The believer's paradox

[McCulloch]

Conscience, will, mind, logic, purity, righteousness, motives, presuppositions, sanity, intellectual ability, moral faculty, and senses are all being subsumed under the heading "Reason." Reason--by which I mean logic and intellectual ability, and to a certain extent, the senses--is useful and kinda works, but it's corrupted by sin.

This type of argument has been made often by Christian apologists. You cannot trust your own thinking. You a cannot trust your own intellectual ability. You cannot trust human morality. It has all been corrupted by sin. You must abandon your self-centered life and embrace God's will only.

But here is the hitch. In order to come to the conclusion that there even is a God, I must resort to using my own tainted reasoning processes. Then, once convinced in my corrupted mind that God exists, I have to again use my own blighted cogitation to determine which alleged revelations are really from God and which ones are not (Torah, New Testament, Qur'an, Mormon, Urantia ...). Having reached some conclusions on that issue, I must again rely on my own depraved dialectics to choose among competing interpretations.

Pray to God for a sign, they sometimes answer, pray to God for wisdom. Yet, even there, I must interpret the signs and test the spirits, according to my own perverted human wisdom.

Question for debate, If not our own intellectual abilities, what could we possibly turn to, to assess TRUTH?

[NEVIIM]

I challenge you to quit blaming science
for your inability to support your claims.

It is illogical to expect proof of the supernatural today
with the limitations of science today. Notice I say today.
I encourage you to research the limitations of science at the present time.

[Abraxas]

I challenge you to quit blaming science
for your inability to support your claims.

It is illogical to expect proof of the supernatural today
with the limitations of science today. Notice I say today.
I encourage you to research the limitations of science at the present time.

If you admit there is no evidence, whether by the limitations of science or not, to believe your position, why should your position be believed?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 41:

It is illogical to expect proof of the supernatural today with the limitations of science today.

Why would it be logical to accept supernatural claims?

Notice I say today.

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday if you'll believe me today."

I encourage you to research the limitations of science at the present time.

I encourage you to research the burden of proof for one's claims. That science can't support your claims today does not mean it will support those claims at any time in the future.

I simply will not buy "I can't prove my claims, but I promise you in the future they'll be proven."

You hide behind science's inability to prove your claims like that's supposed to mean something. I would dare say if science could support your claims, you'd be hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread.

[GentleDove]

I don't think--and I don't believe it's a Biblical proposition--that a person comes to faith in Christ by exercising his supposedly-autonomous intellectual abilities to assess the evidence for God from his fallen state and fallen presuppositions about himself and God, and then deciding to have faith in God.

Thereby you admit that faith in God is irrational.

God certainly uses the reason with which He has gifted us as a means for us to apprehend Him, and He wants His people to reason with unbelievers. But we cannot apprehend Him with our reason alone (that is, without God) because our reason is not sufficient (1 Cor. 1:21). I’m arguing against an undue exaltation of reason and the false assumption that, if God exists, our reason “should be� adequate, sufficient, and neutral and objective enough to know Him. God views it as a return to reason to have faith in him (Daniel 4:30-37, James 3:16-18).

Reasoning is evil if it has an evil starting place and the reasoner has evil ends in mind (such as denying God). For example, Hitler was an intelligent strategist and leader in whom people put their trust; however, after his evil became apparent to all, many declared him irrational and insane. But was he? Or was he very rationally carrying out his own evil presuppositions to their logical conclusion?

Once again, I state: God chose me; I did not choose Him.

Why does god not choose some folks? Really many folks. Does he not love them too?

I don’t know. Scripture addresses this question by saying man is not to question God because God, Who is his Maker, has His good reasons, and He is far superior to him and is to be feared. (Job 40:1-14, Is. 29:16, Rom. 9:10-25)

I was attempting to argue against unduly exalting one's own reason or intellectual abilities, which even a humanist must acknowledge is limited and not exhaustive and not perfect. One's presuppositional belief that his reason is all he has to assess truth does not prove that his reason is reliable in that assessment.

OK, then what else do we have? Faith is not reliable. So many faiths that contradict each other. How do you know that you have the right one and that guy over there who worships something else has the wrong one?

There are people who may have nothing else but their reasonings, unaided by God. Being made by God to worship Him, yet not having a relationship with the true God, they will worship idols.

On to what else we have besides reason.

Faith in Christ is a matter of the heart, which definitely includes the mind, fallen though it be in my worldview. However, the "heart" in Christianity does not mean only the mind. It also means the will, the spirit, the emotions, and all the immaterial being of the person (who is also, of course, material or body).

