Underlying Philosophy

This has nothing to do with what I said. The point I was trying to make is this: if there were a Santa Claus, and if there were a god, the god must have created Santa Claus, so the two are incomparable. Unfortunately, the amount of evidence for a given side of an argument has no bearing whatsoever on whether that position is positive, negative, or neutral. Examine one of the uses of the word neutral; in war. In war, you have two sides: a positive side (this side would be in favor of, say, protecting the Jews), and a negative side (this side would seek to kill the Jews). You can also be neutral. So suppose the negative side is the Germans/Italians, and the positive side is the Americans/English/Russians etc. If the Allies are right, does this make them neutral? You would probably agree that the Nazis were wrong, and the Allies were right.Let's take it a little further. In this situation, it is indeed possible to be neutral, but note what neutrality is in this situation: being completely uninvolved in either side. However, when one interprets the universe around him, he will either take a god into account, or he won't. He can't choose a position of being uninvolved in either side of the argument, because if he is to interpret the universe, he must interpret it in one way or the other. Taking it further, you could argue that neutrality is possible. Neutrality you could say would be this; refraining from interpreting the universe around you (which itself would be impossible, so this still leaves us with the impossibility of neutrality). This is exactly what the neutral entity would have done in a war; they would have completely refrained from taking sides.Also, if this entity decides that the Allies are right, and then takes sides with them, are they still neutral? According to your logic of "evidence determining neutrality", they would indeed still be neutral. But it is rather obvious that they would have then engaged in the positive side of the argument, and are no longer neutral.Conclusion: most people would say that taking a side - despite the evidence for or the lack thereof - is not neutrality. So because it was so obvious that the Nazis were wrong, the Allies were neutral...right? This was just to prevent the objection you may have had that there is no force of gravity. There isn't really a force of gravity so much as there is a cause for our attraction to the earth, the cause being a dynamo (which would be the liquid at the core of the earth swirling around, causing an electrical current). So were you at some point neutral on the subject of morals? Was there ever a point in time where you didn't think murder was right or wrong? You've probably always thought that murder is wrong.Now we get into your "it's bad for society" bit. How did you come to the conclusion that something that is "bad for society", is the thing that should be fought against? Why does it bother you if something is bad for society? Is it because "it's bad for society"?...Furthermore, who says you have the correct view of what is good and what is bad for society. And what determines what is good and bad for society? You would say that is bad for society to kill millions of people, right? Well Adolf Hitler thought he was doing society justice by killing millions of Jews. He thought that they were a lower order of humans, so, from a Darwinian standpoint, they should be eradicated from the earth, so that natural selection can take its course. His logic seems perfectly consistent. Why have you decided that killing millions of people is bad for society? Is it because it makes people sad? This raises the question, why does it bother you for people to be sad? Why is it bad for society for people to be sad? Perhaps pain and suffering is the best thing for society.We can decide from this that in your worldview, we cannot know what is good and bad for society. You may say that it has been proven that pain and suffering is really bad for society. This would be an utter falsehood. Prove to me that it hurt society for Hitler to kill millions of Jews. The only sign that it was bad for society was this; it caused people to endure pain and suffering. But once again, why is pain and suffering a "bad" thing? And where in the world did the concepts of good and bad things come from anyways? Did they evolve in the same way that animals did, or are they human constructs? So does this mean that all people will draw the same conclusions from the