Thursday, March 6, 2014

The Deceptive God Argument Refuted


Note - due to the high number of comments I'm getting on this blog post, any comments that avoid any of my questions, use insults, or merely make arbitrary statements will not be posted. (All comments are moderated.) 

Lately a common argument of professed unbelievers I've been hearing has been the argument that God cannot be trusted because he could be deceiving, misleading, or blatantly lying to us. However, this argument is nothing new and is as old as Satan himself who in the garden of Eden asked Eve if God had really said what she thought he'd said. ("Did God really say...?" Gen 3:1). Satan was implying that God wasn't really telling them the truth but was lying to them. As Ken Ham has said, "What greater lie can there be than 'God's word is not true'?

When people put forward the 'deceptive God argument' they are not talking about the God of the Bible which clearly says that God cannot lie. (Hebrews 6:18). There are other less clear verses in the Bible that are challenging to interpret properly, but usually atheists aren't interested in understanding verses properly, but are more interested in twisting the Scriptures to advance their own agenda to misrepresent the true character of God.

For a really good article that deals with the difficult verses in the Bible used by skeptics to support their deceptive God argument see here - http://christianthinktank.com/godlies.html.

The biggest issue though is that the deceptive God argument is self-refuting. If God could lie then there would be no way we could trust any rationality, as everything could just be part of a deceptive illusion made up by God. So the deceptive God argument cannot be true, because if it were true nothing could be true - the argument is self-refuting and destroys itself, along with the possibility of knowing anything.

Another reason why the deceptive God argument is self-refuting is that God is the only true foundation for the absolute law of non-contradiction (LNC). If you wish to discuss any supposed Bible contradictions (such as the alleged contradiction between verses which say God cannot lie, and other verses which the skeptic alleges are saying God can lie) then first you'll have to account for the absolute LNC - but without God it's not possible to account for this law of logic. (Many professed atheists will deny that the LNC is absolute, because an absolute law brings them too close to the God of the Bible from whom laws of logic flow.)

Furthermore, in order to complain that God could be deceiving us and this would be bad, you have to first provide an objective basis for morality by which you can call lying morally wrong. The fact that everyone knows that it's wrong to lie and deceive people is because everyone knows God, through whom we have a basis for objectively calling lies morally wrong.  

Being aware of the fact that one cannot get certain knowledge without the biblical God, some have argued for absurd parodies that you don't believe in such as 'Thunderfoot' who in a debate with Sye Ten Bruggencate said again and again, "I know things for certain by revelation from 'the ghost that never lies.'"

In conclusion, the proof that God exists (and cannot lie) is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. This is because the concept of proof presupposes knowledge, logic, and truth - and you can't get those without  Him. (See my website www.godorabsurdity.com)

 
 Atheists Stupid Statements #6 

73 comments:

  1. The knowledge of something exists still stands if God could lie as the very act of being lied to and deluded necessitates that something exists. A deceptive God just entails skeptical theism. You beg the question when you cite Scripture to say God doesn't lie.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog Augustine. The question is, how do you know that? What is your justification for rationality? If God could lie then you'd have no way of knowing that your comment was truthful or not, or in any way in accordance with reality, and thus your comment is self-refuting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say the belief that something exists is properly basic. Again, if I being lied to, something must exists unless it were possibly that is the case that both I am being lied to and that it is the case that something does not exist. Is such a feat possible?

      Delete
    2. It's not possible for you to be lied to by God. In relation to your existence - by properly basic you mean it's axiomatic - i.e. it's assumed to be true, but you can't prove it. The definition of an assumption is something that is believed without proof - so in other words you believe it by blind faith - you assume it to be true, but can't prove it. In contrast, Christians don't assume our existence or the fact that reality is real - we know it because we accept God's revelation knowledge.

      Delete
    3. Would you answer the question of is it possible for me to be lied to and it be the case that something does not exist?

      I'm not suggesting it is axiomatic. It is self-evident and incorrigible. In order for me to be lied to by a deity, the situation of the existence of something is necessarily true. I literally cannot be wrong.

      Delete
    4. Self-evident to whom? The issue isn't whether or not you exist - the issue is can you account for anything without God. If you can't account for reality really being real and not an illusion then how can you be right about anything? Even the concept of rightness and wrongness cannot be accounted for without God.

      Delete
    5. It is self-evident to all but the incorrigible. Strawman alert: I said nothing about me existing, I said that It is that case that something does exist. Reality is, by definition, really real. The nature of reality is a separate issue. You have yet to answer the question, I'll repost it:

      Would you answer the question of is it possible for me to be lied to and it be the case that something does not exist?