How does one assess truth with the will?
How does one assess truth with emotions?
I don't know what you mean by spirit or by immaterial being.

As the Bible says, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. That is, one’s reason is only as good as his starting place, his predisposition, his presuppositions. (Thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, emotions, etc. are immaterial, having to do with the spirit of a man. Ps. 94:11) One must start with the truth, by the grace of God, and reason on from there. Being born again to faith in Christ is like God hitting a reset button; you’re back at the beginning with a new set of presuppositions, and so you can “see� the kingdom of God.

To answer the thread question for debate to the best of my ability (though that ability falls far, far short of perfection), I would have to say something you will not like: Jesus Christ is Truth and His Spirit, which is also Truth, testifies with the believer's spirit (Jn. 15:26; Rom. 8:16; 1 John 5:6) that Jesus is the Son of God, the Savior of the world, and of the believer personally, by the shedding of His blood. Suddenly, he has a different presupposition about Truth. It is not mystical (for the Bible is public and not gnostic or esoteric); he simply believes the Bible now, and he sees it as the very words of God.

OK, it is mystical. I don't get it because I am spiritually dead. But if God so chooses, then he will mystically reveal himself to me, and then I will know truth, but I, like you, will be at a complete loss to rationally explain it to a non-believer. And if your God does not grant me that mystical experience, maybe Krishna will.

God does tell us (believers) to reason with unbelievers, and that it will be foolishness to them.

Human minds (believing/unbelieving both) are limited and not neutral. We have presuppositions that are assumptions about basic truths which are unprovable by natural science and not necessarily correct. For example, the assumption that autonomous reason will allow a person to apprehend God and the gospel, if God and the gospel are TRUTH and exist, is unproven and unprovable. (1 Cor. 3:18-20)

Please note, in my quote above, I said the Bible is not mystical; and Krishna cannot grant you belief in the true and living God of the Bible (Is. 45:19-21).

IOW, read the Bible and assess the truth of yourself and God in light of it. And yes, use what you have--your fallen reason. That fallen reason will not be what saves you, and it will not stop you from being saved, if that's God's goal with you.

That is what I mean when I say one's reason is useful, but not reliable. I am not saying and will never say, "Your reason is corrupted, therefore abandon it and believe in God instead."

I have read the Bible. I have applied reason to it. I have concluded that it cannot be from God.

I see. I realize that you are intelligent and very familiar with the Bible; however, it is unreasonable to conclude that the Bible cannot be from God. This is the conclusion that reason (unaided by God) comes to when the reasoner has already presuppositionally concluded in his heart (meaning: spirit, will, mind) that there is no God. However, if the reasoner’s presupposition is that there is a God (this presupposition is given to a person by God), then it is not at all impossible that He should communicate Himself by word and spirit.

[mich]

From Post 37:

>snipping perhaps the best part out of agreement<

If one is attracted to a certain particular set of theology, I believe such a person ought to follow it...the same can be said for atheism.

I'm not so sure about that. There's a "certain particular set of theology" that has folks flying planes full of civilians into buildings. I agree atheists are just as capable of violence.

Whether I like it or not, both "could" have potential rights """if""" they had the TRUTH on their sides. If atheism was certain of their position they indeed would have the right to annhiliate all religious systems, as Al Qaeda would have the right to destroy the Capitalistic and Communistic system """"if"""" they possed the TRUTH that God was on their side..... However, to claim that "we have the TRUTH on our side" makes us the biggest liars if it isn't true. We have the right to believe in something without claiming it as TRUTH unless we know it as TRUTH.

"If" God, heaven and hell is real, then it' s fair to claim that God's judgment will be perfect.

Here's where my boots come untied.

I think this presupposes an "omni-perfect" god, and I don't think that's been established. If we worship this god as "omni-perfect" from the get-go, then of course any of its actions should be considered perfect. This is among the most frightening of religious ideas, where so many claim to know this god's wants or wishes and will follow them to the detriment of any who get in the way.

An omni-perfect God needs not to be established as I used the emphatic word "if " as I used in the case for atheism. However, I'm happy that you agree that God, if he exists, pre supposes a perfect judgement. This necessarily means that hell ought not to be feared as this implies a perfect judgement as well.

I gotta go with the Jews on this'n, and say we should judge ourselves, and any god, on our best understanding. We shouldn't bind ourselves to thinking a god knows or acts better than us.

