Debating an Atheist

[brody196]

I think you are misusing the term 'metaphysics'. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy having to deal with 'being' and existence; ontology.

You're mistaken. Metaphysics is derived from the Latin word metaphysica, meaning beyond the physical. It deals with things that are beyond our senses, so it is not a misuse to describe things such as logic as metaphysical.

Ethics (morality) is also a branch of philosophy. If you want to ask "what is good or bad" that is morality. If you ask "does good and bad exist objectively" that could be bringing-in metaphysics into the discussion. Another metaphysical question would be "do numbers really exist, or are they just a human conception?"

For morality, you are probably following what is known as "Divine command theory." I don't. I look to consequentialism, individual rights, and reciprocity. No god needed. The three things I listed have the effect of making a peaceful community. If you want to discuss further, pick a certain moral subject, but some are hard and some are easy; not at all "one size fits all." By the way, most brilliant thing ever, written on morality:
"The Moral Instinct" by Prof. Steven Pinker

How is your moral position superior to mine? How do you know that a "peaceful community" is good? How do you determine what is evil? All these questions demonstrate the folly of your worldview, due to it's subjectivity. You can't have a subjective standard and argue superiority, that dog just won't hunt bro.

Besides, the real reason you are concerned about morality to begin with is because you were made in the image of God. Scripture says that you know God exist and that you suppress that truth in unrighteousness. I can give an account for these things through the Christian worldview. Atheism can't.

[steve7150]

Theodicy is a problem for theology; but it becomes a greatly magnified as a problem if a Christian accepts evolution.









Why God allows or even directs evil is a big issue with or without evolution. Why do animals have to eat other animals to survive among countless situations that are hard to fathom. First thing is that the bible does describe God as love but never "all loving" because He has other attributes besides love like justice and mercy etc. It also seems we learn most things through "contrast" like love vs hate, light vs dark, good vs evil etc. So the way i see it is that "evil" is used by God as a teaching and experience method for humans to learn and advance. If everything were perfect like only good and no evil and everything we could ever need was available to us we would have a very pleasant life but would we ever grow? I think a believer in the bible needs to remember this age is temporal and there will be a new heaven and earth with no more tears.

[TrumanSmith]

Cthomas replied: "Strange as it may seem, adoption of the atheist worldview removes any rational ground for believing almost anything at all."

We know what's true by testing. That is the rational ground: independent observation and testing.

One person says eating citrus fruits will avoid scurvy, another says eating chocolate cake will do it, another says prayer will. No need to trust or have faith; test instead. Once you find out that eating citrus works, you can go deeper to find out why (vitamin C). No god or Bible required.

[TrumanSmith]

Steve7150 said:
" If everything were perfect like only good and no evil and everything we could ever need was available to us we would have a very pleasant life but would we ever grow?"

Did you know the natural miscarriage rate is very high- something like 80% of all conceptions result in miscarriage (many times the female didn't even know she was pregnant). Do you think all these aborted fetuses go to heaven? There you go: they grow-up in a perfect place, heaven (according to your worldview). You can ask about growing through diversity because you have a good life in America... doesn't apply to kids who die of cancer, miscarriage, etc., etc., etc.

[CThomas]

Truman, let me risk trying your patience by taking one last stab at this. I'm saying you're presupposing the uniformity of nature. You're saying you can test it. Suppose all our tests show that in the past eating fruit, but not cake, has prevented scurvy. What reason is that to believe that eating fruit, but not cake, will prevent scurvy tomorrow, without assuming the uniformity of nature? All the testing has done is demonstrate past regularities. The point at issue is how we know those past regularities will carry over into the future. I promise -- if you think it through carefully you will see that testing can never bridge that gap.

CThomas

[steve7150]

Did you know the natural miscarriage rate is very high- something like 80% of all conceptions result in miscarriage (many times the female didn't even know she was pregnant). Do you think all these aborted fetuses go to heaven? There you go: they grow-up in a perfect place, heaven (according to your worldview). You can ask about growing through diversity because you have a good life in America... doesn't apply to kids who die of cancer, miscarriage, etc., etc., etc.







Good points and we are reaching an inflection point. I'm not so dogmatic about heaven vs the lake of fire (contrasts?). My thought which is unprovable is that if God decides learning evil is useful He can use it in the next age. I don't believe the lake of fire is eternal so whatever needs to be done can still happen. So the atheist sees evil in this age as simply unjust because if this life is all there is then Mr Atheist is right. The bible believer who accepts that God is greater than hell can see other possibilities because God is a just God.

[darinhouston]

Truman, I was very frustrated that you would posit a statement and then not defend the position but criticize a peripheral issue instead. If the debate had been on the topic of original sin or of various Christian views of the spirit/soul then it would have made for an interesting exchange, but when faced with a defense of a position on, for example, the premise of Christianity itself it does no good to debate a nonuniform belief held within Christianity.

Another similar frustration was the time spent on evolution -- the debate topic wasn't whether evolution was true and you kept trying to prove it was true by holding up canards of theories which (if true of course) would be CONSISTENT WITH but not proof of same.

I mean no offense but my critique of the debate was that, in all, I thought you had a very scattered debate position relying on non-sequiturs, straw men, ad hominem and mostly a form of appeal to authority (related to your use of scientific terminology) and an argument to ignorance (especially related to the truthfulness of evolution) -- just to name a few. I often felt like I was listening in on a discussion on the porch late after the close of a fraternity party. I thought Steve did really well under the circumstances. I felt really frustrated for Steve.

[SteveF]

Truman Smith wrote:

just that there's overwhelming evidence to support evolution. People like Steve says there's no evidence

Truman, in fairness to Steve I suggest you go back to debate at 1:21:00 and listen to what Steve actually said. It seemed clear to me he was saying there was good evidence.

[TrumanSmith]

CThomas said: "The point at issue is how we know those past regularities will carry over into the future. I promise -- if you think it through carefully you will see that testing can never bridge that gap."

We don't know the future will be the same. But it looks reasonable. Why? Because of history. It has been tested over and over and never fails. If it fails once, then it wouldn't be claimed any longer. Observe and learn; that's all it is. Has nothing to do with God(s) or Bible.

[TrumanSmith]

Steve7150 said: "Good points and we are reaching an inflection point. I'm not so dogmatic about heaven vs the lake of fire (contrasts?). My thought which is unprovable is that if God decides learning evil is useful He can use it in the next age. I don't believe the lake of fire is eternal so whatever needs to be done can still happen. So the atheist sees evil in this age as simply unjust because if this life is all there is then Mr Atheist is right. The bible believer who accepts that God is greater then hell can see other possibilities because God is a just God."

1. Learning is not useful for any of the 80% of naturally occurring miscarriages. Why are you only taking your own life into consideration? Look at the bigger picture.
2. Atheist sees evil in this life as what would be expected if there was no god. That's why we'd defend ourselves rather than pray for god's protection.
3. There are no 'other possibilities.' Usually the answer is "no one knows and someday we'll die and God will tell us in heaven." I'd say the evidence is there; just draw the necessary conclusion. Don't be too timid to not follow the truth.