      Delete
    6. Prove that anything exists first and then I'll answer your question. How do you know that anything exists according to your worldview? (I'm not arguing against existence - just trying to press the point that you are presupposing the truth of the biblical worldview (where we can know things) in order to argue against it). Do you know that this blog exists outside of your consciousness, and if so how?

      Delete
    7. Does your comment exist?

      "How do you know that anything exists according to your worldview?" Presumes my existence.

      "Do you know that this blog exists outside of your consciousness, and if so how?"
      Presumes my existence.

      I don't have have biblical worldview, and I know something. It is self-evident that it is the case that something exists as any and all questioning of that presumes the truth of the statement. It needs no proof as it is self-evident. Your trick of "how do you know your reasoning is valid" is futile as it comes to the exact same question as a you have yet to answer and to give both:

      Is it possible for me to be lied to and it be the case that something does not exist?

      Is it possible for me to have valid or invalid reasoning and it be the case that something does not exist?

      Much like the statement "This statement is false," the statement "It is the case something does not exist" is self-refuting.

      Delete
  3. It's not quite fair to assume others motives... You're quite wrong there.

    You seem to be hung up on the word lie. God
    doesnt need to lie for this argument to cause issues. He only needs to harden a heart or destine someone for destruction as discussed in Romans.

    Simply asserting that one cant know anything without God is not proof God exists or even evidence. It's simply an assertion or hypotheses if you will that remains (as all similar assertions do) without proof.

    It's definitely no answer to the question of a deceiving God let alone a God who tests you or a God who hardens your heaet

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog Owenjohn. Not fair? Where do you get the concept of fairness from without God? As for God hardening hearts - people harden their own hearts first - and the article I linked to in my post goes through all of those scriptures.

      I'm not merely asserting that God exists - I know it by revelation from God. As for proof that God exists and not being able to know anything without God - I've got proof of those things on my website www.godorabsurdity.com Have you been through my website?

      Delete
  4. Can you elaborate on the statement "So the deceptive God argument cannot be true, because if it were true nothing could be true". It seems as though that statement is self contradicting and could never be true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi TheRealJnani. How do you get truth without God? Truth is what is real, right? How do you know that anything is real? Without God (the biblical God who cannot lie) you cannot know that everything isn't just an illusion and therefore cannot know anything to be true. Have you been through my website www.godorabsurdity.com ? It goes into more detail there and explains it thoroughly.

      Delete
    2. I did go through some of your site however that does not answer my question. The statement "So the deceptive God argument cannot be true, because if it were true nothing could be true" is a paradox.

      Look at it restated in more general terms: "If something were true then nothing could be true". Surely you can see how it makes no sense to make such a statement.

      Also, the argument of a lying god would not be self refuting coming from a non believer. Since we don't believe in gods we don't suffer from the problem of the lying god.

      You are correct when you state: "If God could lie then there would be no way we could trust any rationality, as everything could just be part of a deceptive illusion made up by God". This is only a problem for a world view where gods exist. It shows how the theistic world view is reduced to absurdity not the other way around.

      Ill try to answer your questions now.

      "Truth is what is real, right?"
      No. Propositions are true or false. Reality is not dependent on propositions.

      "How do you know that anything is real?"
      I don't think the question makes any sense but I do think it would be impossible for everything to be fake. If it were fake then it would at least be really fake.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for having a look at my website. Did you look at the page 'Proof God Exists'? That might clarify things for you. You disagree that truth is what is real. What is truth then? Define truth according to your worldview. How do you know anything is real and that everything isn't just an illusion like the Hindus believe, or like the Matrix? In order to disprove the statement I made about truth you need to show how you can know for certain anything is true without God.

      Delete
    4. I already told you what truth is. Here it is again: "Propositions are true or false. Reality is not dependent on propositions."

      For instance, a rock is not true or false but propositions about a rock can be true or false.

      I also already answered your question about "How do you know that anything is real?" but here you go again: "I don't think the question makes any sense but I do think it would be impossible for everything to be fake. If it were fake then it would at least be really fake."

      Even if your fictitious matrix world were real, it would still be "real" so the question is nonsense.

      I have answered your questions while you seem to be dodging mine.Please try to address the points and questions I made.

      Thanks

      Delete
    5. I'm sorry, but your answers are inadequate. Please try again to define truth. Your definition does not define truth but presupposes it, so it is not a definition. Can you also please explain how you know the true nature of reality to any degree in your worldview. I'm not dodging any questions, but am trying to get clear answers from you.