same evidence? I agree that the evidence is the same for theists and atheists alike, but their interpretations will differ drastically.For instance, if you find a fossil buried in rock layers you think "wow, this is a million-year-old artifact" while I would think "here's an animal that was probably buried by the Flood". Or if you look at the complexity of the human eye, maybe you would think "wow, look what evolution came up with" and I would think "wow, look what God made". I look at rock layers and think they were laid down by the flood, while you look at rock layers and think that they are accumulations of dust particles from millions of years ago. But we are both looking at the same rock layer. Same evidence, different conclusions. Why? Because we have different starting points. If I see a rock layer, I try to fit it in my framework of the Bible, and you would try to fit into your framework of "no god".And not even all atheists agree on everything they believe about the world. Even two "like-minded" atheists can draw different conclusions from the same evidence.All this to say that your conclusions are not inevitably the right conclusions. You interpret the evidence one way, and you then say that these conclusions must be the correct ones, because you started from a "neutral" standpoint. Once again, just a wee bit arbitrary. I said, we should want to follow the commandments of the Law, but we do not follow the punishments. For example, I would say it is a bad thing to be a rebellious child, although I wouldn't stone my child. Why? I have said over and over again; we aren't under the Law in that we are not governed by it in the way that the Jews were. But if I had been a Jew before the time of Christ, I would have stoned a rebellious child. When Christ came, he fulfilled the law, and also sacrificed himself that our sins might be forgiven. So now we are no longer punished for sins in the same way Jews were. Ultimately, if you want to understand it, just read the Bible. There's a whole lot to know about the subject, and I can't fit it all into this message. But I can guarantee you that it makes sense. What are you trying to get at? Are you saying its not bad for children to be rebellious? But this causes pain and suffering for their parents, and you said that things like this are bad for society, and should not be done.And to answer your question, to rob someone would be to disobey the Law itself. Also, note that the 5th commandment says "Honor your father and mother". There's a lot more to honoring your parents than just obeying what they tell you do. Is this always the case?Also, your statement presumes that it is possible for evidence to lead to the right conclusions. How do you know that your conclusions are correct? What evidence do you have that your conclusions are right? Further, how do you know that there are right and wrong conclusions? How did you come to the "correct" conclusion that there are right and wrong conclusions? But wait, how can you come to a correct conclusion proving that there are correct conclusions? This is impossible. Consider the following dialogue. Note that Bob is attempting to start from a neutral standpoint, and then make his conclusionsJill: I have decided that there is right and wrong.Bob: I can't decide whether there is right or wrong. Right now I'm weighing the evidence for each side.Jill: Do you hold the belief that there is right and wrong?Bob: No, not yet at least.Jill: Is it possible that you would come to the conclusion that right and wrong exist?Bob: Yes.Jill: But if you start from the "neutral" standpoint that right and wrong do not exist, you could never come to this conclusion, because if there is no right and wrong, then there is no sense in trying to make a correct conclusion.Bob: I guess your right... So Hitler killing millions of Jews under the pretense that they were hurting his society is justified? I dealed with this earlier in my message, but basically, it boils down to this: so what if it's bad for society? Where do you come off judging people who do bad things to society if you have no reason for bad things needing to be judged? You will reply again "IT"S JUST BAD FOR SOCIETY!!!". So is this a justification for punishing murderers? What if a murderers society is himself, and imprisoning him hurts his society? Supernatural occurrences require a supernatural entity. Can it be much simpler? Or would you hold that an afterlife is scientifically explainable?

