Agnostic's Corner (Is God real?)

[GodfatherPartTwo]

In the same way a believer might have a longing for fatherly figure, an atheist can just easily have a longing to NOT have a fatherly authority figure that's going put boundaries on their fun and going to put a spotlight on their deeds.

That pretty much sums up the whole Bible. Believers see a Graceful God. Non-believers see a Judgemental God. Both are true. It takes the Holy Spirit to see that "His commandments are not burdensome" and that "God is love," to go from non-believing to believing.

 

[Matsufubu]

This popped up in my YouTube feed earlier. An easy introduction.

 

[Aboulia]

So you admit that you cannot really be sure that Christianity is real?

It is a failure and injustice done to Christianity to say it cannot be proven by science. St John of Damascus defines "man" as a "rational, mortal, animal". When it's at it's best, Christianity is the science of sciences, Christ is able to free man from having his vision clouded by the irrational impulses that affect all of us. This was the foundation it was laid upon, and it's what separates it from other religions. It's why Orthodox Christians stand on Sundays as decreed at the first ecumenical council and at also at prayer. God wants each person to stand on their own two legs the best they can. It's directly in the hymns.

If Christianity isn't aiming to make your vision clearer, it's not Christianity, and if someone isn't attempting making their own vision clearer, and have their sight in accordance with their actions, they're not a Christian regardless of what they tell you.

Modern science as an institution has been captured by people following these irrational impulses, that's why taking the jab was "following the science", if that doesn't show you that the material world is downstream from perception, let me give you an example.

You see a young beautiful woman, your desire for her is going to affect how you see her. Do you think her father sees her in the same way that you would? Yes or no?

If you'd like me to continue, respond indicating so, otherwise I won't waste my breath.

 

[Lawrence87]

It is really difficult to break out of the modern materialist mindset. It tends to seep in, even if you claim to reject it.

A lot of religious thought comes from a time when this viewpoint did not exist. In which there was an extremely different view on reality, one in which symbolism and meaning and so forth were counted as having some kind of ontological existence rather than being a subjective thought process.

In the modern world we would say that there is no meaning to a mountain, its just a certain configuration of matter and any meaning is a subjective process in our minds based on experiences and culture etc. However in more ancient times there wasn't such a downplaying of the meaning, and it would have been considered that the symbolic meaning of a mountain was just as real as the rock it was made out of, if not moreso.

And the idea of God becomes much less distant if you are prepared to jetison the materialistic presuppositions that we have in the modern world. God is the Absolute towards which all meaning and purpose and symbolism points.

And we all inhabit a world that is steeped in meaning. No one would say that climbing a mountain is exactly the same in terms of meaning as getting an airlift to the top in a helicopter, or that the experience is just as significant as the experience of brushing your teeth that morning. We all prioritize things that are meaningful.

I also think that whilst is prescriptions were terrible Nietzsche was on the nose when he saw the consequences of killing God. All meaning collapses. But no atheist actually lives like this is the case. If atheists were consistent with their worldview they would not care about fairness or justice, or morality of any kind because it doesn't exist in their worldview.

Once you see through the facade of materialism and realise there is another way to look at reality that makes more sense, the idea of God existing becomes significantly more obvious.

 

[Samseau]

I guess I'm confused, wouldn't that mean those drugs do make you love someone if they simulate a feeling of love?

No, that's like saying tripping on acid makes hallucinations real.

 

[Australia Sucks]

You are mixing things up a bit. Are they extolling the Christian virtues because they think that helps them attain the Kingdom of Heaven, or are they hoping to maximize worldly benefits? I would rather say it's the latter.

Even non Christians can have an innate sense of morality. Religion is just one potential source of morality. Certain people despite not having religion can have an innate moral compass. If I do things which I believe are wrong I feel guilt. I prefer to sleep well at night so I try to minimize the number of wrong things I do in life. I try not to be prideful though as I have done plenty of wrong and its for others to judge if I am a moral person or not obviously on an issue like this people are biased and almost nobody likes to think themselves a bad person so it must be for others to judge.

But yes I concede that under an agnostic worldview the concept of objective morality is problematic.

 

[analyst_green]

Even non Christians can have an innate sense of morality. Religion is just one potential source of morality. Certain people despite not having religion can have an innate moral compass. If I do things which I believe are wrong I feel guilt. I prefer to sleep well at night so I try to minimize the number of wrong things I do in life. I try not to be prideful though as I have done plenty of wrong and its for others to judge if I am a moral person or not obviously on an issue like this people are biased and almost nobody likes to think themselves a bad person so it must be for others to judge.

But yes I concede that under an agnostic worldview the concept of objective morality is problematic.

I do not deny that non-Christians can be moral. But even then, that morality comes from God. God inscribed His law on our hearts. That is why even people who never heard of Christ can behave morally and have moral inclinations.

That's the inner law, and we have the outer law which is found in Church tradition, including the Bible. We need the outer law because the inner law alone is insufficient. Due to all the distractions of the world and the flesh, we're not entirely in tune with that inner law. You'll get different ideas from another agnostic on what is moral and not, you will never see eye to eye completely. Because ultimately in your case, you want to act according to your moral compass to be happy, right? There is no overarching goal of salvation that a Christian has. So what else is there to pursue but happiness?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Even non Christians can have an innate sense of morality

This is true. The Bible says that mankind is created in the image of God, and thus, they have an innate sense of right and wrong. What I want to know is how you as an Agnostic know that people have an innate sense of morality?

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

What I want to know is how you as an Agnostic know that people have an innate sense of morality?