      Delete
  5. I'm not sure how to break down "true" for you any more than I have. Propositions are either true or false. A rock cannot be true or false however the proposition "The rock is hard" can be true or false. This seems simple enough to understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So your definition of truth is "Propositions are true or false. Reality is not dependent on propositions."

      This does not define truth, it assumes it. "Propositions are true or false" - Yes, but what is truth?
      "Reality is not dependent on propositions" I agree, but this doesn't answer the question about what truth is.

      The problem is that when you say it is true that 'the rock is hard' you are giving an example of something that is true, but you are not defining truth. Your example presupposes that truth is what corresponds to reality. If you do not agree with the definition of truth I've provided then you need to explain why you disagree with it and what you believe is a better definition. I'm spending a lot of time with you on this because you believe the Bible is not true. But in order to know that first you have to know what truth is.

      Delete
    2. I was not giving you a definition of the word truth.. I was pretty sure we agreed on the definition but apparently I was wrong. A simple Google search and you would have your answer. I will put the definition here for you so there is no misunderstanding.

      Truth: the quality or state of being true

      True: in accordance with fact or reality, accurate or exact

      What you stated was that "Truth is what is real, right?" and I disagreed.

      As I have already said, only propositions can be true or false. If you disagree with this then please explain why.

      I think you are getting hung up on word definitions to avoid my initial query.

      Delete
    3. I'm trying to clarify this as I still don't understand why you don't agree that truth is what is real. To say that truth is what is true, is true, but it's a tautology and doesn't clarify things enough.

      From Miriam-Webster Dictionary - Truth
      c : the body of true statements and propositions
      3a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

      Do you agree with this. If not please explain clearly why not.

      Delete
    4. As for the initial question relating to my statement that the deceptive God argument cannot be true, because if it were nothing could be true - you're even struggling to define truth, and the problem is that even if you can define truth and accept that it is what conforms to reality, you've got no way of knowing what is real with any certainty at all unless you have revelation knowledge from the God who knows everything and cannot lie.

      Delete
    5. Your definitions from Miriam-Webster are essentially the same as what I gave you from Google. They are also not the same as "truth is what is real". Only propositions can be true. What is real does not have the property of "true".

      Propositions can also be about something that is not real. For instance, the proposition that Harry Potter wears eye glasses would be true however it does not correspond to any external reality apart from the concept of Harry Potter.

      I think we need to move forward as we do agree what the words truth and true mean. I just think you are applying it incorrectly when you say "truth is what is real".

      In your last post you seem to be backing off of "truth is what is real" and are now going with "truth .. is what conforms to reality". Looks like progress. Maybe now you can address my initial points instead of dodging the issue by asking for definitions of everything.

      Delete
    6. I believe I have addressed your points already. Do you have any actual questions? Truth is what is real, and truth conforming to reality are essentially the same thing. And the massive problem you have is - how do you know anything to be real in your worldview? How do you know everything isn't just an illusion? I know that everything isn't an illusion by revelation from the God who cannot lie.

      Delete
    7. "Truth is what is real, and truth conforming to reality are essentially the same thing"

      I disagree. Conforming to something and being something are two different things.


      "how do you know anything to be real in your worldview? How do you know everything isn't just an illusion?"

      Here is my answer again since you seem to have missed it. "it would be impossible for everything to be fake. If it were fake then it would at least be really fake"


      "I know that everything isn't an illusion by revelation from the God who cannot lie"

      How do you know that a god cannot lie? Do you believe in other beings that have the ability to deceive? How do you know you are not being deceived by another being that can lie?

      This is where the Christian WV leads to absurdity. In your WV beings can exist that can create and destroy matter at will. They can give you visions of what ever they want. They can defy the laws of physics. They can posses you and take over control of your body. Etc...

      All the issues you bring up about how to know what is real and what if everything is an illusion are only a problem in a theistic world view. I don't have to worry about whether or not I am being deceived by some magical supernatural being, you do.

      Thanks

      Delete
    8. How do you know any of that? For that matter, how do you know anything to be true in your worldview? Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? How do you know your reasoning is valid? You've been making a lot of knowledge claims, so it's time for you to start backing up your claims.

      God cannot lie or do anything that violates his nature, so the things you've said just don't add up. In your worldview you have no way of knowing that everything isn't 'fake' as you put it, and the comment about things being 'really fake' is nonsense.

      Delete
    9. In saying truth is what conforms to reality, a clearer way to state what I mean is truth is what corresponds to reality. That is the generally accepted definition of truth. If you want to bring a different definition of truth to the table then please provide credible information to back up your claim. When I ask 'how do you know things', another way to phrase that would be 'how do you determine things to be true?'