I didn't read all the comments about my stupid mistake, so I'll just make a general reply to say that I am sorry about that mistake, which was utterly inexcusable. If you want to hold it against me, I guess you can, cause I myself wouldn't be one to listen to people who say that dynamos cause gravity (ugh). So with all that said, I will reply to the other parts of your comments. Once again, I'm sorry about that confusion, and I guess it's left up to you now whether you take me seriously or not.But to clarify the mistake, I should say that gravity is caused by the warping of the fabric of space-time by a mass. The point being that there isn't really a "force of gravity" as much as gravity is just the drawing in of objects because of the fabric of space-time being bent, changing the person's view of left and right. But this is just all being nit-picky, so it doesn't really matter whether you say "gravity" or "the warping of space-time". Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Huntard,Before I respond to your message, I need to point us back in a more fundamental direction. We have an awful lot of discussions going on in one message, so I'll answer a few of your questions, and then raise just a few of my own at the very end that will be very fundamental questions. If you could understand my thinking, you wouldn't keep giving the same answers for my questions. I ask how you decide what is bad for society, and you say "whatever is bad for the species". The focus in this question is on the word "bad", not on your definition of "society". How do you decide what is bad and detrimental to your "society"? If you have some standard by which you can determine good and bad, where did this standard come from?You said later that "whatever keeps society stable is good". This statement raises yet another question; what defines what it is that keeps society stable? Is it that which is good for society?...Besides, I would wager that you hold some views of what is right and wrong that I would disagree with. The most obvious being that you believe there is no god, while I believe God exists.So obviously, different people can come to different conclusions about what is good and bad for society (just try and live with some cannibals for a while). You have no explanation for differing views among people of good and bad, while I have a very good explanation for it. And if in your worldview you expect for different people to come to different conclusions, then this creates a myriad of definitions of good and bad worldwide. This destroys the concept of good and bad, because if one person thinks it's good to eat people, and another person thinks it's bad to eat people, then eating people is neither good nor bad. Or would you say that your view of cannibalism is correct, and a cannibal's view is wrong? What is the deciding factor in this? Is there anything flawed about the logic of a cannibal? If their ultimate goal is survival, and there is nothing to eat but people, then in their view, the best possible thing they can do for themselves is to devour the closest person to them. Who says that the cannibal has to have your view of a society as a network of people working together for a common good. Perhaps all society is to a cannibal is himself, and to work for the common good of his "society" would involve the cannibalization of those around him.I won't quote every part of your message, so I'll just respond in general to the WWII part of it. You say that WWII was bad for society because it was unstable. One question raised is this (which I asked earlier); what defines what is unstable for society? What if Hitler has a different definition than you? Or is there only one, absolute definition of stability? If so, from where does this definition arise?You have contradicted yourself in an incredible way here with your concept of "whatever is good for society". I will first presume you are a proponent of evolution carried out by natural selection. "Natural" selection? What? Natural selection is the death of inferior species. Is death natural? From this (your) standpoint it is. So why is it bad for Hitler to wipe out the Jews (and yes the Jews were inferior to Hitler, because Hitler was more "powerful" than them, obviously because he killed them[and don't run away with me saying Jews are inferior, because I don't really think that])? Hitler was carrying out natural selection to the letter. In natural selection, one species comes out on top of another because of the use of some trait or ability they have that is superior to the ability of the other species. Suppose this superior trait is the existence of bigger teeth in orangutans (orangutans, by the way, cannibalize each other). Then the orangutans with bigger teeth would be more likely to win fights, and thus destroy the small-toothed species of orangutans. Hitler had an army, the Jews didn't. Hitler used his army to wipe out the Jews who were inferior to him. There is nothing wrong with this picture here.One question that is raised from this: if natural selection involves the death of species, then why does the death of humans bother you so much? Is it because "it's bad for the species?...I hope you see my point. Sometimes (in your worldview), what is "bad" (oh yes, please explain why "bad" is "bad"; and also explain why there is bad at all) for one species, may actually be good for a host of other species. As I have pointed out before, if one thing is good for someone, and bad for someone else, then that thing can be neither good or bad, because if something is really "good", then it is always good in every situation. Good and bad is not subjective (or would you disagree with this?).Now I'll ask some more fundamental questions. I need to do this so that I will be able to better understand what you believe.Here are the three basic metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical questions respectively.What is real?How do we know what is real?How do we live based on what we know is real?These basic questions must be answered for any worldview. Just to prevent confusion, I will give my answers to each of these questions.God is real, and all that God has created is real (note that this is a premise, as will the answers be to all the other questions).Since all that God has created is real, then we can use the filter of "what has God created" to decide what is and isn't real. This requires use of our God-given, cognitive faculties to observe the world he has created, and also to interpret it in terms of His Word.Since God is the creator of all things, then He must also know what is right and wrong. Therefore, we go no further than the Bible to determine how it is we should live.

