 |
|  rossfadeinout Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 428 | Posted 10/7/2002 7:39 AM (GMT -6) |   | This is my first post. I enjoy looking in on all the discussions that go on here, even though most are over my head. I have recently been talking to a friend of mine who loves to play devil's advocate with me. We are always talking about different problems with how we can trust that Christianity is true. When we were talking he asked me something that really has got me stumped.
He asked, "How do we know that God is not supremely evil?" I said because He says that he is good, and Christ's sacrifice proves his love. He than asked "what if God does all of this to deceive us into thinking that he is good in order for us to suffer more when we die. What if God's ultimate purpose was to bring us suffering and pain. Therefore he created us with the desire to love and be loved, a moral law to follow, and even the hope for eternal life through the death of Jesus. He did all of this to get our hope up and then to crush us by saying that it was all worthless, which would bring absolute pain and suffering when we realized that it was all a deception."
The discussion was a lot more detailed than what I have written, but it was frustrating because I could'nt seem to come up with anyway to prove him wrong because when I claimed examples where God has acted out of His goodness he would say it was all a part God's deception. I know that there has to be something wrong with his argument, but I don't really know how to find how to argue against his position. (He actually doesn't claim to know that God is evil, but says that since we can't prove that God is not evil we have no way to know that he is good.)
If anyone can give me some help it would be appreciated!
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
 |  BJS Registered Member
 Date Joined Dec 2001 Total Posts : 587 | Posted 10/7/2002 8:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hey, Ross. Great to have you on board. Welcome!
One thing to remember is that whatever one chooses to believe, faith will be required. We are limited in our knowledge of God, the universe, even our very selves. The atheist or Satanist is just as limited as the Christian. Each position requires a certain degree of faith. To me, the question is: what faith choice makes the most sense and offers the most answers? For a variety of reasons, I believe the answer to that question is Jesus Christ. Therefore, I choose to place my faith in Him.
Of course, we don't know anything for CERTAIN. It is impossible to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE, as your friend seems to want you to do, that God is who God says he is. There is no way to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that this is not some sick, evil trick being played on us, but in light of the evidence of God's goodness (particularly his decision to KILL HIMSELF for us), my money is on God loving me. In my opinion it's a far more sensible bet than the one your friend seems to be considering. How does it make MORE sense to believe that God is somehow engaged in some elaborate game in which he comes to earth, heals a bunch of hurting people, and then has himself slaughtered? It would seem that if he wanted to torture us for his evil pleasure, he could find plenty of horrible ways to do it that do not involve his own pain and suffering.
Anyway, main point is that everyone lives by faith, even non-believers. I choose to believe because it is a more reasonable faith.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  kerygma Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2002 Total Posts : 45 | Posted 10/7/2002 11:41 AM (GMT -6) |   | I'll give your friend the benefit of the doubt. But your friend sounds like so many typical cynical people who throw around words phrases like "how do you know" and "proof" or "prove". Frustrating, isn't it? A humble suggestion-
"There is an infinite, all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving God who has revealed himself by means natural and supernatural in creation, in the nature of man, in the history of Israel and the Church, in the pages of Holy Scripture, in the incarnation of God in Christ, and in the heart of the believer by the Gospel."
There is absolute truth about where we came from and about God and His plan for us. All should seek that truth, or be convicted by what we refuse to accept from God that He has clearly presented to us.
Christianity is not a blind faith. The resurrection, for instance, is steeped in history-an eyewitness event. The enemies of Christ gave no refutation of His resurrection. Many have sought to disprove the resurrection and upon reviewing the evidence have failed miserably-and then converted. You quote C.S. Lewis. He is one such person. Of many.
I have met very few individuals who have honestly considered the evidence and then yet deny that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the Savior of men. The evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive to any honest, obective seeker of truth.
However, not all-not even the majority-of those to whom I have spoken have accepted Him as their Lord and Savior. This is not because they were unable to believe-they were simply unwilling to believe!
Why? Because they realize they would have to turn from the world and sin, and are unwilling to do that.
Tell your friend to honestly seek the truth about God-point him to "Evidence that demands a verdict" or "The Case for Christ" or other such books. Read them yourself first.
And hopefully he'll eventually come to "know" the only thing he needs to-the abundant and unconditional love of God.