      Delete
    10. "In saying truth is what conforms to reality, a clearer way to state what I mean is truth is what corresponds to reality."

      You have changed your position from "Truth is what is real" to " truth is what corresponds to reality" so at least we are making some progress. The problem is, true propositions don't always have to correspond to reality. I pointed this out with the Harry Potter proposition. Harry Potter is only a concept and not a real person so any propositions about Harry Potter are only true if they correspond the the concept

      ."God cannot lie or do anything that violates his nature, so the things you've said just don't add up."

      You have only asserted this. Sure, the god of the bible cannot lie by definition however you have not shown that that is the god that exists. Since your WV allows for such beings to exist it is your burden to show that you are not being deceived by some other type of god or being. We don't have that problem in a not theistic WV. From my WV no such beings exists so I don't need to worry about being deceived by them.

      "In your worldview you have no way of knowing that everything isn't 'fake' as you put it, and the comment about things being 'really fake' is nonsense."

      You are only asserting it is nonsense but you have not shown it to be so. You asked how I know anything is "real" And I pointed out the fact that if everything were an illusion as you put it, the illusion would at least have to be a "real" illusion. The problem for you is that it's your WV that allows for such illusions. In my WV there are no beings that could cause such things so I don't wake up every morning wondering if I'm living an illusion created by some magic being.

      Delete
    11. You're making a lot of knowledge claims, but in doing so you're assuming my worldview which can account for rationality. You've yet to account for how you know anything to be true without God. How have you determined any of that to be true? How do you determine truth in your worldview?

      Delete
    12. I have made claims and explained why I think they are true. You have yet to show them to be wrong. In fact you have only managed to repeat your assertions over and over again. I have pointed out why you cannot account for anything in your WV and you have yet to counter any of my reasons.

      Delete
    13. In my worldview I have an avenue to certainty through revelation from the God who cannot lie. As for you - how do you know anything for certain in your worldview? How do you determine what is real? How do you determine truth in your worldview?

      Delete
    14. Again, you are just asserting the same claim over and over again. How does a god in your transfer information to you so that you know it for certain and not have to use your reasoning?

      "how do you know anything for certain in your worldview?"

      I can know some things for certain because their negation would be impossible. For example I can know for certain I exists because for me to negate the proposition would be to affirm my existence. I can know for certain I am not omniscient because if I were then I would be wrong and its impossible for me to be both omniscient and wrong.

      "How do you determine what is real?"

      Sense perception and testing.

      "How do you determine truth in your worldview?"

      By many different verification processes. It would depend on the proposition I'm trying to verify.

      Delete
    15. Exactly how God gives us all revelation is irrelevant. The fact is he does, so it's back to the proof that God exists - if he were not you couldn't prove anything - because proof presupposes knowledge and truth, and you can't account for those without God, as your answers have clearly demonstrated. You can't even know that you exist without assuming it which is viciously circular, and in order to know you aren't God you have to presuppose that you exist, which you've not proven according to your worldview. (I've dealt with those on my website www.godorabsurdity.com). But even if I were to grant that you know for certain that you exist and that you aren't God (which I don't grant) - so what? How do you get from there to knowing anything, let alone anything remotely related to whether the Bible is true or not?

      When you use your senses and do testing in order to try to determine what is and isn't true, do you use your senses, reasoning, and memory?

      Delete
    16. Again you are avoiding my questions. It is NOT irrelevant to ask you to justify the revelation you insist you have. You cant even show that you are not being deceived by some magical being that can only exist in your world view.

      "You can't even know that you exist without assuming it which is viciously circular"

      I already showed you how I can know for certain. Read my last comment. And no, I don't presuppose it.

      "even if I were to grant that you know for certain that you exist and that you aren't God (which I don't grant) - so what?"

      Why wont you grant that I am not God?

      You seem to wan't to fit knowledge into a one size fits all box but it doesn't work that way. There are different kinds of knowledge. What method we use to verify knowledge claims depends on what the claim is about.


      "When you use your senses and do testing in order to try to determine what is and isn't true, do you use your senses, reasoning, and memory?"

      If you can see how utterly stupid that quest is then you might have some issues. It's like asking "When you use your lawn mower to cut the grass do you use your lawn mower?:. Nonsense

      This is the kind of absurdity that the Christian WV leads to. You are the one that believes in magic supernatural beings that could be deceiving all your perceptions and even corrupting your thought process as well as can defy the laws of physics and then you want to claim its the naturalist that has to account for not living in an illusion and the POI. The irony is just too much.