---

Obviously, your answers will differ quite a bit from mine, but I am curious to see what your answers will be to these questions. I won't make a lengthy response to all of the geology anecdotes, because all of my examples were just that; examples.Don't think that creationists hold beliefs for which there is no scientific proof. A simple difference in our beliefs is that you believe in the validity of radiometric dating, and I don't. But we won't get in to discussing this because it is avoiding the subject at hand. But the point being this: there are creationist scientists out there, and in fact, there is an incredible amount of evidence in support of the creationist model, which I would readily present on another thread.You need to just admit that at some point along the road, you made some presuppositions. Every time I point out a presupposition that you have made, you just say "oh well here's how I proved this". So I then ask about particular presuppositions of that proof, and then you say "oh well here's how I prove that". Don't you see that this must eventually end somewhere? You must have presuppositions, however basic they may be. This is why I asked the three fundamental questions earlier.You always use evidence in support of your claims (once again, don't go saying that I am undermining evidence, this is just an example). Well what evidence do you have that proves that evidence is valid? None, because this would be circular. It is a simple presupposition of yours that evidence is valid. I do not have any particular problem with this presupposition, but I am just trying to get you to admit that you do have this presupposition (along with many other presuppositions).You said later on "I look at the evidence". Once again, there is nothing wrong with doing this, I'm just asking if it is a presupposition of yours that "I can look at the evidence". How do you know that you can look at the evidence? What if all that you see is illusion? How do you know that your knowing is not just illusion? How do you know that your concepts of knowledge are not just illusion? What if all is illusion (and an awful lot of people believe this; Hindus)? You can't use evidence to support the claim that there is a reality, because suppose that evidence is just your own illusion? Once again, I'm trying to point you back to the three fundamental questions I asked earlier. We are not having a scientific discussion about the evidence for a given side, but we are searching out the presuppositions of each side (which I am having a hard time weeding out of of you).Just to hammer this point home, in response to your green car metaphor, suppose the car is just an illusion? Or suppose that your concept of the color green is illusion? Suppose your thoughts about this car are just an illusion to yourself? Suppose you are an illusion of your own mind? Suppose your concept of evidence is illusion? Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

dwise1,I have attempted to refrain from adhomenen attacks, so I hope that you will do the same.You seem to be missing the fundamental aspect of my arguments. I accept your definition of society, and in some cases I would accept what you say is bad for society (e.g., if you said "murder is wrong", I would accept that). But this is not the argument. I am asking where your definition of "bad" has come from. First of all, is morality a concrete reality, or a subjective one? If it is concrete, from where did it come from, and who get's to define what is right and wrong? I've asked these question to Huntard, and he said "whatever is bad for the species is bad for society". I don't know if this is what your answer would be, but if it was, the answer is begging the question. What is bad for the species? In natural selection, death is sometimes a good thing, because it destroys the inferior species. Wouldn't it be awful if nothing died, because then the earth would overpopulated, and all of the inferior species would never die out. Natural selection makes death out to be a natural occurrence that can have good consequences. You may agree with this, and you would then go on to say however that if the death is caused by unnatural means, then it is bad. First of all, what defines "natural" death? Before I go any further with this, I will let you answer this question.And perhaps the brain cramp you spoke of earlier was had by the man who was with another man on a desert island. So the man saw that survival was his ultimate goal, so he ate the other man. And there you have it; a cannibal. Yes, this definition of society is flawed (at least from our perspective). But is it flawed in the thinking of the cannibal? He may not use the word "society", but he may think of reality as a struggle for survival, and that absolutely anything must be done that will in anyway help his own survival. That is reality to him, and he only cares about his own life.So there is the thinking of a cannibal, and I have to wonder what your objection might be to this...will it be, "it's bad for society/the species"? I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, or what exactly you mean. If you're referring to the so called "lies" of creation scientists, my response is just that I don't think that they are lying. Whether they are or not is a different discussion for a different thread, which I am definitely not afraid to discuss.Or maybe you meant something else. If so, please explain to me what you meant in a little more detail.

