No Name #5
Puritan Board Freshman
I would appreciate it if someone could offer me some advice on witnessing to an atheist friend of mine. We've known each other for a couple of years now, & have debated this subject numerous times in the past. They haven't even read the Bible yet, & my insistence thus far has been for them to read & study the Bible for all its worth if they are genuinely interested, because "Faith comes by hearing, & hearing by the Word of God." Since they've yet to do so & don't take any of my explanations as valid, I thought the Spirit must not be working, & decided to do as Jesus instructed: "If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them." (Bear in mind, this is simplifying our discussions quite a lot.) But the other day, because of a book they're apparently reading, we got in a discussion on philosophy, & I unwittingly fell into another intellectual argument. Below is a transcript of the dialogue that followed.
I received an E-mail after this conversation from them, in which they insisted their same points stubbornly, apparently not understanding anything I've said, & calling me dishonest for disagreeing. My questions are, if you'd be gracious enough to read the AIM conversation: do you think I've gone about explaining the Truth soundly? And do you think I should continue this conversation, or would going about that be in violation of the aforementioned instruction by Jesus?
Thank you very much & God bless.
I received an E-mail after this conversation from them, in which they insisted their same points stubbornly, apparently not understanding anything I've said, & calling me dishonest for disagreeing. My questions are, if you'd be gracious enough to read the AIM conversation: do you think I've gone about explaining the Truth soundly? And do you think I should continue this conversation, or would going about that be in violation of the aforementioned instruction by Jesus?
Thank you very much & God bless.
The conversation just began to loop at this point. Your thoughts?Them: there's a whole section in the book about proofs for god's existence, and it's mostly skippable because it's theologian writing
Me: have you read Descartes' argument?
Them: it's about making justifications for dogma, not actually using logic to come to a deistic belief
Me: lol yeah.
Me: using logic to come to a deistic belief is downright impossible.
Them: I read parts of it
Me: imposssibllleleeee.fdsfdsfjod;sfds.
Me: what did you think? was this in the book, or something you've been familiar with for a while? have you argued it in the past?
Them: you mean his bit on questioning everything and then concluding there's a god so he can understand the world?
Me: he did that?
Me: apparently there are 3 different sets of proofs.
Them: well, he did that in the parts that I read. shrug
Me: that is very unenlightening, heh.
Them: the book is just like lots of philosophers' writings divided into segments
Me: I take a hardcore Johann Georg Hamann approach to this sort of thing.
Them: and presented as arguments against eachother
Me: do you like it?
Me: I read something similar to that a while back.
Me: I thought it was very useful.
Them: yeah, I dig the format.
Me: to have so many bits of actual philosophical texts quoted in length.
Me: essentially a bunch of books put together in one. really cool & convenient.
Them: yeah... and it's really great for days you have to spend 8 hours cramped in a car
Them: lol
Me: I'm a lot like Hamann, though, who was very deeply influenced by Hume's attack on rationalism - he was sort of an unusual mixture of Faith & skeptical empiricism, which is totally & completely me.
Me: anyway,
Me: I can't help but believe that there is no bridge between the a priori propositions of logic & mathematics & factual statements asserting truths about the world. so, any effort to *prove* truths of fact, taken up by anyone...Thomists, Cartesians, the folks who followed Leibniz, et al., are absurd to me. there's plenty evidence, & with that evidence, we interpret & come to what conclusions we will. mine is God. I think that's the most intellectually honest stance one could have.
Me: or that I have witnessed, to date.
Them: so you believe in something sort of like descartes then?
Me: sort of.
Me: sort of is very, very key.
Me: there is a lot of nuance.
Them: god must exist so you can make sense of things?
Me: not exactly.
Me: how do I put this...
Me: for me, it's more like God exists, & that's why things do make sense for me. it's not a force the square-peg-into-the-round-hole kind of belief, though.
Them: ah.
Me: lol.
Them: I don't get why people think gods or spirits or dualism changes anything
Them: it doesn't for me, anyway
Me: because w/o God, everything is in a kind of random, purposeless flux, & the will is a product of the impersonal & amoral. more than that, everything is relativisitic.
Me: this isn't a /reason/ to believe, though. it's a product OF believing.
Me: it's not like, "bait on a stick", to revive an old metaphor.
Me: it's not a real argument. you come to believe by means of genuine interest & from there, personal revelation.
Them: nothing is any more or less relativistic, moral or immoral, or sensical or not, because of anythings existence or lack of. A god has as much value as the tree on our front lawn
Them: in the grand scheme
Me: no it doesn't.
Me: you're begging the question, again, of your own will over God's. if God exists, He created that tree, He created your mind, and to quote from the Bible - who are you, O man, to talk back to God? moral commands begin to have value because we know we're answering to an omniscient, omnipresent, omni-etc. God who will have us in Hell if otherwise.
Me: otherwise, everything is senseless, & I really have no reason not to rape babies, in the grand scheme of things.
Them: but that's all based on coercion.
Them: and manipulative morality, not real morality.
Me: begging the question, again.
Me: if God is all-good, as is the case from the Bible,
Me: then his morality is all-good,
Me: & there has to be something wrong your outlook for seeing things differently.
Me: & that's all what you said ultimately amounts to.
Them: it's not begging the question -- if god exists, it doesn't mean it would be right
Me: seeing things differently.