      Delete
    17. I've answered your question but you didn't like my answer. I noticed too that you didn't answer my earlier question - if I answered all of your questions and proved to your total satisfaction that God exists and the Bible is true, would you worship God?

      "You can't even know that you exist without assuming it which is viciously circular"

      //I already showed you how I can know for certain. Read my last comment. And no, I don't presuppose it.//

      And I rejected your answer because it begged the question - i.e you assumed the truth of your answer in your answer.

      "even if I were to grant that you know for certain that you exist and that you aren't God (which I don't grant) - so what?"

      //Why wont you grant that I am not God?//

      I don't grant that you can know this according to your worldview, because you can't know anything without God, and to know that you first have to know that you exist, which you can't prove without assuming the truth of my worldview.

      //You seem to wan't to fit knowledge into a one size fits all box but it doesn't work that way. There are different kinds of knowledge. What method we use to verify knowledge claims depends on what the claim is about.//

      How do you know that? All knowledge presupposes God, and cannot be accounted for without him. You are still assuming that you can know the nature of reality to some degree, but have not shown how you can know the true nature of reality to ANY degree. You can't even prove that you exist without begging the question.


      "When you use your senses and do testing in order to try to determine what is and isn't true, do you use your senses, reasoning, and memory?"

      //If you can see how utterly stupid that quest is then you might have some issues.//

      If you use any ad hominem attacks like that in the future I reserve the right to stop publishing your comments.

      // It's like asking "When you use your lawn mower to cut the grass do you use your lawn mower?:. Nonsense//

      No, it's a valid question. So you agree that you use your reasoning, senses and memory to evaluate all knowledge claims. The question is how do you know that your reasoning is valid given the fact that you are sensing that your senses are valid, reasoning that your reasoning is valid, and remembering that your memory is valid? As for nonsense, it presupposes sense and a standard of truth, which you can't get without God.

      //This is the kind of absurdity that the Christian WV leads to.//

      Arbitrary claim and ironic given that you are the one that can't even prove that you exist or know anything for sure within your worldview.

      // You are the one that believes in magic supernatural beings that could be deceiving all your perceptions and even corrupting your thought process as well as can defy the laws of physics and then you want to claim its the naturalist that has to account for not living in an illusion and the POI. The irony is just too much.//

      Arbitrary claims that all presuppose the truth of my worldview that accounts for knowledge, truth, logic, the uniformity of nature, morality etc. I've explained why God cannot lie and deceive us, but why would it be wrong in your worldview for God to lie and deceive us? What basis do you have for the laws of physics? Why do you assume that they should be uniform in the future? i.e. Why do you assume that the future will be like the past? The Christian worldview can account for that because God has promised to uphold the universe in a consistent and uniform way.

      Delete
    18. "You can't even know that you exist without assuming it which is viciously circular"
      “And I rejected your answer because it begged the question - i.e you assumed the truth of your answer in your answer.”
      That’s exactly my point. We can’t even deny our own existence without assuming it. I’m glad you agree with me.



      “I don't grant that you can know this according to your worldview, because you can't know anything without God, and to know that you first have to know that you exist, which you can't prove without assuming the truth of my worldview.”
      Notice here that you have only made assertions. As for the “exist” issue you have please see above.



      “How do you know that? All knowledge presupposes God, and cannot be accounted for without him. You are still assuming that you can know the nature of reality to some degree, but have not shown how you can know the true nature of reality to ANY degree. You can't even prove that you exist without begging the question.”
      You are going in circles and just repeating the same thing over and over again. My answers have not changes. I demonstrated how I can know some things for certain which you say you don’t accept however you have not refuted them. If you can demonstrate why I am mistaken then please do but blind assertions mean nothing.



      “If you use any ad hominem attacks like that in the future I reserve the right to stop publishing your comments.”
      Please lookup what ad hominem is before accusing me of attacking you with it. I never said anything about you or your character and I’m sorry if you took it that way. I was only trying to point out how ridiculous the statement was.






      “The question is how do you know that your reasoning is valid given the fact that you are sensing that your senses are valid, reasoning that your reasoning is valid, and remembering that your memory is valid? “

      Of course I use my reasoning to evaluate things. Evaluating presupposes reasoning. How can you evaluate something without using your reasoning?

      “As for nonsense, it presupposes sense and a standard of truth, which you can't get without God. “
      Again you are only asserting this. Please provide something to back it up.


      “Arbitrary claims that all presuppose the truth of my worldview that accounts for knowledge, truth, logic, the uniformity of nature, morality etc. I've explained why God cannot lie and deceive us, but why would it be wrong in your worldview for God to lie and deceive us?”
      You explained why the god described in the bible could not lie but you did not explain how any other magical being could not have deceived you into believing the god of the bible was real. It’s your world view that allows for such beings to exist not mine.

