statements made by WillowTree. You may tackle Rrhain's argument at any point in that chain.What you are actually saying is that Rrhains argument isn't based on a good foundation but the foundation does NOT include the proposition.BTW, it you don't think reason or logic (or English for that matter) can be used to construct an argument, what exactly do you suggest?? Could you, in this context, define what you mean by "dealing rationally" with the world?You seem to think that only your view that starts with a God can build a rational construct on axioms. In math or in reasoning anyone is entitled to state their axioms up front. (they may or may not justify them) The definitions of terms is a reasonable way to start.------------------
Common sense isn't

Both of us now know you have completely dodged my last post.However, in case I might be mistaken could you tell me what makes the following "equation" circular :God - urge/desire - person - trust/faith - promise received/or conflict.I am now saying that you misunderstood what I wrote prior, what I wrote before was meant to say what the "equation" is saying.
I apologize for my previous posts which did not really represent what I wanted to say.