Is God Self-Evident

[PruePhillip]

Okay, people are free to believe what they like. But that does not male God self evident.

Depends what you mean by 'self evident'
Some see self evidence in gracious God fearing lives, others see it in the power and wonder of nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there is a creator then he/she/it would be the point of your existance.

How do you justify that conclusion? It would not be the case with a deist god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends what you mean by 'self evident'
Some see self evidence in gracious God fearing lives, others see it in the power and wonder of nature.

That is not what the phrase mean, one can see that by the attacks launched by those with that belief.

 

[PruePhillip]

How do you justify that conclusion? It would not be the case with a deist god.

There's this cute saying concerning 'Why am I here?'
Answer, 'Because I was born and haven't died yet.'

And that's where the nihilism comes into the picture.

So you can't ask your natural father why you are here, he can only tell you about
the birds and bees (!) We naturally feel that birds and bees aint answering the
question.
But if you have a spiritual (ie non natural, not of this universe) father then it
behoves us to ask him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's this cute saying concerning 'Why am I here?'
Answer, 'Because I was born and haven't died yet.'

And that's where the nihilism comes into the picture.

So you can't ask your natural father why you are here, he can only tell you about
the birds and bees (!) We naturally feel that birds and bees aint answering the
question.
But if you have a spiritual (ie non natural, not of this universe) father then it
behoves us to ask him.

Nihilism is merely a personal interpretation. Once again, a person is in charge of his own meaning. Nihilists are to be pitied. They are unable to come up with their own purpose and assume that no one else has one either.

 

[Clara Tea]

if self is the image of god and one's spirit is GOD's; then isn't god self-evident?


genesis 1:27

1 corinthians 6:19-20

john 14:20


i am in the Father and the Father is in me, or I AM that i am?

Popeye said "I am what I am, cause that's what I am." But I should stick to the issue of God and not indulge in fantasies.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nihilism is merely a personal interpretation. Once again, a person is in charge of his own meaning. Nihilists are to be pitied. They are unable to come up with their own purpose and assume that no one else has one either.

To this extent - a nihilist CAN be someone who fashions their own 'meaning'
Say for example you believe your mission is to do good and stand for some
thing right - that might mean fighting Russia if you are a Ukrainian or fighting
Ukrainian 'Nazis' if you are a Russian. Both become meaningless because
soon you die, and shortly your cause is forgotten as you are.

IMO if a cause or meaning is anchored to something of earth and time then
it's a form of nihilism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To this extent - a nihilist CAN be someone who fashions their own 'meaning'
Say for example you believe your mission is to do good and stand for some
thing right - that might mean fighting Russia if you are a Ukrainian or fighting
Ukrainian 'Nazis' if you are a Russian. Both become meaningless because
soon you die, and shortly your cause is forgotten as you are.

IMO if a cause or meaning is anchored to something of earth and time then
it's a form of nihilism.

Your belief is ironically nihilistic.

 

[PruePhillip]

Your belief is ironically nihilistic.

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true
nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I wonder if this is why an increasingly atheistic world has little place for children, supports euthenasia and
alternative marriage ideas - not to mention the things in my profile.

 

[firedragon]

Popeye said "I am what I am, cause that's what I am." But I should stick to the issue of God and not indulge in fantasies.

But you just did Clara.

 

[KW]

Sometimes I think it would be a good idea for theists - especially monotheists - to decide amongst themselves what they're they're going to all agree to believe.

I mean, we have a whole other long, active thread full of theists arguing that God isn't self-evident:

Why is God hiding? Answer to atheists

If you want us to take you folks seriously, you really have to stop contradicting each other.

Protestantism

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true
nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I wonder if this is why an increasingly atheistic world has little place for children, supports euthenasia and
alternative marriage ideas - not to mention the things in my profile.

I do not see that among atheists.

 

[Sirona]

if self is the image of god and one's spirit is GOD's; then isn't god self-evident?


genesis 1:27

1 corinthians 6:19-20

john 14:20


i am in the Father and the Father is in me, or I AM that i am?