      “What basis do you have for the laws of physics? Why do you assume that they should be uniform in the future? i.e. Why do you assume that the future will be like the past? The Christian worldview can account for that because God has promised to uphold the universe in a consistent and uniform way.”
      I don’t have to assume these things however I feel like you are just trying move the conversation away from the issues I have raised related to your blog post. If you want to discuss these other topics I suggest we do it in a different thread.


      Thanks

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    20. I should have said insults rather than ad hominem in the last post, but insults are often used to try to imply that a persons argument is invalid, hence the ad hominem claim.

      As for begging the question - do you know what this means? You are doing it continually so I will try again to explain it. It's a circular argument where you assume the conclusion in your premise. In your case it goes like this: I exist therefore I am existing. I am assuming my reasoning is valid and using it to check the validity of my reasoning and concluding it is valid. The future will be like the past because it has always been that way in the past.

      If you can't see that this is a problem then I'm sorry but I can't help you, because we are going around in circles - and it's not because of me.

      I'll try again one more time. If you can't answer these questions then I'll assume that it's because you have no answer, which is the proof that God exists - without him you couldn't prove anything.

      How do you know your reasoning is valid about anything to any degree when you are using your reasoning to validate that your reasoning is valid?

      How do you account for the future being like the past without begging the question and appealing to the past?
      (This is not a separate issue, as again it's something that the biblical worldview can account for but you can't account for without God)

      How do you account for lying being wrong in your worldview?

      How do you account for the law of non-contradiction being wrong in your worldview?

      Hopefully your next answer will actually begin to address the issues instead of more examples of question begging fallacies / irrelevant thesis fallacies, but I doubt it because without God you have no real answer to these questions, showing that you do know God but are deliberately suppressing the truth of his existence because you prefer your sin.

      Delete
    21. "It's a circular argument where you assume the conclusion in your premise. In your case it goes like this: I exist therefore I am existing."

      That is a circular argument by its self but that is part of my point. The question assumes the existence of that which it is asking about. If you try to deny your own existence you have to assume it to begin with. I've been saying that since the start but you do not seem to understand. It is a contradiction to for one to state that they don't exist. I don't think this is that complicated.

      There is no point on answering any other questions until this is resolved as it is a fundamental starting point for any rational discussion. If I have not convinced you that I exist then there is a major issue.

      Delete
    22. You've missed my point - the point is that you can't account for anything according to your worldview. I know that you exist and that we exist because in my worldview I can account for our existence and knowledge by revelation from God. You're deliberately avoiding my questions. Last chance. If you don't attempt to answer my questions from the previous post I won't post any further responses as I really do have better things to do with my time than deal with people who cannot or will not seriously face up to the issues.

      Delete
    23. It is very telling that you will not publish my comment asking for you to answer the question you have given me so much grief over. Maybe you are not able to answer the question and satisfy your own criteria?

      Delete
  6. Have read through much of your website but there are no answers to the questions ive posed there.

    As therealjanni points out from a non-believers perspective, it's reasonable to question a believers revelation.

    From my perspective you're a fallible human who is simply mistaken about personal revelation and the origins of the bible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In order to believe that I'm mistaken you need to believe in truth and falsehood. What is truth?

      Delete
  7. Maybe you could explain exactly how God has revealed to you He exists? Was it an audible voice? Was it through the bible? Was it a feeling, writing on the wall, footprints in the sand? Visions?
    Based on this revelation you argue vehemently with others that they are absurd. I think it's only fair that we know why you're so certain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never heard the audible voice of God. I've experienced his presence, but that is not the basis of my argument. We know that God exists by revelation. This revelation is in many ways - innately, through creation, and through the Bible. You know that God exists too but you're suppressing the truth because you can't handle the truth. How do you get truth without God? (First start by defining truth).

      Delete
  8. Thanks for the honesty about the mechanisms of your revelation.

    Can you explain what innate revelation is?

    Revelation is something reveled so I would think must occur at a pont in time. If this is imbued at birth, what exactly is revealed do you think?

    Revelation through creation is good, but would be more of an inference that God exists.

    The bible is also an interesting one. If the bible and its claims are true how was this revealed to you?

    I assume those who decided on the cannon had a similar revelation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those questions are irrelevant. I know that God exists the same way you do - by revelation from God such that we can know for certain. It's not important exactly how God did it, just as we don't have to know exactly how God made cows to know that he did it. Likewise it's not important exactly how God supervised the transmission of the Bible. The fact is he did it, and you don't like the implications that entails.