---

As with Huntard, I am going to ask you to answer the three most basic questions of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.What is real?How do we know what is real?How should we live based on what we know is real?If you want to see my answers, go to my response to Huntard in message 217.

Parasomnium, Unfortunately, yes it does (in a way). I do not say that you are like the Nazis or Hitler, but I think that that is where Darwinian philosophy leads to (or Marxist philosophy, if you want to be picky). The reason this example is used so much is because, guess what; Hitler was a proponent of Darwinism. In fact, Darwinism had a lot to do with the thinking of Hitler.However, I am not a big fan of using this example, because it can offend Darwinists (understandably). Just realize that I am not equating you - or anybody else on this forum for that matter - with Hitler or Nazis. So maybe I won't use it anymore. I'll probably just keep pointing everyone in a more fundamental direction, since the subject of Nazis isn't exactly fundamental. Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

*Coughs*. Later I will respond to the rest of your message, but I couldn't leave this statement un-responded to for very long.Definition of reality: something that is real. So according to your answer to the question "what is real?", something that is real is...real.Need I say more?...Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

You also said: First, we need to define standard. In philosophy a standard is "a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment".So we see that your standard of morality (which I would consider to be a very low one) is derived from your own experiences, as well as the experiences of others. You further say that this standard is the only correct one. This is because - first of all - the very definition of a standard says that a standard is something than can be used to judge things, such as whether certain things are right or wrong. Second of all, you said it yourself (that there is only one right choice). You said there is only one right choice, and the way that you decide which choice is the right one is by the standard of experience (refer back to the two previous quotes).There are a host of things I can point out starting from this view. First of all I'll just ask this: do you define yourself as a pragmatist? Skepticist (later on in the message, you said you just don't know whether there is a god or not)?Also, I need to point out the stark contrast in our beliefs. You derive truth from yourself (or your own experiences). I believe "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:17). I believe "Good and upright is the LORD;Therefore He teaches sinners in the way." (Psalm 25:8). I believe "God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Romans 2:15). So we see that you derive your truth from yourself; an imperfect and potentially bad person (unless you would say that you were perfect). I derive my truth from God, who is good and upright, and who will judge the hearts of men in a just manner.I have been accused of having my head in a cockpit of lies. So (according to you) it is foolish for me to follow One who I believe to be a perfectly just and upright being, and yet you would be willing to follow one whom you know is imperfect, and potentially very bad (unless, of course, you would claim to be perfect). It appears as though following God (and yes, this is the God of The Bible; note the capital "G") is the only way that brings true morality, peace, and knowledge.But then you sing the same song in the umpteenth verse: why did God say to stone rebellious children? Once again, the best way for you to understand this would be to read the Bible. But since I assume you have your heart set against reading it, I will have to read it for you.First of all, you must understand the fulfillment of the Law: Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17). You see, under Israelite Law, the Israelites were required to sacrifice a lamb in atonement for sin. However, this lamb did not literally pay for their sins, because the lamb was affected by the curse, and could thus not carry the burden of another person's sins. But the lamb was required to be unblemished. This was so that the correct picture would be conveyed to the Israelites of a spotless lamb (Jesus Christ) being sacrificed in atonement for their sins. But since Christ had not yet paid for their (the Israelites) sins, the punishment for their sins had to remain intact. But now, since Jesus has paid the penalty for those sins (such as being rebellious), we are free from the condemnation of the Law.This does not mean that Jesus just died for the Gentiles. He died for Jews and Gentiles alike (Romans 3:30). But on the time scale of the Jews, He had not yet died, so they were still punished by the Law. But after Jesus' death, the covenant that God made with Abraham was extended to the Gentiles, so that there is no longer a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Now, there is a distinction between the church (this does not mean "church-goers", it means those who have been born again), and the world. The Church is now, in a sense, what the "Jews" of the Old Testament were. But, or course, since Jesus has now paid the penalty for our sins, we do not have to suffer the penalty of being stoned for rebellion.I can't imagine - even with the most wild contrivances my mind could possibly come up with - how God is possibly unjust. I deserve to be stoned for rebellion, and yet, I am not stoned for it, because God in his infinite mercy decided to take the most ratty of scalawags and forgive him of his sins. Why is this God unjust to you? He was not only merciful to those living after Him, but He was also merciful to those living before him, enough that He died for all the sins of those who lived before Him (the Jews), and He was even more merciful to reveal his Law to the Israelites at all, so that they could then know what condemnation they would receive for committing sins. Would God have been unjust if He had not given us the Ten Commandments? No, not necessarily, this wouldn't have been unjust. But he was merciful enough to reveal His Law toward us, so that we might be able to avoid the greater condemnation. How is God then unjust to you? What is it about Him that offends you? Is it that He violates your philosophy of self-centerdness, that philosophy which says that you get to determine good and evil, rather than God? So what defines a natural death? Is an infection by a pathogen, or a living bacteria causing death, considered natural? If so, is death caused by a fish natural (what's the difference between a living bacteria and a fish?)? Is death cause by an alligator natural? Is death cause by a human natural? No one says that death caused by another human is natural. So is death caused by a bacterium any different? This forces us to conclude that no death is natural. I would be hard pressed to find where in my logic I said that might makes right. In fact, quite to the contrary, you are a proponent of "might makes right". You say that it is okay for an inferior species to go extinct (and extinction necessarily involves death). Refer to my orangutan anecdote (which you grossly avoided). (if you don't believe that orangutans cannibalize each other, then just watch the Disney series "Earth") You avoided my entire argument in your statement by getting technical. Okay, let's say that a species of orangutans arises that has big teeth and strong arms (or whatever else they may need), and as a result, they win their fights with other orangutans, and gradually, the small-toothed, weak-armed species of orangutans go extinct. And there you have "natural" selection (or do you think that cannibalization is the natural instinct of orangutans?). Notice that I was arguing from Hitler's standpoint, not my own.

