Does the Christian God exist? -- punkforchrist vs. wiploc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between punkforchrist and wiploc who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: the Christian God exists."

punkforchrist will affirm and wiploc will oppose. The debate will have 4 rounds and punkforchrist will go first, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4039433&postcount=21).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4040868#post4040868) is set up in the Existence of God(s) forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- NS, FD Moderator

[punkforchrist]

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

Ultimately, the debate over the existence of God rests upon one’s worldview. Is matter the ultimate reference point of existence, or is something else? One’s presuppositions will determine how he or she answers the question.

It is necessary from the outset to define our terms. First of all, I am maintaining a defense of Christian theism, specifically. While other concepts of God have their right to debate, this particular debate will focus upon what Christianity claims about God and his nature. That said, any conception of God that my opponent argues against that does not correspond to the Christian God will be irrelevant, and I will join him in refuting the existence of such a God.

What, then, does the Christian mean by stating that God exists? As is clear from my opening quotation, the Christian claims that the Word is God. The Greek for “Word,” is logos. This can refer to “something said,” but for our purposes it refers to “reasoning (the mental faculty)” (Strong 3056). To put the definition clearly and succinctly, Christian theism states that God is absolute truth.

When we ask about God’s existence, whether one takes the affirmative or the negative, it is necessary to have a foundation for the claim made. Are all factual questions answered empirically? Or can such questions be answered according to another method (if there is another method)?

First of all, the statement that all truth claims are determined by empirical observation, is itself not determined by empirical observation. It is presupposed by a materialistic worldview. The presupposition, then, is self-defeating, since it is does not use its own principle in laying a foundation for what determines the truth value of a claim.

We are required, therefore, to search for another foundation for truth claims. It is my contention that the laws of logic are essential for discovering whether God exists, as I’m sure my opponent will agree, from what he has stated in our pre-debate discussions. As a matter of formality, however, I want to offer an example.

The necessity of logic is proven not from observation (although an example of the necessity of logic certainly can be experienced and observed), but from the impossibility of the contrary. Logic is presupposed as an essential witness to one’s truth claims. The statement, “there are no square-circles,” is not proven from observation, but from following the logic of definition. By definition, there can be no square-circles, since the two are mutually exclusive. However, the claim “there are no unicorns,” cannot be proven unless one has exhaustively searched the universe simultaneously. A universal negative cannot be proven, unless it is by definition, or the impossibility of the contrary.

From the two illustrations above, it is clear that one must go about answering certain questions differently. Granted that material things may be proven but not disproven by empirical observation, it is also apparent that things immaterial need not be proven empirically. Immaterial things, such as the laws of logic, do not depend upon the material world, but transcend it. This, likewise, is proven from the impossibility of the contrary. The laws of logic are abstract, universal, and unchanging (Bahnsen-Stein). This must be the case, since otherwise it would be reasonable for one person to create their own logical convention in which something that is patently false is stated to be true. Not only that, but what is patently false and stated to be true, must also correspond to reality. Such a position, I maintain, fails the test of the law of non-contradiction. Is it reasonable for me to claim that there is no truth? Is that itself a truth claim? My answer is that it is a truth claim, and hence, is self-contradictory.

It is clear that logic is a necessary precondition for correspondence. But what is the point of going over all of this? Do not atheists agree that logic is necessary? Indeed, they do. My contention is not that atheists are unable to prove things, but that their worldview is unable to account for their use of logic, which in turn is used to prove things.

What is it that makes the laws of logic intelligible? What justifies one’s use of them?

An immediate question one may raise is this: what can we know beyond the laws of logic? In other words, what do they point to? Are they merely self-referential? The latter is patently false, since otherwise laws of logic would have no way of being extended to test truth claims. This brings us to our most crucial observation in the debate: the laws of logic point to the existence of absolute truth. Keeping this in mind, we are brought back to the premise made earlier in the opening statement that God is absolute truth.

In many ways, I am indebted to those pioneers of presuppositionalism, like Greg Bahnsen. However, I want to articulate this argument in a manner that is as straight-forward as possible, since ambiguity has been a frequent criticism of the transcendental argument. As such, I would like to present the argument using the transitive axiom (if A=B, and B=C, then A=C).

If God is absolute truth, and absolute truth exists, then God exists. Absolute truth does exist. Therefore, God exists.

The claim “there is no absolute truth,” is itself an absolute truth claim. Absolute Relativism, therefore, is self-contradictory. With that as a given, we are left with only one option concerning the Christian God. God exists!

