Does God Exist? Part 3

Thanks for your response, I appreciate you answering some of those questions, it was very helpful. I need to begin with a few things. I am not purposely trying to drag you into philosophy, and I’m sorry if you feel that way. However, I hope we can agree that philosophy is a big part of any discussion about god, good, evil, and morality. According to the dictionary, philosophy literally means “the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life.” These are exactly the things we are discussing, so it is impossible to avoid philosophy. I am going to use some more quotes from what you wrote. I do not want you to feel like I am taking you out of context. I simply do this to help you see exactly which parts of your argument I am responding to. If I misquote you or misunderstand what you wrote, please correct me. I will highlight any quotes I use from you in BOLD. I would like to clear up one thing. You wrote, “Let me remind you that this debate is about god and religion, and not if Christianity is or is not the 'right religion.’” However, you keep asking me questions specifically about Christianity and comparing it to Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. I am happy to talk about either, I just need clarification from you if you want to talk about god in general or specifically Christianity? You wrote, “you're always trying to prove that atheism can't explain this, and can't explain that, but it doesn't have to. It's not a religion.” Just because atheism is not a religion does not mean it doesn’t have to explain things. I agree that atheism is not an organized religion, but I think we can both agree that it is a worldview. A worldview must offer an explanation for how things work, and every person on earth (whether they admit it or not) has one. It answers questions about origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. I am asking you these questions because I am trying to understand your worldview. If you believe that you have no way to calculate the answers, like you said in your square/triangle example, then that is the worldview of Agnosticism, not Atheism. May I suggest that perhaps you are more of an Agnostic? I only say this because what you wrote is not a very strong defense of atheism. Let me demonstrate: As far as I can tell, you summarized your defense of atheism by writing, “There is no proof God exists, it doesn't make sense for me that he exists, I see religion as very immoral, and I see it as very easy and very understandable why someone would create a God, therefore I am sure God doesn't exist as I'm sure I'm not floating around in the room because of gravity.” I can say the exact same thing to defend my view by simply changing a few words: “There is no proof atheism is true, it doesn’t make sense for me that god doesn’t exist, I see atheism as very immoral, and I see it as very easy and very understandable why someone would reject god, therefore I am sure atheism isn’t true as I’m sure I’m not floating around in the room because of gravity.” If I wrote that, would you think it was a good argument? Of course not, because it is only a statement of opinion about how I personally feel. I would like to hear you support your worldview with more than just your personal opinion. Ok, on to answering questions. Good and Evil – This is definitely a hard question to answer, which is why I asked it :) I mean it in terms of morality and actions. What makes an act “good?” What makes an act “evil?” How many “bad” things does a person need to do to become a “bad” person? How many mistakes can you make and still be a “good” person? Knowing definitions are true – I believe in God, so I believe he gets to define truth. If God is real, as I believe he is, then he would logically have the authority to define universal moral law. Without a god, that authority must come from someone/something else. I know talking about definitions is frustrating, but I am so focused on this because the content of our arguments depends on the meanings of our words. For example, you say certain things are “wrong.” That means nothing unless we can define what “wrong” is. Wrong according to who - You? Saddam Hussein? American law? Russian law? Universal truth? You said we should try to “do as much justice as we can.” What is justice? Are we talking American justice or Egyptian justice? Who decides what is just? You said “Our goal is to have a better society.” What is “better?” Who decides what makes a society better – You? Me? George Bush? Barack Obama? Hitler? This is why definitions are important. From what I can tell, you seem to embrace moral subjectivity. You say, “I think it is very wrong to have a master plan, as I phrased it before, of how people should live . . . who am I to say this is wrong? . . . we shouldn't judge and we shouldn't enforce our lifestyle on other people . . . I think if you do something that hurts the other, except for a few exceptions (survival for example), your action is wrong.” This essentially admits that morals are subjective. That is a valid stance to have, but there are several problems with it. First, it is a problem to admit your inability to say something is right or wrong. You apply this to homosexuality in your example, but if it is actually true then it also must apply to everything else. You must also say, “who am I to say lying, cheating, murder, suicide bombing, racism, and so on, is wrong?” You say we shouldn’t judge or force our lifestyle on other people – so then can we not judge the lifestyle of a polygamist, or a racist, or an alcoholic? Should we not impose our lifestyle on Al-Qaeda or the Taliban? This is not philosophy, it is logic: If A, then B. You suggest an action is wrong if it hurts someone. Is that the only measure of right and wrong? What about actions that don’t hurt people – like lying, cheating, manipulation, gossip, selfishness, arrogance – are these things not wrong then? The central problem with believing morals are subjective is that morals then become a mere personal opinion. When you say, “who am I to say this is wrong?” and there is no “master plan of how people should live” you open a dangerous door. The logical conclusion of that stance is that if we should not judge the moral decisions of homosexuals then we should not judge the moral decisions of the Nazis either. If you say that yes we can judge the decisions of the Nazis, then you are now appealing to some objective concept of right and wrong that all people are subject to (a master plan), which you have failed to define or explain. Once again, this is not philosophy, it is logic. I am focusing on this so much because I believe morality and subjectivity are some of the hardest problems for the atheist worldview to explain. As C.S. Lewis wrote: if we reduce morality to a social consensus, then by what measure do we judge one culture as better than another? My point in listing all the historical and eyewitness evidence was not to prove that Christianity is truer than Islam or Judaism. My point was to show that it is wrong to say all ideas about god are equally likely to be true. Unlike the flying spaghetti monster or Bella, thousands of people have actually been recorded in history as witnessing God and have died for their beliefs in Him. We should probably take a claim like that a little more seriously than pink unicorns on Mars. If we can both agree that saying a flying spaghetti monster exists is not the same as claiming God exists, then we can get into the differences between Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. I will answer your questions about Christianity if you want me to, but I am unsure if you want to just talk about God in general or specifically Christianity.