Board index ‹ God

[Sea Bass]

Everything you ostensibly know about sin, salvation, heaven, hell, God being good and Satan being evil all comes from divine revelation. You have no way to verify what God is telling you, at least not until after death. How then do you know what God has revealed is accurate?

[jimwalton]

First of all, there are ways to determine truth. (1) It has to comport with reality; (2) it has an objectivity; (3) it coincides with other things known to be true, etc. Not every truth is verifiable (like possibly dark matter and such things), but truth often has a verifiability to it. We expect consistency, repeatability, some degree of empiricism, and some degree of confirmability.

So let's talk about theology. If God is not telling the truth, He is not God. Right off the bat we have an insurmountable contradiction in the idea that God could be lying. If there is a God, and if He is truly God, then He is necessarily telling the truth.

How do we know the truth about sin? Sin is readily observable in humanity. Christian theology comports with empirical evidence.

How do we know the truth about God being good? Just like anything else, we observe God's thoughts as expressed in Scripture and assess His behaviors as revealed in Scripture, and we are able to determine if God is good or not. So also with Satan being evil.

So we can verify what God is telling us by observing humanity, weighing what is revealed in Scripture against empirical evidence, comparing and contrasting the revelation of Scripture with reality that we see around us, and taking stock in the experiences people have. On those grounds we can know that what God has revealed is accurate.

Also in reply, if you have evidence of somewhere that God has told a lie, I'd be pleased to see it or hear it. Or if you have reason to doubt that what God has revealed is accurate, we can talk about that. On that level I could ask you the obverse question: How do you know God is lying?

[Sea Bass]

> If God is not telling the truth, He is not God. Right off the bat we have an insurmountable contradiction in the idea that God could be lying. If there is a God, and if He is truly God, then He is necessarily telling the truth.

Why start with the assumption that God tells you the truth?

> How do we know the truth about sin? Sin is readily observable in humanity.

Everything you know about sin comes from God, and the question at hand is how we know this is true.

> How do we know the truth about God being good? Just like anything else, we observe God's thoughts as expressed in Scripture and assess His behaviors as revealed in Scripture, and we are able to determine if God is good or not. So also with Satan being evil.

> Again, you believe God is good because... God told you.

> On that level I could ask you the obverse question: How do you know God is lying?

I don't believe in God so I don't think God does anything.

[jimwalton]

> Why start with the assumption that God tells you the truth?

I don't start with that assumption. Instead, it's so by definition. It's like you asking, "Why do you start with the assumption that human cells are alive?" I don't start with that assumption, it's so by definition. Cells are the building block of life and therefore they are necessarily alive. God is, by definition, as Richard Swinburne writes, "a non-embodied personal spirit who exists as omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and necessarily so. He cannot not be these attributes. His essence is an eternal essence. He is self-existent and the personal ground of being. He has reason, intentions, and free will (perfectly free). He is perfectly moral and good (His moral judgments have truth value). He is completely rational (he is subject to no non-rational influences); He always has a just, moral, and rational reason for His actions). He has capacities that are as great as they logically can be. He is the terminus of complete explanation. No greater being can be conceived." Therefore, as I said, if God is not telling the truth, He is not God.

> Everything you know about sin comes from God, and the question at hand is how we know this is true.

We subscribe to the truth about sin because such a subscription is dependent on other theological evidences which, since proven not only plausible but probable, lead me consequently to accept the truth about sin.

> Again, you believe God is good because... God told you.

Oh, not at all. That's just circular reasoning. I believe God is good because of the evidences of His work in history and in people's lives.

> I don't believe in God so I don't think God does anything.

Then your question was disingenuous and presumably manipulative. To assess whether or not God is telling the truth presupposes His existence. If you don't believe God exists, then His existence is the appropriate first question, not an assessment of God's character or behavior.

[Sea Bass]

> I don't start with that assumption. Instead, it's so by definition

Defining something in a particular way doesn't make it so in reality. Doesn't matter if Swinburne does it too. One could just as easily define God as evil.

> I believe God is good because of the evidences of His work in history and in people's lives.

For example?

> Then your question was disingenuous and presumably manipulative. To assess whether or not God is telling the truth presupposes His existence.

Not at all. You can take a position for the sake of argument without believing it personally. Debate classes do this all the time.

[jimwalton]

> Defining something in a particular way doesn't make it so in reality. Doesn't matter if Swinburne does it too. One could just as easily define God as evil.