In His peace,
Scott
"And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" Philippians 4:19 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/8/2002 3:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | rossfadeinout, I suggest you re-read your own signature: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis"
That pretty much settles it! | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Mephi2K Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 713 | Posted 10/8/2002 5:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | LOVE THE QUESTION. Loved Brett's answesr. My answer is a question to pose to the guy:
A: How do you know that the person whom you love the most (whomever that may be)is not really playing a heinous trick on you? I mean, gaining your trust, doing SEEMINGLY trustworthy things, only to tell you years down the road that they NEVER really loved you...but were just playing you for a fool? How do you know this isn't the case?
B: Well, I guess I don't.
A: Well, why do you still hang around them. LOVE them, even?
B: I guess because they haven't given me reason to doubt them yet.
A: But stick with the idea. Maybe they are a VERY CONVINCING con-artist. Undercover cops do it all the time, you know. Would they give you reason to doubt, if they were really good?
B: Nope, I guess not.
A: Then, my question remains, why?
B: I guess because, I'm just willing to grant that their actions are genuine.
A: So you are willing to TRUST in your friend and your PERCEPTIONS of him.
B: Yeah.
A: Even though you realize the possibility exists that their actions may NOT be genuine...and that your loved one is really evil?
B: Yeah, I guess so.
A: Then how, in principle, can you not allow the same logic for God? Why not extend the same courtesy to the Christian God, in the breadth of testing the Christian God hypothesis. IF Jesus really did rise from the dead and WAS the Son of God, then maybe this act was a GENUINE act of love for humanity on all levels?
This may be how it goes...
Maybe.

| | Back to Top | | |
 |  rossfadeinout Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 428 | Posted 10/8/2002 6:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | Thank you guys for all your help. I have been thinking alot about the idea of skepticism that I encounter in talking to people. Scott you're right, it seems that the biggest problem is not that people cannot believe, but in the end do not want to believe. And cynical people are VERY frustrating to talk to.
Mephi2k, point well taken. It seems that if we lived in continuous doubt then there would be no point in believing anything, a position which few would hold to (especially in real life situations)
Does anyone have a recommendation about any books that show the fallacies of a skeptical position regarding all truth?
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis
Edited by - rossfadeinout on 10/08/2002 11:24:58 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Semeia Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2001 Total Posts : 522 | Posted 10/8/2002 7:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | Ross said:
Does anyone have a recommendation about any books that show the fallacies of a skeptical position regarding all truth?
Semeia:
The best treatment of that subject I have ever read is by the American philosopher/semeiotician/logician Charles Sanders Peirce, in his book "Chance, Love, and Logic." In particular the essay, "The Fixation of Belief" and the prologue titled, "The Rules of Philosophy."
It is not easy material to comprehend, but it is well worth the effort. The book is edited by Morris R. Cohen and published by Bison Books of the University of Nebraska Press in 1998.
Thanks, Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Electra Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002 Total Posts : 611 | Posted 10/8/2002 7:21 AM (GMT -6) |   | Ross: Does anyone have a recommendation about any books that show the fallacies of a skeptical position regarding all truth?
Electra: Welcome on board Ross. Kierkegaard wrote a book called Johannes Climicus that is told from the perspective of a philosophy student who decided he was actually going to do what the philosophers thought. It is the story of someone who tries to live out Descarters' challenge: "Doubt everything." Johannes has a rough time of it, because he is immediately confronted with the problem of doubting the premise of doubting everything. The book is an interesting exploration of the livibility of this skeptical worldview.
Kierkegaard also addresses this question in a book called Philosophical Fragments, in which he compares the adequacy of the classical understanding of truth (Socrates, Descartes, Hegel) with the Christian understanding of truth. This is a challenging read.
Happy reading, Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/8/2002 8:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | I HAVEN'T MADE A REALY LONG QUOTE-POST IN A LONG TIME. HERE GOES.