---

I don't quite understand why you are now saying that I think that what Hitler did was right (you said this later in the message). I never said this. I said from Hitler's standpoint, the Jews were inferior to him. With that, I will end the deplorable Hitler discussion, as I did with dwise1.

---

A couple of times in the message, you said that natural selection doesn't involve the death of species, but the extinction of inferior species. But doesn't extinction involve death? How can a species go extinct if it never dies?

---

Let me ask the metaphysical question one more time.What is real? (the answer of "reality" does not suffice to answer this question).To the question "how do we know what is real" you replied "evidence". So is this a presupposition (that evidence is how we know what is real)? And by the way, if it is a presupposition, that's fine, I'm just trying to get you to admit that it is a presupposition.And to the third question...you didn't answer it. So try again.How do we live based on what we know is real?This is an incredibly basic ethical question that must be answered if you wish to have any morals or ethics whatsoever. I'm afraid not Buster, because you ain't God.

---

You are avoiding the question. Now - instead of operating under the standard of evidence - you are operating under the standard of experience. So you are begging the question. How do you know that experience is valid? How do you know that our memory is reliable?

---

Regarding my illusion example, I did not mean for it to turn into a lengthy discussion, so I will keep my response short.Suppose different people have different illusions? Or what if some people have illusions, while others have none? How can you communicate with people that are having an illusion that is different than your own? Do you know that you are really communicating with them?You don't have to answer every single one of these questions, because they are somewhat rhetorical. The point just being this: I think you must presume something with regards to the illusion or non-illusion of the world.

---

I have attempted in this message to make the argument somewhat more fundamental, so I want us to focus in on the three fundamental questions I asked. When you respond, you don't have to answer every single rhetorical question I ask, nor do you have to respond to every sentence I write. I primarily want you to answer the three fundamental questions I asked.