I partly agree in that we have been told that we will understand God's judgement, once the judgement is brought upon us. However, we are still left with the those who kill in the name of God, let it be christians or whoever....are we to believe that they would personally judge themselves to hell?....I'm not convinced of this.

Andre

[NEVIIM]

Why would it be logical to accept supernatural claims?

Do you seek tangible claims only? There is a philosophical approach
to Christianity. I think philosophy is logical. I do not think Harvard, Yale, Princeton... would offer Doctoral degrees if it was not logical accept some intangible proof.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 45:

>I'm gonna respond here thinking I totally misunderstand mich's comments, but too stoned to refuse a chance to respond.<

I'm not so sure about that. There's a "certain particular set of theology" that has folks flying planes full of civilians into buildings. I agree atheists are just as capable of violence.

Whether I like it or not, both "could" have potential rights """if""" they had the TRUTH on their sides.

Surely I misread you, but are you saying folks oughta be able to declare flying planes full of civilians into buildings a right good thing? If so, what "TRUTH" is there to support such atrocious acts?

If atheism was certain of their position they indeed would have the right to annhiliate all religious systems, as Al Qaeda would have the right to destroy the Capitalistic and Communistic system...

Atheism is a rejection of belief in a god or gods. Any following positions are no longer atheism but some brand of philosophy. I say yes, we should act in a very violent manner against those that seek us harm.

""""if""""

If....

they possed the TRUTH that God was on their side

Can any of these folks show they possess "TRUTH" that God is on their side?

However, to claim that "we have the TRUTH on our side" makes us the biggest liars if it isn't true.

I try to avoid the "liar" angle, instead preferring "wrong".

We have the right to believe in something without claiming it as TRUTH unless we know it as TRUTH.

Problem is some to many theists proclaim "TRUTH" without ever actually showing it.

An omni-perfect God needs not to be established as I used the emphatic word "if " as I used in the case for atheism.

Exactly. Only by using such qualifiers can we declare an otherwise unverified god as anything.

"If" I'm right, God wants us all to walk barefoot and nekkid, totin' a hooka.

Who's right?

However, I'm happy that you agree that God, if he exists, pre supposes a perfect judgement.

Actually what I'm saying is that in the lack of evidence when we declare a god's judgment perfect, we are bound by our own definitions.

I challenge anyone to show a god judges, much less perfectly.

This necessarily means that hell ought not to be feared as this implies a perfect judgement as well.

I'm torn on that'n. Myth-one makes one heckuva case that Hell, as is commonly understood, is misunderstood.

I make no overt claims regarding a Hell I can't show exists.

I partly agree in that we have been told that we will understand God's judgement, once the judgement is brought upon us.

I don't think we've established God actually judges folks.

My personal, amateur, non-religious understanding is that if a god seek to judge us humans, then He's just as beholden to judgment as we are. I will never willingly stand in judgment before one immune to judgment.

However, we are still left with the those who kill in the name of God, let it be christians or whoever....are we to believe that they would personally judge themselves to hell?....I'm not convinced of this.

Why heck no. "God said to kill 'em and by golly I did!" is one of the most horrid explanations I've ever heard.

It is devoid of the "judgment" of human beings.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 46:

Why would it be logical to accept supernatural claims?

Do you seek tangible claims only?

I'm bound to, and accept the rules of the forum. Whether evidence presented is "scientific", reasonable, or logical, I'm cool with it. Just present some so we can sort it out.

There is a philosophical approach to Christianity. I think philosophy is logical.

What philosophical approach can you present to support your claims?

Just saying "my evidence is of a 'philosophical nature'" doesn't get us anywhere.

Just saying "my evidence can't be shown by science yet" doesn't get us anywhere.

I do not think Harvard, Yale, Princeton... would offer Doctoral degrees if it was not logical accept some intangible proof.

I'm just not seeing those folks making your claims.

If Harvard has claims to make, present 'em and we'll go to arguing.

If Yale has claims to make, present 'em and we'll go to arguing.

if Princeton has claims to make, present 'em and we'll go to arguing.

Beyond that, why should we accept "intangible proof" as truth?

[Flail]

Why would it be logical to accept supernatural claims?

Do you seek tangible claims only? There is a philosophical approach
to Christianity. I think philosophy is logical. I do not think Harvard, Yale, Princeton... would offer Doctoral degrees if it was not logical accept some intangible proof.

Science is not a perfect art and in many areas it evolves, but it does so with evidence. Although science is imperfect when it comes to 'truth claims' it is light years ahead of the God inventing speculations of theism where the truth is in the eye of the indoctrinated and there is never any evidence of any particular God.