One may concur with St. Augustine that God is truth (On the Trinity, 8,2) and with the Bible that God is truthful (John 3:33). The Apostle Paul sums it up nicely. “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Timothy 1:17).

I want to thank wiploc and Nightshade for this debate. I look forward to the discussion!

[wiploc]

Round 1
First Negative, by wiploc



Thanks to IIDB and the formal debate moderators, and to punkforchrist.

Punk---may I call you punk, feel free to call me wip---much of your post seems to me obscure, but I take this bit to be the heart of it:


If God is absolute truth, and absolute truth exists, then God exists. Absolute truth does exist. Therefore, God exists.


I grant that truth exists, but why should I think Jehovah is truth?

You offer us a bible verse. Shall I believe Jehovah is truth because you manage to interpret a bible verse so that it seems to support that view? No, because the bible also says as follows:



1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

Jeremiah 4:10 Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

Jeremiah 20:7 O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

Ezekiel 14:9 And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.


We don’t have to twist and interpret those bible verses. They make it absolutely clear that, according to the bible, Jehovah is not truth.


Maybe the bible is wrong when it says god is not truth. Let me check the dictionary.


God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Truth: conformity with fact or reality.


Those are different. They are not fungible at all. I’m sorry, punk, but the dictionary offers no support for your theory.

If the bible and dictionary don’t support you, Where else can we look for support? Let’s check with common sense. What do we know about god, and what do we know about truth? These describe the Christian god:


He torments people in Hellfire forever.
It is fatal to look upon him.
He commanded people to bring him foreskins.
He could not defeat iron chariots.
There is only one god (or maybe three, but five is right out).
He curses fig trees for not bearing fruit out of season.
Good people are afraid of him.
He rested on Saturday.
He played hide and seek in the garden.
He caused weeds and painful childbirth.
He is jealous.


Truth isn’t like that. A glimpse of truth is not fatal. Truth doesn’t take days off. There are more than three truths. Good people aren’t afraid of truth.

I’m sorry, punk, but it’s clear that truth and Jehovah are two separate things. That’s just obvious. If you want to make a case for the existence of god, you’ll have to come up with a better argument than TAG.

crc

[punkforchrist]

Greetings wip,

I grant that truth exists, but why should I think Jehovah is truth?

If the concept of Jehovah corresponds to the concept of truth, then Jehovah is truth. This is what we are debating.

You offer us a bible verse. Shall I believe Jehovah is truth because you manage to interpret a bible verse so that it seems to support that view?

I offered several Bible verses that established that 1) God is truth; 2) God is immaterial; and 3) God is eternal and unchanging. My argument that logic points to absolute truth, and that absolute truth reflects abstract, universal, and unchanging qualities, has not yet been rebutted.

My opponent has offered six Bible verses that he claims teach that God is untruthful. In his own words, he writes:

We don’t have to twist and interpret those bible verses. They make it absolutely clear that, according to the bible, Jehovah is not truth.

Implicit in his reasoning is that the Bible verses I have provided are not clear. It should be noted, however, that simply claiming these verses are ambiguous, does not make it so. What is it specifically that is incorrect about my exegesis?

It should be pointed out that nowhere in any of these texts that wip provided does the Bible make a claim about God’s nature. They merely state that God allowed something to happen, which in context is shown to be done for an ultimately legitimate purpose. That said (and this is crucial to point out in this debate), wip has raised a historic-theological issue. The debate about God’s existence is a question concerning worldviews.

Just two responses to the passages wip provided are necessary, since the answers extend to the other verses.

1 Kings 22:23 must be read in light of the fact that those deceived had already rejected the true prophesy. King Jehoshaphat wanted to believe the prophesy of the false prophets (found in verses 11 and 12). All present rejected Micaiah’s prophesy that the king’s attack would fail, so God handed them over to the hardness of their hearts.

The use of the word, “deceived,” in Jeremiah 20:7 is a mistranslation. The correct English equivalent is “persuaded,” as this applies to God’s calling (or persuasion) of Jeremiah to become a prophet. Read in context, this passage illustrates the ridicule that Jeremiah endured for proclaiming God’s Word.

One may read these verses while considering 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11, “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness” (emphasis added).

These passages should be interpreted in a phenomenological way. God did not actively lie to men, but rather allowed them to be deceived by the things they themselves embraced. Hebrews 6:18 tells us that, “it is impossible for God to lie.”

My opponent next offers us definitions for God and for truth. He concludes that the meanings are different:

Those are different. They are not fungible at all. I’m sorry, punk, but the dictionary offers no support for your theory.