Since there were a lot of comments regarding Hitler, I'll just respond to those in general.In short, I think we can conclude that Hitler was not a devout atheist, nor a proponent of Christianity. If you would like me to, I could post a number of quotes here from him that show how he was opposed to Christianity. And yet, he also has quotes which seem to show that he was a Christian.A lot of people think that Hitler was somewhat out of his mind (he certainly did go out of his mind near the end of his life), so we might expect to see some confusion from his statements and beliefs.The most probable reason however that Hitler had some Christian-related quotes is that he was brought up as a Catholic, a doctrine he later abandoned. So seeing that he had a religious background, we might expect to see some quotes that refer to a god. However, he never actually proclaimed himself to be an atheist, and he was, in fact, most probably not an atheist.However, I could name to you quite a large number of Christians who are proponents of the evolutionary hypothesis. They're called "theistic evolutionists", and unfortunately, there are quite a few of them around. So the fact that Hitler was not an atheist has no bearing on whether or not he believed in Darwinian evolution or not. Also, Hitler underwent some major changes in his ideology after he wrote Mein Kampf (which was written in 1925, 14 years before WWII started). He could have also undergone major changes in his ideology as a result of drugs that he took, and also just because people change their thinking sometimes.None of this to say though that he was a full-fledged Darwinist. Hitler was a bit confused in his thinking, and as a result, we will see conflicting statements from him.Also remember that he lured millions of Germans into following him, so he didn't always necessarily tell the truth.But I'm going to stop using Hitler as an example, just because it tends to make people a little bit touchy. I didn't want the Hitler example to turn into a huge discussion, so I will heretofore say nothing about Hitler.

dwise1,Responding to your earlier comment, Let me give you some clarification on what I believe. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."(Romans 1:18-23).Note the part that says "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen" [emphasis added].So no, I do not take God as being axiomatic. God was not always my starting point in thinking however. When I was a child, I believed what my parents told me, and my belief in what they told me was - much of the time - axiomatic. But my parents were placed there by God to direct me during a time in which my thinking was inadequate to to follow the verse that says "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist". Now however, I attempt to make God my starting point in all my thinking, and from this I see that if there was no god, nothing can be accounted for.What I was attempting to show you with my arguments was that if there isn't a god, nothing can be accounted for.

---

Although different atheists may differ in their beliefs, they all have one thing in common; they do not believe in a god. I do believe in a god (Jehovah God). There is the difference between us, and this difference applies to any atheist.So, let me conclude by asking the three questions that I have asked before.What is real?How do we know what is real?How do we live based on what we know is real?These questions may seem absurd to you, but they are, in fact, very fundamental questions that you should be able to answer. They are the fundamental questions of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. So your answers to these questions will define what you believe about the three aforementioned philosophical branches.One more clarification that I need to make about these questions. I am not asking them just for the sake of asking questions and seeing what your answers will be. I think that the reason people have had trouble answering these questions (e.g., Huntard's response to the first question was "reality".) is because without a god, they can't answer the questions (or will at least have a hard time answering them). So I am asking these questions because I do not think they are possible to answer well without a god.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Huntard, So let's say that I ask you "is a tree real", and you reply "yes". And I then say "why is it real", and you reply, e.g., "because it is material".In this example, the standard by which you judge the actuality of the tree lies in its materiality.So, given this, I ask the question "what is real?".You now need to give an answer such as "all that is material is real", or "all is illusion", or some other such answer that would somehow enlighten me as to what you believe is real.

