tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4511154912744843535.post6954386851886270609..comments2022-08-18T09:52:35.201-04:00Comments on Reason for the Faith: Can We Know God (and Thoughts on Absolute Truth)?Southern Renaissance Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17016039263097839703noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4511154912744843535.post-89566108997180539332012-02-25T12:52:18.827-05:002012-02-25T12:52:18.827-05:00You have two main arguments, I think, in this post...You have two main arguments, I think, in this post. First, that God (I presume the Christian God) exists and possesses all of the characteristics imputed to him in the Bible, therefore making his existence, and therefore our subjection to him, absolutely true and necessary, respectively. Second, that there is an objective moral code by which we must all abide lest we shall incur eternal punishment. I have a couple objections to this argument. <br /><br /> I think the first argument you make begs the question and should not consume a lot of space here--also because I feel that that is not your main argument. However, I will offer a terse rejoinder. If there is an absolute truth and that truth is the Christian God (the moral argument aside) what makes every other religion null and susceptible to falsification? If other religions claim absolute truth, what makes the case for the Christian God? How is one to determine the validity of so many religions all claiming the same thing? There surely can't be more than one set of contradicting, absolute truths. If I were to concede to you that there was a god, and if everyone knew this to be an absolute truth, how would this prove your argument for the Christian God? In science, a good hypothesis can be tested and, possibly, falsified. What type of testing can be undergone to prove this hypothesis? I only bring this up because you assume it to be a given assumption in your argument, when, in fact, there are many objections to it.<br /><br />If there is an objective set of moral laws by which we must abide, can there be any instance in which it would be tolerable to go against that moral code? It seems as though a moral code which is deemed objective would admit to no infraction of that code. But is that the case? Can we think of any instance in which an infraction of this moral code would be acceptable? What about lying, killing, etc.? If these actions are objectively wrong, then there would be no instance in which it would be acceptable to commit them. But I can think of numerous circumstance in which to commit these acts would be not only tolerable, but moral. <br /><br />And if there is such a thing as objective truth, then that truth cannot change with the zeitgeist. That truth must maintain complete constancy. But this is not what we witness when we look at history--even the history of Christianity. I'm not talking about events that were unordained by God and were testaments to man's errancy and wantonness. I mean those commandments (without the capital C) in the Bible which are inexplicably given by God to his people which demand them to commit heinous acts of aggression. If there is such a thing as an objective, immutable moral standard, then how can it be vulnerable to mutation? This seems highly relative to me. And what about evolutionary psychology? Do you deny that our morals have evolved just like our organs? History shows this, just as the Bible does--that our morals have evolved and continue to evolve. <br /><br />I immensely respect what you do here; I know how difficult it is to write and put your convictions out there for the world to scrutinize. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com