      Delete
    2. Why would those questions be irrelevant? I for one want to know what this innate revelation is supposed to be and how it works.

      Delete
    3. If you had all of your questions answered and had God proven to you to your total satisfaction so that you were totally convinced that God were real, would you worship God?

      Delete
  9. It's hard to see how it's irrelevant when it's also the crux of what you believe. Without bothering to even explain the revelation you go on to say that this revelation is such that you can know for certain. Forgive me if I doubt the revelation you've received if you refuse to discuss it.
    It's implications of course are highly questionable so of course I'm not keen on adopting them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've already explained how God reveals things. Exactly how he does it is irrelevant. You know that God exists the same way I do - by revelation from God, but you are suppressing this knowledge because you prefer your sin.
      The thing is that this whole conversation is being held under the assumed truth of my worldview, and not yours. Please answer the following question - could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

      Delete
    2. Owenjohn, I also asked you earlier, what is truth? You do not seem to have answered that question. I reserve the right to not post further comments if you do not attempt to answer these foundational questions.

      Delete
  10. I agree with therealjanni on that one. Truth is simply what coincides with reality.

    No I don't think I could be wrong about everything I claim to know. I think we can know some things much like you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know what reality is? What's one thing you know for sure and how do you know it?

      Delete
  11. "When people put forward the 'deceptive God argument' they are not talking about the God of the Bible which clearly says that God cannot lie. "

    That is exactly what a deceptive god would want you to think. What better way to convince a fallible being that the god is telling the truth than to implant into them the notion that it is impossible for the god to lie? If I were a clever lying god, that is exactly what I would do...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just as well you aren't God. "Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." (Romans 3:4).
      And in case you want to say that makes me a liar too - I do not speak by my own authority but by the authority of the Word of God.

      Delete
    2. Again, "What better way to convince a fallible being that the god is telling the truth than to implant into them the notion that it is impossible for the god to lie?"

      Quoting Bible versus doesn't get you out of this conundrum. Like I said, "If I were a clever lying god, that is exactly what I would do..."

      Delete
  12. This is the exact same tactic that clever con-men use. They lull you into a false sense of security, make you feel as though they are trustworthy and are trying to help you out, then just when your guard is down they take you for all your worth...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you actually read any of my post? Have you been through my main website? Without God you have no basis for any objective morality by which to call anything wrong, and no basis for rationality in which to question or complain about anything.

      Delete
    2. Even with God, there are still issues. You would need to show how God entails moral realism as it could simply be the case that God is forcing God's preferences on people. That would make God a moral anti-realist. Objective morality would be mind-independent, including the mind of God. In such as system, God thinking something was an abomination would be much like God not liking chocolate ice cream and punishing people who do eat chocolate ice cream.

      Delete
    3. Without God, morality is indeed akin to what flavour ice cream you like or don't like. You can say you don't like something, but you've got no objective basis to say that anything is morally wrong. God doesn't force his preferences on people. That's the god of Islam you're thinking of. How do you get objective morality without God? Until you can answer this question you have no basis for accusing God of forcing anyone to do anything because you can't prove that it's morally wrong to force anyone to do anything. The fact that everyone knows it's wrong to do certain things and you are bringing this up is again because you're stealing from the Christian worldview where morality makes sense, and this shows that you do know God exists Augustine.

      Delete
    4. 1) I never said it was morally wrong for God to force anything on people. 2) You may want to find people who do believe in objective morality without God. I would say there is no objective morality (with or without God). 3) You still have yet to show how God entails moral realism. 4) Not everyone know certain things are wrong. There are people called psychopaths and skeptics (I would be in the latter but not the former.)

      Delete
    5. //I would say there is no objective morality //

      Was the holocaust absolutely and objectively morally wrong?

      Delete
    6. How original. While I say it is wrong in my opinion, I would still reject the moral absolutism in favour of consequentialism and reject objective in favour for subjective. Of course, your question nothing but a red-herring. You still have yet to substantiate that God's morality is objective. In order to have a moral realist position, you are going to have the first horn of the Euthypho dilemma as Divine Command Theory is subjective, thus a moral anti-realist position. Appealing to God's nature is problematic you first you have an epistemology barrier and then you have the issue of God not having parts thus forcing you to show how the attribute of moral Goodness is equal to the attribute of omnipotence which is equal to the attribute of omniscient which is equal to the attribute of omnipresence which is equal to existence. So, would you please stick to the topic of God having objective morality?