If I were you and was really interested in constructive answers, I probably would have asked such a question in the Interfaith Forum rather than in "Religious Debates".

 

[PruePhillip]

I do not see that among atheists.

Herein is a mystery - WHY DO RELIGIOUS FAMILIES HAVE MORE CHILDREN?
It's not mentioned in the bible, I am sure.
There seems to be an instinct for life amongst religous people, regardless of whether
they are Jews, Muslims or Christians - dress moderately, respect authority and have
kids. Not always, just more often these instincts apply.

In 2003 Cardinal Arinze gave a speech at Georgetown University in Washington,

"In many parts of the world, the family is under siege. It is opposed by an anti-life mentality
as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized
by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality,
sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce".


This shouldn't be remarkable as Georgetown is a Catholic university and his audience was
Catholic. But the speech created a storm of controversy. Some walked out. It seems that
even 'religious' people can't see how much they have changed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Herein is a mystery - WHY DO RELIGIOUS FAMILIES HAVE MORE CHILDREN?
It's not mentioned in the bible, I am sure.
There seems to be an instinct for life amongst religous people, regardless of whether
they are Jews, Muslims or Christians - dress moderately, respect authority and have
kids. Not always, just more often these instincts apply.

In 2003 Cardinal Arinze gave a speech at Georgetown University in Washington,

"In many parts of the world, the family is under siege. It is opposed by an anti-life mentality
as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized
by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality,
sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce".


This shouldn't be remarkable as Georgetown is a Catholic university and his audience was
Catholic. But the speech created a storm of controversy. Some walked out. It seems that
even 'religious' people can't how much they have changed.

LOL! Do you think that is a reliable source? A reliable source should be unbiased. If one can only find biased sources that support one's arguments it is a very good sign that those arguments are wrong.

 

[PruePhillip]

LOL! Do you think that is a reliable source? A reliable source should be unbiased. If one can only find biased sources that support one's arguments it is a very good sign that those arguments are wrong.

Source for what? I mentioned what a Cardinal said, that's all. An opinon that smack on the mark
BTW.
Can you give me reliable sources for why John the Apostle did not write his Gospel and letters?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source for what? I mentioned what a Cardinal said, that's all. An opinon that smack on the mark
BTW.
Can you give me reliable sources for why John the Apostle did not write his Gospel and letters?

Wrong, they just agree with your opinion. It was not support. If anything it makes your case look rather hopeless in more ways than one. You are beginning to look like a nihilist yourself.

And yes, I can give you reliable sources about John. All you have to do is to admit that you cannot find any that support your claims. I do believe that I asked you first.

 

[PruePhillip]

Wrong, they just agree with your opinion. It was not support. If anything it makes your case look rather hopeless in more ways than one. You are beginning to look like a nihilist yourself.

And yes, I can give you reliable sources about John. All you have to do is to admit that you cannot find any that support your claims. I do believe that I asked you first.

I already gave the source for John's Gospel - the history of the early Christian church by Irenaeus

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1: 1 Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord [Ἰωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου], who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

You got anyone earlier than this contradicting him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already gave the source for John's Gospel - the history of the early Christian church by Irenaeus

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1: 1 Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord [Ἰωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου], who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

You got anyone earlier than this contradicting him?

And I already refuted that.

 

[PruePhillip]

And I already refuted that.

Irenaeus was born about 30 years after John died. It's possible he knew some of the people
who knew John personally. No matter, he was the first to write about this topic and I don't
see reason to object.
I personally see the John in the Gospels, the favorite disciple, in John's letters. And I see a
thematic and stylistic connection between his Gospel and his letters.
I am fine with that.
If the author was totally uknown it still wouldn't make any difference.
If someone warned me saying, 'Do unto others as you want them to do unto you' I wouldn't
argue with the origin of the golden rule - I would like to just take to heart what was said.