MODERATION: By popular demand, this discussion is now closed for comments.


Hi All,

I recently responded to the "I'm Not a Christian Anymore" thread. As a philosophical Christian Theist, I hate to see people reject Christ due to misconceptions. I offered some thoughts.

I was challenged on God's existence and nature so I'll offer some thoughts for anyone who would like to discuss. I find it's always necessary to dispel straw men and define terms first.

Motivation. I am interested in civil dialogue on what I think is the most important issue of all time. I think there are more distractions keeping people from the knowledge of God than at any time in history. Yet, I think there are more reasons to believe Theism is true than at any time! It's too important to just view these discussions as a contest - to win the debate at all costs.

No matter how one feels about the "Religious Right", an obnoxiously religious family member, or atrocities done in the name of God, etc. Theism just may be true.

Humility is required in the quest for truth. Respect is required for those on the quest. I hope to offer both.

Worldview. It all comes down to which worldview best explains the data of the universe. If Naturalism is true, then atheism follows. If Theism is true, I think Christianity is the best theistic option.

Classical (or Christian) Theism.  Something is ontologically ultimate and therefore eternal and necessary. It is either something of the order of matter, or something of the order of mind. Theism holds to the latter and a conceptual analysis leads to God who is the personal Creator, is powerful, transcendent, and distinct from "his" creation yet active in it.

Christianity. The view that God revealed himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Christ's claims concerning himself are true and he is authoritative in everything he taught or affirmed.

Faith. Broadly, faith is the assent, or trust, or affirmation that a proposition is true. It has been defined on a scale from "blind faith" (fideism) to reasonable (or informed, supported) faith. I hold to the latter.

Faith is not a way of "knowing something",  it is the application of what you know (or think you know). Some form of faith is a component of virtually everything in life - from the scientific method to personal relationships. But faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. All the faith in the world will not make something true.

One ought to place one's faith where the evidence points, even if one cannot prove the proposition 100% or does not have exhaustive data.

Proof. While it is difficult to prove something 100%, one can nevertheless offer and consider proofs (reasons or evidence). 100% certainty is not necessary for a view to be justified or considered knowledge. I offer proofs for Christian Theism not "100% proof".

A cumulative case is also often necessary. I think various arguments combine to show Theism is true.

Burden of Proof. When debating a question, (e.g. does God exist?) anyone offering answers to the question bears the burden of proof. All views make truth claims. All truth claims bear the burden of proof. Whether one defends Naturalism or Theism one ought to offer reasons why.

God of the Gaps. Theists need not argue from what we don't know. Arguments for God can be based on what we do know from science or philosophy.

Further, God can employ Secondary Causation, wherein initial conditions or systems produce perpetual effects (e.g. weather systems produce lightning).

God and Science. An eternal, transcendent Creator does not preclude us from rigorously exploring the universe and discovering how it works.

(You may be interested that I reject "Young Earth Creationism". I don't think it's the best biblical explanation and it certainly is at odds with known science. "Yom" in Genesis can denote long periods of time).

Thank you for reading this far. If anyone is interested I can sketch out some arguments for God for discussion.


Kevin H



Views: 537

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

The Kalem Argument is ancient. Craig has possibly improved on it and he makes good effort to use it as a proof of god existence. Again it has to make assumptions before it gets off the ground. It is relatively easily to debunk. It is not enough to get me to satnd up never mind get me into the stadium. As for the Home Plate what are the proofs for christ that you mention ? I would love to see some.
I'm working on everyone's request that I post an argument for God.


   I read your post several times through, but I'm sorry - I can't find a single example of what you promise: EVIDENCE.  

So what would constitute good evidence?  How about some earthly phenomenon that can ONLY be explained by a God?  I don't see any such example in your comments.

To me, it appears that what you provide is more akin to a REASON - for you, at least - to believe in God.