      Delete
    7. The Euthypho dilemma is a false dilemma. God is moral by definition - it's his nature. But until you come up with an absolute and objective basis for morality you have no grounds for questioning me and are assuming the truth of my worldview. You're stealing from God's worldview without acknowledging that this is what you're doing by raising moral questions against God, and by trying to use reasoning to argue against God when you can't account for rationality in your worldview. I just added some quotes and memes to my website, and one of them is a quote from Dawkins who basically admits that in his worldview he can't know anything to be true. http://www.godorabsurdity.com/absurd-stuff.html

      Delete
    8. The holocaust was wrong but just in your opinion? So if someone argued that it was right in their opinion and that it should be done again, you'd not be able to say they were wrong to say or try to do that, right? Or would you say that they were wrong to head down that path and oppose them?

      Delete
    9. Defining God as moral doesn't prove God is moral. I don't need an absolute and objective basis for morality to question you and no, I'm not assuming the truth of your worldview. If you wish to scamper off to your shtick you're able to do so.

      I would say they were wrong in my opinion and I would head down that path and oppose them if they tried to make it happen again. I don't need an objective morality to act.

      Delete
    10. //I would say they were wrong in my opinion and I would head down that path and oppose them if they tried to make it happen again. I don't need an objective morality to act.//
      I've exposed a massive contradiction between what you say you believe, and what you actually believe. If you were consistent and really believed that there is no objective morality then you'd say you had no problem with someone who tried to re-do the holocaust. That's always what happens though when people deny God - they can't live consistently by what they say they believe. So before accusing God of lying or deceiving us, I suggest you first work on dealing with the lies in your own worldview (contradictions amount to lying).

      Delete
    11. No contradictions. Just because I believe there is no objective morality, doesn't mean I don't believe in subjective morality. Saying God lies and saying that God lying is objectively (or even subjectively) immoral are two separate things. I have the preference that the Holocaust not be re-done, there is nothing contradictory about that nor is there anything contradictory about acting on that preference. To return the salvo, this is always what happens with people like you, you just twist things and divert from the topic at hand. You have yet to do anything besides define God is moral. You have yet to show how God entails moral realism.

      Delete
  13. I absolutely do have a basis for morality. However, unless you are willing to concede that it is at least possible that God is deceiving you, then whether it is moral or immoral for God to do so is irrelevant. If however you are willing to concede that he is possibly deceiving you, then we can get into morality, and why it is objectively wrong for God to deceive us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have indeed read read the article to which I am responding, I have watched your video, and I have read through some of your other articles in the past.

      Now, will you address the point being made? Or is it your intention to dodge the entire time?

      "It's impossible for God to lie"

      That is exactly what i would expect to hear from somebody who has been deceived by a clever lying god. Like I said, "If I were a clever lying god, that is exactly what I would do..." assure you that I can not lie.

      Delete
  14. What evidence do you have that God is lying? In order to refute what I've said in my post about it being impossible for God to lie, you need to show how you can account for rationality without God. I'm glad to hear you've read some of my other articles and watched my video. Have you been through my website www.godorabsurdity.com ? If you have not then please take some time to go through it, and get back to me when you have some answers to the following questions: How do you account for knowledge without God? How do you know that your reasoning is valid about anything to any degree? If you can't answer these questions then you have no right to ask any questions because you are stealing from the biblical worldview which can account for things like knowledge and truth through revelation from the God who cannot lie. (And don't be like Thunderfoot and try to argue for a parody that you don't believe in (I know things because the Ghost that never lies tells me...)!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "What evidence do you have that God is lying?"

    Whether or not God is actually lying is beside the point. The point I am making is that a clever God who is intentionally lying to somebody would make that somebody feel as though that somebody could trust him, and if possible, make them believe without question that it is not possible for him to lie to that somebody. And also that because it seem apparent that this is possible, there is no way you can be absolutely certain that what he is revealing to you is actually true.

    So, the question becomes, how do you asses the information being revealed to verify that it isn't actually false information meant to deceive you?


    Now to answer your questions>

    And I have been to your website, I have gone through your morality quiz, or at least the quiz deal you linked to.

    Knowledge is simply data that our brains acquire through observation of our surroundings, ourselves, etc. It is a consequence of consciousness.

    I know that my reasoning is reliable to some degree because I can perform certain tasks that require me to asses the given situation and come up with a successful solution.


    Now, I have made every attempt to comply with your wishes and answer your questions, and I would appreciate it if you would return the courtesy by answering the question/addressing the point being made. If it is your intention to do nothing but dodge, then please just say so plainly and I will stop interacting with you.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.