Philosoft

Those are all interesting questions, but I don't think your presupposition solves anything. Here's why:

The basis for any worldview is an axiom or set of axioms. For example, I think the laws of logic exist necessarily. Thus, I can make a statement like "A will always equal A" because I take it as axiomatic that the laws of logic exist necessarily.

You can also make a statement, "A will always equal A" because "logic is another characteristic of God's own nature." You would have it stop there, but you can't stop there. Obviously, you must take it as axiomatic that God exists necessarily.

My position: The laws of logic exist.
Your retort: Why?

Your position: God exists.
My retort: Why?

It seems to me our axioms are epistemically equivalent.

Now, your only recourse is to demonstrate why your axiom is superior. Engage.

Philosoft

Well, it describes ways in which we think about reality. Reality itself is not "just."

In abstraction-land.
What indeed. I see lots of examples of social-contract style standards of justice in the world and no examples of an objective standard of justice. It doesn't really matter. There might very well be an objective standard of justice but you can't demonstrate how we can know this.

Keith

Could you explain this?

Keith

Keith

I don't see the relevance in this. Are you saying that if the Christian God exists, he will need to prove his existence by causing the majority of people to believe in one particular denomination? Why?

Keith

Keith

You know when you are rationalizing your own wrong choices. You might use the excuse (when confronted on your action) that you couldn't be sure which alternative was most morally right; that you were presented with a dilemma. But you still know how you made your decision, and whether or not it was the best you could do--based on what you knew at the time.

Yes. God really did make himself clear on the things that people commonly deal with. And yes, people often behave as they please, disregarding God completely. When they do, they sin...and they know it. God has instilled in all of us his moral law so that when we sin we are without excuse.

You will be held to God's moral standard BECAUSE you know it, you know it is from God, and thus you know that it is correct. God has not failed to make his moral law plain to you.

Keith

Keith

Yes. I take it as axiomatic that God exists for a very good reason. If you assume that God doesn't exist, you have no way of making sense out of anything. It is a transcendental argument in that one must assume God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.

On the atheistic view, you have no possibility of making sense out of anything.

Keith

Dr Rick

You already did when you posted:
Using your own reasoning, a god that had made the universe a certain way today wouldn't be restricted from changing it tomorrow. You have provided no rationale to assume he won't.

It is not atheists that pray to gods to heal sickness or keep their children from getting medical care while waiting for divine intervention. It is not atheists that oppose teaching science in the classrooms. It is not atheists that have fought sceintific advancement for centuries. It is not the Bible that teaches us about relativity or genetics. It is not the churches or mosques that have discovered antibiotics and invented computers.

It is theists that have a hard time seperating fantasies about make-believe gods from reality.

Nonsensical beliefs about gods, talking serpents and donkeys, and a universe 6000 years old don't make too much sense.

Rick

Philosoft

I don't think all denominations are mutually exclusive, but Calvinism in particular posits a very deterministic view of the path to afterlife, as opposed to the will-driven paths of most other denominations. And, as the path to afterlife is such a significant part of all Christian doctrine, I think most Christians would have a problem with the idea that God just picks people for enlightenment with no apparent rhyme or reason.

Philosoft

But all you've done is push your problems back one level; you have solved nothing. If you answer the question, "Why does the universe have properties X, Y and Z" with, "Because it reflects the creator's properties X, Y and Z," you still have the problem of explaining the existence of something with properties X, Y and Z. I ground X, Y and Z in the universe, you ground them in God. Both ideas have the same epistemic justification, but I have the Razor's edge, so to speak.

Philosoft

I dismiss this entire tirade as religio-emotional wishful thinking. It has no basis in fact whatsoever.