It's very much an observable reality. At the same time, it's also an observable reality that this innate sense of morality can be twisted, tainted and buried beyond recognition through social engineering and brainwashing, especially at an early age.

I went through hell for many years to get my sense of morality and my common sense back to a point where my great-grandparents would have recognized them as even remotely normal and healthy. I am still profoundly sick btw. Don't send your boys to public school and don't let them watch talmudvision.

Public schools often show young kids pictures of naked dead bodies from the "Holocaust". It's the first time most of them ever see a naked body. It's why people get such a strong emotional response to any mention of that topic and why they are physically incapable of questioning it.

 

[scary_robot_music]

Don't send your boys to public school and don't let them watch talmudvision.

Public schools often show young kids pictures of naked dead bodies from the "Holocaust". It's the first time most of them ever see a naked body. It's why people get such a strong emotional response to any mention of that topic and why they are physically incapable of questioning it.

That's a great point. As much as I've constantly been told that I need to "read books" by liberals and leftists, I've always been a voracious reader, even as a kid. I remember the Holocaustianity classes you mentioned and being as shocked by those images as anyone. Then in that very same school's library I read history books that mentioned any number of other genocidal mass murders throughout history and I started to wonder why we only talk about that particular one.

And decades of wrongthink later, here I am on sites like this one!

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

It's very much an observable reality.

An "innate sense of morality" is not observable to the human eye. If the Atheist worldview were true, you wouldn't have "an innate sense of morality." The point is that it's a Christian doctrine that is assumed and borrowed by the Atheist and Agnostic worldviews without warrant, but the reason they do assume it is because they too are made in the image of God.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

If the Atheist worldview were true, you wouldn't have "an innate sense of morality."

I didn't say the atheist worldview was true. I just said you can, through observing people's behavior, arrive to the conclusion that people have an innate sense of right and wrong. It's limited to basic natural law, it's easily ignored, and it's easily crushed by societal forces, but it's there. God put it there, of course, I never argued otherwise.

Of course, you still need Christ. Non-Christian cultures have always been horribly barbaric with few exceptions. You cannot have society-wide morality without Christianity. Not to the same level, and in most cases not at all. You can have a few high-IQ individuals who will use their big and wrinkly brains to figure out that it's heckin' optimal to subscribe to some kind of jury-rigged rudimentary moral code along the lines of "whatever leads to the most human flourishing is a moral good", or maybe some fancy ideology or philosophy. But the masses won't do any of that.

 

[Blade Runner]

It can be as basic as the search for meaning indicates that there is meaning, a proof. Otherwise, where would you get that idea? Random? Imaginary? It's not even possible in the backdrop of not being able to explain something coming from nothing. I've come to the realization the last few years that it's very clear that logically "God" exists/is real/is who He is, etc. The particularities of that and what convinces some people various things about God, history, revelation, etc are a long discussion, of course. As are any in fields of study in discerning truth, mastery, skill.

Clive Staples Lewis said, straight and to the point, that if the Sun exists (let's call it the origin of light and its metaphors), it has to first exist in order for eyes to come into being. He is suggesting of course that they then see the light, and even some attributes of it (and its origins, in part), and of course we know now that you won't be able to see ALL attributes of it. It's really quite simple and amazing in terms of a proof, in my estimation.

 

[SeekingGod]

If you look deep down it is 100% clear that God exists. There is no denying it. The problem in modern times is that we only train our analytical thought process, which is fine, but it cannot comprehend God and beyond because there is no proof of God with logic. As you train your intuition through concentrated prayer, focus, and lectio divina, it will become clear. It is something you just know, that gets revealed.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

there is no proof of God with logic

There have been great theologians and philosophers across history who have attempted to prove that God exists through logic, and I think they did a great job. I'm mainly talking about CS Lewis and Descartes. It's a big reason why, from what I have seen, agnostics usually have no problem at all agreeing that a God must exist. They just remain unconvinced that the Christian God is the correct one.

 

[OrthodoxWanderer]

There have been great theologians and philosophers across history who have attempted to prove that God exists through logic

And they have failed. Even Immanuel Kant.

If God is transcendent (as Christian God is, although He makes Himself knowable), then trying to deduce his existence from the phenomena using formal logic would eventually run into a wall that is incompleteness theorem(s). That's what faith is for - to take lead in the regions where reason begins to fail.

 

[ginsu]

 

[magoo]

My oldest kid told me he had some classmates who didnt believe in God and Christ. My answer was firstly Christ existed. This is not up to debate. Historically He existed. What we can argue is if He in fact did all those magical things people talk about. Or He was just another preacher like so many other. This we can also debate if you want. But what we can´t debate is whatever He was. His message wasn´t the right one. It´s the right message and philosophy of life to follow. Because societies which are based on His word are the closest to God. And therefore are the best. Where people have the best principles and way of life.

I didn´t wanted to go hardcore on the kid starting to talk about bible verses or jews. Cause he will have a phase of rebellion for sure. And the more I push him one way the more he will try to prove me wrong eventually. I´m just guiding him the best I can.

 

[SeekingGod]

There have been great theologians and philosophers across history who have attempted to prove that God exists through logic, and I think they did a great job. I'm mainly talking about CS Lewis and Descartes. It's a big reason why, from what I have seen, agnostics usually have no problem at all agreeing that a God must exist. They just remain unconvinced that the Christian God is the correct one.

I’ve read and heard these theories, like the first cause argument etc. My point is that faith is something that is better known intuitively than with rigorous proofs or logic.

 

[OrthodoxWanderer]

And my argument is that logic requires axioms. Something more fundamental than God that you hold to be true a priori, which is, of course, a proposition that contradicts itself.