If you were truly honest with yourself, though, you would realize that the core reason for you to choose to believe is FEAR.  All religion is based on one thing: fear of death.  Homo sapiens is the only species that knows it is going to die - therefore the only one that has found it necessary to invent religion in order to assuage that fear; and very few members of our species have the courage to accept that truth.  So frightened humans conjure up some deity that will promise everlasting life (kind of a Santa Claus for adults). Sadly, in order to maintain that belief, more thoughtful theists like yourself struggle to connect them to some kind of scientific legitimacy.  But I'm sorry, Kevin, it just doesn't exist.  The real salvation is in the acceptance that whatever existence you encounter after death, it is the same as you experienced before birth.  What's to be afraid of? 

I think he opted to keep the "evidence" he has lofty, invisible, unspecified, mysterious, and unexplained.  You know, like his God.

We all know religious people don't like their faith questioned as they have alot of time invested in it, not to mention an afterlife to protect :)

Unfortunately for them reality doesn't go away when you close your eyes and plug your ears.


Thanks, Radu. I think it could be summed up:


  • I think the claims of the historical Jesus of Nazareth are true and we have good historical grounds supporting that. The context of his claims and the phenomena that go with him make sense if only one other hypothesis is true: that God exists. I think the case for Theism is superior to competing worldviews so I think the hypothesis is true. 
Any personal experiences I have concerning my relationship with God I judge within the context of the above and the theology that flows from it.

Religion at its core REQUIRES irrational belief as Kevin Harris so clearly displays - "belief" in the irrational "Jesus" myths written up by naive and uneducated people 2000 years ago. For example the miracle "immaculate conception" birth is both hilariously stupid to belive in - name one intelligent person who does? [and yet if you don't believe in that bizarre story, then the whole of the Jesus myth collapses] but was churned out regularly throughout the Middle East region as a sign of the superiority of numerous prophets. If all of them were sons of "god" then why is jesus [who was in reality merely one of many anti-Roman/Herod martyrs] any different.

Myth stories abound whenever reasonable scientific reasoning is abandoned - whether it is myths about creationism [=religion/god] vs evolution or myths about how betting on red after a run of 4 blacks at Las Vegas is guaranteed to win.

The fact is that people are generally unfortunately much more stupid than they want to believe [even those with degrees ] and willing to believe in irrational thought because it makes them HAPPY - mainly because it is very very tough to face the world without a crutch of belief that "god" is on your side - not matter how stupid that is to a rational person.


"I think the claims of the historical Jesus of Nazareth are true". Because you think they are true does not make them true. Therefore it is solely a matter of faith and blind faith at that. You have personal experiences with god ?  You "think the hypothesis is true". Come on Kevin you are smarter than that. You are nearly there. We are here to help people think clearly. Deep down you must know its all false. At least you must have some doubts. What religion are you a member of if you don't mind sharing. 

Darn it!  So much for my quest for looking for Spaghetti bones!  I was going to make millions!
There is no evidence, that's it :)



It's OK to fear death. I personally don't but I can understand if someone finds the end of their existence frightening. There are  many people on this planet who rely on logic and reasoning to provide explanations of the world we live in. They will refuse to take that necessary step of "faith" to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural being. You will not change their mind. Without EVIDENCE the proposition of an invisible being holds no water. Charm and persuasion will always fall short.


That being said I have no problem living next to someone who likes this romantic notion of a god. If that makes them feel good so be it. Just don't expect your atheist neighbor to change. And please don't attempt to persecute them for such radical thought.


Five thousand years from now, barring any large collision with a BIG rock, the last vestiges of god and religion will only be found in the history books as we continue to evolve and discard that which has no relevance.


I think Kevin has talked this whole damn thread in circles with his cleverly elaborate and intelligent-sounding, but ultimately meaningless and empty psychobabble.  He's fallen into darn near all of the logical fallacies deployed by religious thinkers, even used circular reasoning a time or two(can't know that you know that you know is a classic), and has set up a situation where God is free from being empirically tested through the scientific method but that "other kinds of evidence" exist, and ergo God exists, but the null hypothesis standpoint of atheism and the existence of other gods should still be subject to the scientific method(and indeed they should).  And he doesn't even see the hubris he's fallen into.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service