Since rossfadeinout already summed up with this, "...it seems that the biggest problem is not that people cannot believe, but in the end do not want to believe." I'll contirbute from a possitive example, of two brothers who DID believe. The Wesleys.
quote: ORTHODOX AND WESLEYAN SPIRITUAL
Edited by S. T. Kimbrough (Assoc. Gen. Sec of Gen. Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church)
Chapter: Charles Wesley and the Orthodox Hesychast Tradition, pages 238-240
Eighteenth-Century England
Now we can turn to another epoch and another Christian culture. The British Empire of the eighteenth century represents a clear antithesis to dying Byzantium. In the fourteenth century there were only small remains of Byzantium but in the eighteenth century the British Empire was ascending. Its possessions grew in Africa and Asia. In America the significant part of French and Spanish colonies became a part of the British Empire. The scientific and industrial potential of England grew, and it became the leading economic Empire of the world. The level of its culture, especially of philosophy and literature, was very high, and it was an antithesis to Byzantium. An attentive look cannot miss, however, the similar deep processes at work. The same feature, which was the strongest and most characteristic of the English culture, namely, rationalism, slowly but truly ruined it. The providence of God, faith, and morality were moved to the periphery of life. Hobbes, Adam Smith, and Darwin did not stress the love bequeathed to us by Christ, rather the battle—the battle of all against all. This relates to politics, competition in economics, and the battle of species in the world of animals. The morals of society were in decline, as well as the level of religion in people. In British Parliament only five to six members of the House of Commons attended the Sunday liturgy. Nobody paid attention to the lower classes, and rebellion grew, especially among the industrial workers. Considering the number of the English working class, there could have been more terrible consequences than those of the French revolution.
In England the voice of the Wesley brothers was raised against rationalism and a passionate call was made for unity with God. In his Journal John Wesley described the feelings which he experienced on that great day. May 24,1738, when he felt that special warmth in his heart during the meeting of the Society in Aldersgate Street in London and realized not in his mind but in his heart, with all of his being, the gift of the divine grace. Such a phenomenon cannot transpire merely through abstract thoughts and philosophical speculations. It may be only the result of a true religious experience, which was a goal of the Athonite monks. They were finding in the glory of the light of Tabor the higher happiness and the higher meaning of life. So, it was very natural for Wesley to comprehend the possibility of salvation not only through the grace of the Holy Spirit but also as a result of a direct personal encounter with God. Such comprehension, naturally, meant the exclusion of the idea of predestination and, thus, entry of humankind into the Kingdom of freedom and immersion into a depth of religious life.
Charles Wesley, who had a similar religious experience three days before his brother John, described its enlightenment in his multiple hymns in a very penetrating form. These hymns are surprisingly close in their content and spirit to the poetry of Symeon the New Theologian, who is the forerunner of the hesychast tradition in the East. For the Wesley brothers and for St Symeon the New Theologian, (and also for the succeeding representatives of the hesychast tradition) the relationships with the church hierarchy were not easy. The statements of Symeon the New Theologian, on this matter are well known. The relationships ofSt Gregory Palamas and the influential hesychast party with the patriarch, John Calekas, were also very complicated.
The quick and impressive social-political resonance of the Westeys' preaching was similar to one of the hesychast teachings in the East. Gelyan Prokhorov argues that we may speak of "political" hesychasm, and one may agree with him. The Wesleys' preaching found a living response in the lower classes of a society, changed the moral atmosphere and social situation in England, and we can say that it saved England from terrible social tribulations.
Hesychasm did not stop the fall and decline of Byzantium, if we mean Constantinople and the Southern part of Peloponnesus under it. But the leaders of hesychasm were thinking in broader terms. They thought not only about conservation of important pieces of Byzantium, but about the whole Byzantium commonwealth which included Greece, the Near East, Slavic and Balkan countries, Caucasus, and Russia, particularly the young, dynamic, and great Moscow principality.
It is characteristic that during the siege of Constantinople in the fourteenth century by Genoa the Emperor and Patriarch were busy with the problems of the Moscow metropolis. From this point of view, the activity of hesychast teachers was in the same way as effective and successful as the activity of the Wesley brothers.
Sometimes one hears that the Puritanism of the Wesley brothers had a negative influence on English, and somewhat later, on American art. The critical comments of John Wesley about theater are well known. But theater, in this instance, is a private matter. The appeal of John Wesley to divine grace, the source of the creative inspiration, however, seems to stimulate the development of real art. We do not speak of its surrogate, which is made for consumption by corrupted interests and evil passions. The glowing example of such art is the poetry of Charles Wesley illustrated here by two stanzas of his poem, "Jesus, Lover of my soul," originally published in Hymns and Sacred Poems (1740):
Jesus, Lover of my soul, let me to thy bosom fly, while the nearer waters roll, while the tempest still is high. Hide me, 0 my Savior, hide till the storm of life is passed. Safe into the haven guide, 0 receive my soul at last. Other refuge have I none, hangs my helpless soul on thee; leave, ah, leave me not alone, still support and comfort me. All my hope on thee is stayed, all my help from thee I bring; cover my defenseless head with the shadow of thy wing.