Me: yes it does.
Me: He created everything.
Me: w/o Him, I don't even see how you have the ability to say what "right" is, or how you can ever think yourself to have the authority to legislate your morality.
Them: his morality isn't all good. injustice is inherent in christianity, with hell
Me: no, it's not.
Me: again, you beg the question.
Me: would you like me to elaborate?
Them: lol. I caps because it's important, not because I'm yelling: NOT AGREEING WITH YOUR GIVENS IS NOT BEGGING THE QUESTION
(my post-chat commentary: It is, in fact, the fallacy of begging the question, because they are arguing the problem of evil here, claiming that God "cannot be all-good since injustice is inherent in Christianity, with Hell", which is interleaving their own standards of morality, rather than being consistent with the premises in the system itself.)
Me: yes it is.
Me: you are begging the question of your standards.
Them: All men are immortal; Socrates is a man; Therefore socrates is immortal. Now don't question my faulty assumptions!
(my post-chat commentary: This is a terribly see-through red herring fallacy. The red herring ought to be embarrassingly lucid with the fact that they were arguing against God's moral value in the Christian system, saying it is inconsistent with itself because injustice exists with Hell. Then when I rejoin that God creates morality, & therefore they cannot place judgment on it, they begin to talk axiom validity - which is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. You can't argue against His morality & then abruptly assert, well, YOU CAN'T PROVE HIS EXISTENCE ANYWAY w/o committing a plain red-herring.)
Me: that they are ultimate, & can bring judgment against God.
Me: if God exists, He calls the shots.
Me: you are using circular reasoning with your standards.
Them: no, I give equal consideration to god's side
Them: just as I would with anyone
Me: God is not on par with everyone.
Them: "calls the shots"?
Me: He omniscient, omnipresent, etc.
Them: by coercion?
Me: all-powerful. the whole bit.
Me: nope. no coercion, unless /you/ want to manipulate it with your standards.
Them: right, and people are immortal.
Them: there's no way for god to call the shots without convincing people
Me: the logic here is completely consistent.
Me: He created everything.
Them: otherwise it is coercion
Them: with the threat of hell/reward of heaven
Me: therefore, He creates morality.
Me: He is all-good, therefore, He has a morally just reason for allowing Hell to exist.
Me: it makes no sense to pass judgment on God. none at all.
Them: the logic is consistent, just like my argument that socrates is immortal. The problem is the faulty premises
Me: complete consistency.
Me: the premises are not faulty.
Me: how in the heck can you argue the validity of the premise?
Them: then why do you call it begging the question when I say you should justify yours?
Me: justify my what?
Them: it would be reasonable to ask, "Are people really immortal?"
Them: and conclude no
Me: what are you asking?
Them: you take for granted god's existence, omnipotence, benevolence, and on and on
Me: lol.
Them: this isn't a logical argument. It's something else, dressed up as logic
Me: even /you/ say morals are a matter of opinion.
Them: I don't see your point with it
Me: I'm not saying it's an argument, per se. I'm saying it works logically.
Them: they're not a matter of opinion
Them: they are a matter of judgment
Me: my point is you can't touch it. you can't say there is a contradiction. it's completely consistent with itself, you slly polar bear.
Them: it's not consistent with reality. Socrates is immortal is a consistent proof, too
Me: uh huh.
Me: logic works that way.
Them: but it means nothing
Them: socrates is quite dead
Me: premises work that way.
Me: deal with it.
Me: reality could very well violate your rule.
Me: God could very well work this way.
Me: just because it doesn't satisfy -you- and how -you- see things is infinitely naive.
Them: see, you don't have a justification for your givens, just like the socrates proof. your belief isn't logical. I don't think it has to be either, and I think this exercise is what theologians do, and it's inherently dishonest
Them: and I mean, it might be logically valid, but not really logical
Me: um.
Me: what's the difference between "logically valid" & "logical"?
Them: logical as in rational to believe, to be clear
Me: lolol.
Me: I just got done telling you,
Me: I think any effort to PROVE truths of fact is idle fantasy.
Me: screw Thomists, Cartesians, what have you.
Them: so you assume things instead
Me: I just got telling you I don't think you can argue God's existence. I'm just explaining the way my Faith works.
Me: no, I assume nothing, & you can't proclaim I do w/o passing judgment.
Me: it's a matter of qualia here.
Them: well, you really ought to avoid dressing it up as a rational belief.
Me: I never did that.
Them: that's misleading and dishonest
Me: I never did that.
Me: if anything, I was extremely honest with what I just got telling you about Hamann. you can't /be/ anymore honest.
Them: no, but you argue with me -- when you have no grounds to do so
Me: I'm explaining my belief.
Me: yours makes no sense to me.
Them: I'm rational, looking for rational beliefs, facts, etc. And you argue with that
Me: no,
Me: what you're doing is saying,
Me: "I think morality is X, God thinks morality is Y, therefore, God is nonexistent."
Me: which is stupid.
Me: God is the creator of everything, He creates morality, & if He exists, you have nothing more to say.
Them: that's not my argument at all. I said if god exists, it changes nothing
Them: about morality, the universe, life, etc
Me: yes it does.
Me: you have to answer to Hell, if He exists.
Them: and those are your assumptions, to back into the circle this conversation is taking
Me: uh huh.