[mich]

From Post 45:

>I'm gonna respond here thinking I totally misunderstand mich's comments, but too stoned to refuse a chance to respond.<

I'm not so sure about that. There's a "certain particular set of theology" that has folks flying planes full of civilians into buildings. I agree atheists are just as capable of violence.

Whether I like it or not, both "could" have potential rights """if""" they had the TRUTH on their sides.

Surely I misread you, but are you saying folks oughta be able to declare flying planes full of civilians into buildings a right good thing? If so, what "TRUTH" is there to support such atrocious acts?

That was the point. We cannot possess such TRUTH unless it comes from God; for only He is TRUTH due to His nature...if their is indeed a God;
Now let us make a hypothetical claim that AlQada has direct orders from God to destroy America ( something that I don't believe as you also don't believe since you are an atheist). Since only God is truly just, then such orders, whether we understand it's reasoning or not, must be for a good purpose. How can this be? Well we first must think that death and destruction, for God, does not exist. What we may observe as destruction may simply be a transformation in the eyes of God. When a baby is being pricked with a needle by a doctor, it can only understand the pain it receives without knowing the good that comes along with the pain.

If atheism was certain of their position they indeed would have the right to annhiliate all religious systems, as Al Qaeda would have the right to destroy the Capitalistic and Communistic system...

Atheism is a rejection of belief in a god or gods. Any following positions are no longer atheism but some brand of philosophy. I say yes, we should act in a very violent manner against those that seek us harm.

If God was proven to be inexistent , then religion would be, not only useless, but
a pest to society and would need to be eliminated.

""""if""""

If....

they possed the TRUTH that God was on their side

Can any of these folks show they possess "TRUTH" that God is on their side?

"Only" if God directly revealed Himself/Herself/Itself to them.

However, to claim that "we have the TRUTH on our side" makes us the biggest liars if it isn't true.

I try to avoid the "liar" angle, instead preferring "wrong".

One can be wrong when one follows an erronous teaching by faith. When one claims to have the TRUTH on one's side, such person claims to have "direct" revelation from God, as Abraham, Moses Jesus Mohammed did. If "any" or all such individuals did not receive direct revelations from God, they are not simply wrong, but liars.

We have the right to believe in something without claiming it as TRUTH unless we know it as TRUTH.

Problem is some to many theists proclaim "TRUTH" without ever actually showing it.

I don't disagree with you on this point.

An omni-perfect God needs not to be established as I used the emphatic word "if " as I used in the case for atheism.

Exactly. Only by using such qualifiers can we declare an otherwise unverified god as anything.

"If" I'm right, God wants us all to walk barefoot and nekkid, totin' a hooka.

Who's right?

If God directly revealed this to you, then this is what we ought to do; if not, then you would be a liar.

However, I'm happy that you agree that God, if he exists, pre supposes a perfect judgement.

Actually what I'm saying is that in the lack of evidence when we declare a god's judgment perfect, we are bound by our own definitions.

That's right, because TRUTH does not exist within ourselves.

I challenge anyone to show a god judges, much less perfectly.

I'm not sure what you mean .

This necessarily means that hell ought not to be feared as this implies a perfect judgement as well.

I'm torn on that'n. Myth-one makes one heckuva case that Hell, as is commonly understood, is misunderstood.

I make no overt claims regarding a Hell I can't show exists.

As I certainly cannot show you proof in the existance of hell, I will not make any more claims other than this: "if" hell exists, God must exist as well, and we need not to worry since judgement must in turn be perfect.

I partly agree in that we have been told that we will understand God's judgement, once the judgement is brought upon us.

I don't think we've established God actually judges folks.

We haven't established the existance of God at all. If you look at the thread holistically, I am simply putting forth our options we have in dying, and I did mention the option of being anhiliated.

My personal, amateur, non-religious understanding is that if a god seek to judge us humans, then He's just as beholden to judgment as we are. I will never willingly stand in judgment before one immune to judgment.

Would this not be claiming your creator that is now being revealed before you to be your enemy?

However, we are still left with the those who kill in the name of God, let it be christians or whoever....are we to believe that they would personally judge themselves to hell?....I'm not convinced of this.

Why heck no. "God said to kill 'em and by golly I did!" is one of the most horrid explanations I've ever heard.

It is devoid of the "judgment" of human beings.

Well, some form of judgement need to exist....human judgement is far from perfect...if there is life after death, then, I hope that whatever judgement will exist, will be indeed perfect.

Andre