Hyroglyphx, Once again, this is an inadequate answer.The word "real" is an adjective ascribed to certain things. So when I ask the question "what is real?", I am asking you to tell me to which things you ascribe the adjective "real".So, given that actuality is the same as reality, we can conclude this: reality is just the noun that includes all things to which the adjective "real" can be ascribed. So it is self-evident that all things which are real are indeed reality. So to answer the question correctly, you need to give an answer that will enlighten me as to what objects you ascribe the adjective "real", which would be the same as telling me what objects you believe are contained within "reality".And as to the 2nd question, I guess it could vary. So you just answer the question for yourself.And as to the 3rd question, you have to answer the 1st and 2nd questions correctly in order to be able to answer it. So you could re-word the third question like this: based on your answers to the 1st and 2nd questions, how should we live our lives? False. I said "God is real, and all that God has created is real". The reason for me saying that God is real is because He is not included in the part of the answer that says "all that God has created is real", because God did not create himself.

dwise1,I'll respond to the rest of your message later, but for now, I had to respond to this part. Sounds like a great argument, that is until you realize the execrableness of the children's theology. They gave utterly wrong and non-biblical answers to both questions.With regards to the first question, the purpose of life is not to go to heaven. The purpose of life is to give glory to God in all that we say and do ("Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." I Cor. 10:31). This theme is very recurrent throughout the Bible.Their answer to the second question is bad too. This is because they do not say how we get to heaven. We do not get to heaven by dying. The only way to get to heaven is through Jesus Christ (I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6) Not everyone goes to Heaven. Only those who have been born again through Jesus Christ can reach the Father. And in this hope (that they will one day see the Father), they can then glory. Heaven is not reached via death. We will die physically before we go to Heaven, but this certainly doesn't mean that that is how we go to Heaven. To kill oneself would be an abomination to God. Thus, we do not see death as our way of getting to Heaven, because indeed, not all people that die go to Heaven.True story? Maybe so. But the beliefs - however execrable they may be - of one "Christian" do not define the beliefs of all other Christians. If you want to know what I believe, ask me. Don't quote even the greatest Christian leader's in history, and then use their beliefs as a label for what I believe (this of course does not include Jesus, or any Scripture inspired by God).Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

PaulK, It seems that when you say I am taking God as axiomatic, you say it means that I have no good reason whatsoever for believing in God. But this is not true. God is the foundation for my thinking, which does not mean that I have no reason for believing it. It just means that no other presupposition comes before that presupposition that there is a God. This presupposition is to be first and foremost in my mind, so that I interpret things according to this metaphysical presupposition. This does not mean, however, that it is an arbitrary, unfounded presupposition. One of my most basic reasons for believing it, is because of the impossibility of the opposite.Since when does my worldview undermine evidence? I have said negative things about evidence in your worldview, but not in mine. I have said that you have no basis for using evidence as support for your worldview. This statement doesn't undermine evidence (at least not in my worldview). It does, however, undermine your using of evidence.My reason for saying this is not a bad one. If you bring a bit of evidence that points toward there being no god, I ask, "how do know this evidence is reliable, and how do you know that it is even possible for evidence to support a particular position?". Maybe you would say in reply, "I have never observed evidence that did not support something, e.g., if the evidence said that the car was green, then I have always observed the car to be green", to which I would reply "how do you know that your memory (past experiences) is reliable?" to which you may reply "my memory has never been incorrect, so why should it be in the future?". But this is the same answer as before. In both cases, you rely on experience to justify your claims. I ask "how do you know experience is reliable?", and you then say, "I have never experienced experience to be unreliable". But how do you know that your experiencing of experiences is reliable?

Huntard, But this is not an ultimate answer, because it still leaves questions about what evidence is, how it relates to reality, what effect it has on us, etc. Basically, you answered a metaphysical question with something that relates to epistemology. When I answered the question, I said, "God is real". This is a clear, definitive answer that can be used as a starting point for the rest of my thinking. Ultimately, that answer only relates to metaphysics (about the nature of reality), and nothing about how we know what is real. However, your answer related to how we know what is real (epistemology).The problem is that you have blurred metaphysics and epistemology into one. The two do go hand in hand, but they are separate, because metaphysics must come before epistemology.So when you answer the question, your answer is limited to metaphysics.