We should not forget this specific kind of creativity, which was also characteristic of ascetic hesychasts: one seeks human perfection in the image of God.
Returning to the present, one should stress the great importance of the Wesley phenomenon as a spiritual bridge between the two related Christian cultures of the East and West. There is no necessity to speak about the importance of a dialogue and mutual understanding between them. The twentieth century came to its end, full of dramatic events and tribulations. Nothing gives us an opportunity to assume that the twenty-first century will be less tragic. Secularization grows. The old and new anti-God teachings challenge Christianity and the fundamentals of society. That is why it is so important to recognize the zooo-year-path traveled by Christianity, and to recognize the religious experience of the East and West, which, as the Wesley phenomenon shows us, have important common features.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/08/2002 1:45:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Alan Rhoda Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 680 | Posted 10/8/2002 11:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: He asked, "How do we know that God is not supremely evil?" I said because He says that he is good, and Christ's sacrifice proves his love.
Welcome to the discussion, Brad. Your initial response to your friend was a good one and perfectly adequate. That it didn't satisfy him shows not that your argument is bad but that he is not willing to follow the evidence where it leads.
quote: He than asked "what if God does all of this to deceive us into thinking that he is good in order for us to suffer more when we die. What if God's ultimate purpose was to bring us suffering and pain. Therefore he created us with the desire to love and be loved, a moral law to follow, and even the hope for eternal life through the death of Jesus. He did all of this to get our hope up and then to crush us by saying that it was all worthless, which would bring absolute pain and suffering when we realized that it was all a deception."
While I suppose it's possible that God is really just some malicious deceiver, your friend needs to do a lot more than just throw that out as a mere possibility. You had already given a reason for thinking that God is good. That puts the burden of proof on your friend. He needs to give you some actual evidence against the idea that God is good and for the idea that God is supremely evil.
quote: The discussion was ... frustrating because I couldn't seem to come up with anyway to prove him wrong because when I claimed examples where God has acted out of His goodness he would say it was all part God's deception.
You won't be able to PROVE him wrong, but you don't need to and you shouldn't try. The burden of proof is on him, not you.
quote: I know that there has to be something wrong with his argument, but I don't really know how to find how to argue against his position. (He actually doesn't claim to know that God is evil, but says that since we can't prove that God is not evil we have no way to know that he is good.)
Your friend says that because we can't prove that God is not evil then we can't know that he is good. That assumes that we can't know something if we can't disprove all contrary possibilities. That's a completely unreasonable standard of proof that would immediately lead to complete skepticism not only about God but about any claim about the world. (Can you PROVE that this message you are currently reading isn't just some vivid hallucination?) You should challenge your friend on this point. He is doing what so many people do--when it comes to matters of religion they raise their standards of proof to completely unrealistic levels, far beyond what they would require as evidence in any other area.
Keep up with sharing your faith.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 10/8/2002 4:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hey rossfadeinout,
You know, there are things that we know just "ought" to be. We should not steal from others, because we know we "ought" not to do it. You don't have to teach someone this, it's pretty clear by, oh, instict, for lack of a better word.
We ought to do a lot of things. A lot of things ought to be certain ways. It's not like driving on the right side of the road here in America, but on the left side in Europe; that's not an "ought" thing. It's a learned thing, like 2+2=4.
It is the "way" things ought to be that we trust each other; we want to be trusted ourselves. Oh, there's a few out there on the edge, mind you, who will kill their own mother to get what they want--it ought not to be that way--but in every culture, every class of people, all around the world, there are these common denominators across the board; the way things ought to be. It's not to the same degree everywhere on the planet, but the concept is clear. Things ought to be a certain way.
This, I believe, comes from source, a "norm", if you will. There has to be a standard greater than us by which to refer to things as being "ought." There has to be something external from us which we can all look to and say, "That's why."
Is it the "ought" that we play a trick on each other for the worse possible outcome? Is this the way we ought to do things? Well, no. And if we are intelligent, communicating people, with what, then, would we concretionize the idea that God must be worse than we?
How do I know God's not playing a trick on us--a mean, nasty one? Because it isn't the way things ought to be!
For the ought of it,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:32 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|