Correct: Defining something in a particular way doesn't make it so in reality. The difference here is that we are working with a definition of God that is at least 3000 old and counting. The definition of God is a being whose goodness has no peer or superior. Bringing that definition into doubt, then, is a distortion you are bringing to the table, not any flaw in the working definition for millennia. Your choosing to redefine God as being capable of untruth doesn't make the perception credible. In that sense it's like suddenly claiming a circle is square, because defining a circle as round doesn't make it so in reality. One could just as easily define a circle as triangular, right?

Definitions matter, especially one that is at least 3 millennia old. You can't change it at a whim and consider your change legitimate.

> "I believe God is good because of the evidences of His work in history and in people's lives." For example?

The positive life-change He has brought to billions of people around the world through history, for one (2.2 billion on the planet right now). The goodness He has brought to society through His people starting schools and hospitals. That the Bible is the basis of Western civilization's concepts of law, philosophy, science, and education shows the goodness inherent in biblical theology.

> Not at all. You can take a position for the sake of argument without believing it personally. Debate classes do this all the time.

Of course it's part of debate class, but this isn't "debate a Christian," it's "ask a Christian." And your question was asked from a specious root.

[Sea Bass]

> The difference here is that we are working with a definition of God that is at least 3000 old and counting.

Old doesn't necessarily equal correct. The question simply becomes, why should we accept this 3000-year-old definition of God?

> The positive life-change He has brought to billions of people around the world through history, for one (2.2 billion on the planet right now). The goodness He has brought to society through His people starting schools and hospitals. That the Bible is the basis of Western civilization's concepts of law, philosophy, science, and education shows the goodness inherent in biblical theology.

So you recognize any other faith that has brought about positive life changes as evidence for their god? What about schools and hospitals in the Islamic or Greek world, are those evidence for their gods?

> That the Bible is the basis of Western civilization's concepts of law, philosophy, science, and education shows the goodness inherent in biblical theology.

Why the focus on Western civilization and not Eastern? Did God only come for one half of the globe? And again, you're ignoring Greek and Islamic contributions.

> And your question was asked from a specious root.

You're welcome to not respond if you think I'm being disingenuous.

[jimwalton]

> Old doesn't necessarily equal correct.

Obviously.

> The question simply becomes, why should we accept this 3000-year-old definition of God?

Why do we accept the definition of any word or concept? We as a society throughout history determine and come to consensus on what "question" means, what "simply" means, what "becomes" means, what "accept" means, and also what "God" means. Without linguistic consensus, communication becomes impossible. I can't imagine you are advocating throwing out all dictionaries, but that's where your thoughts are leading. This is what "God" means, by millennia of societal consensus.

> So you recognize any other faith that has brought about positive life changes as evidence for their god?

Every society has some positive aspects to it, and every faith system has some positive features. But look around the world. India, dominated by Hinduism, is a country of bigotry, poverty, class discrimination, and disease. The Middle East, dominated by Islam, is characterized by violence and misogyny. China, a largely atheist country but historically Buddhist, is characterized by human rights abuses. The Western world, dominated by Christianity, is a place of wealth, charity, science, education, and prosperity.

> What about schools and hospitals in the Islamic or Greek world, are those evidence for their gods?

Hospitals in the Greek world? I think you're dreaming. Hospitals were unknown in the ancient Greek world. Hospitals in the Islamic world are following the model of the West. Hospitals were the invention of Christian civilizations.

> Why the focus on Western civilization and not Eastern?

Because law and philosophy are largely Western disciplines with a Western source. I'll presume that you had social studies in school. The ancient world was not civilizations of the rule of law and the value of education, but often the domination of the powerful.

> Did God only come for one half of the globe?

Of course not. But when we examine the civilizations inspired by Christianity vs. those inspired by Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, the difference is clear.

> And again, you're ignoring Greek and Islamic contributions.

I'm not ignoring them; I'm keeping them in proper perspective. Philosophy was born in ancient Greece (a Western civilization). Law came to the world primarily through Rome (a Western civilization). Both of those civilizations came under the influence of Christianity, which transformed them. Ancient Rome, while a center of law, was a brutal society of bigotry, slavery, poverty, and violence. Christianity transformed it.

When Islam came to Europe and cut it off the from rest of the world, Europe fell into the Dark Ages. Europe only escaped the Dark Ages when the Crusades (brutal in themselves) renewed Europe's connection with the rest of the world, resulting in the Renaissance, science, and eventually the Enlightenment, all with Christian foundations.

There have certainly been contributions in the disciplines of law, philosophy, and science by many civilizations, but what the world enjoys today in those areas is primarily because of the foundation of Christianity in Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Africa.