The problem here, however, is that the dictionary is not a Christian catechism. The dictionary’s definition of God tells us nothing about what specific worldviews claim about God. What sources should we look to? For the Christian, it is the Bible and those servants of the Bible, the doctors of the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, writes in Chapter 60 of the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book One that “God is truth” and quotes John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

Do I believe that God is the supreme ruler and creator of all the world? Certainly. I believe there is ample evidence for the miraculous. However, these evidences are only convincing in a worldview that allows for the existence of God, which brings us back to the topic of the debate.

We are not debating God’s creation of the world. We are debating worldviews. How is it possible, in a non-Christian worldview, to justify the use of abstract, universal, and unchanging entities such as the laws of logic? My worthy counterpart has not given us an explanation.

wip next lists for us examples of how God and truth are different. Most on this list are not relevant to the debate. The existence of hell, for instance, is not a matter of conflicting worldviews, but is a theological question. Such questions can only be answered once a worldview has been established.

Truth isn’t like that. A glimpse of truth is not fatal. Truth doesn’t take days off.

What standard of reasoning is wip using in coming to these conclusions? Among these three statements we have examples (in order) of 1) begging the question; 2) a straw man (the Bible does not say a glimpse of God kills. “No one has ever seen God“ [John 1:18]. Has anyone seen truth itself? If not, how do we know what would happen?); and 3) another straw man (the Bible states that God rested from creation, not that He took a day off from being truth).

There are more than three truths. Good people aren’t afraid of truth.

The answer to the first statement is that there are not more than three truths (in fact, there is only one). Rather, things can be true insofar as they correspond to the one principle of truth. True things do not become truth itself. Secondly, people are afraid of truth all the time. I, and I presume my opponent, are afraid of many things that are true, but only because such things are consistent with the guiding light of absolute truth.

Ultimately, my opponent must be able to explain how the laws of logic are intelligible in a non-Christian worldview.

[wiploc]

Round 2
Second Negative, by wiploc




Ultimately, my opponent must be able to explain how the laws of logic are intelligible in a non-Christian worldview.


I think not. Given that I don't see what that has to do with either whether god exists (the actual subject of our debate) or with your strange claim that god is truth, it would be imprudent of me to try to develope a theory about what we can know and how we can know it in a debate with 1000 word post limits. In fact, in this next quote, you yourself say that's not out topic.




If the concept of Jehovah corresponds to the concept of truth, then Jehovah is truth. This is what we are debating.


I don't think "corresponds" is quite the word you want. If they were congruent, that is, if they were the same, so that neither one was in any way different from the other, then Jehovah would be truth.

But we don't believe that truth was born in Galilee. We don't believe that truth is literally it's own son. We don't believe that truth would need a whirlwind or a pillar of fire to get around on. We don't believe that truth would have to ask where Adam and Eve were hiding. Nobody blasphemes by saying "truth" in vain.

Truth and Jehovah, therefore, are unmistakably two separate concepts. You can't get around that. It's silly even to try. Any attempt must necessarily be a "sophistic argument, the like of which would prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse."* You wouldn't even be here arguing if you really believed that anyone who believes in truth is saved.




What is it specifically that is incorrect about my exegesis?


No way is that on topic. If Christians generally agreed with your exegesis, it wouldn't have to be right. But in fact, they generally think the word was Jesus, not truth.



“They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie


This once again illustrates that truth and Jehovah are not congruent concepts. If I asked 100 Christians whether truth itself wants people to believe lies, I wouldn't expect a single affirmative answer.



My opponent next offers us definitions for God and for truth. He concludes that the meanings are different:

The problem here, however, is that the dictionary is not a Christian catechism.

True. But if I showed 100 Christians the two definitions, and asked which was god and which was truth, they would all answer as expected. Not one of them would say she couldn't tell the difference.



John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

See, the Christian god, if he existed, would be more than just truth. He would also be the way and the life. Jehovah is different from truth. For all your wordplay, you can't really be confused about this.


We are debating worldviews.

You are supposed to be arguing that the Christian god exists. You cannot prove that the concept of Jehovah is identical to the concept of truth, because we all know that it isn't. So if you have any other arguments that Jehovah exists, it's time to bring them forward.




wip next lists for us examples of how God and truth are different. Most on this list are not relevant to the debate.

So it's relevant for you to claim that Jehovah is the same as truth, but not relevant for me to show that they are different. Fat chance.




A glimpse of truth is not fatal.
Has anyone seen truth itself? If not, how do we know what would happen?

Truth is a relationship between statements and reality. By it's very nature, therefore, it is not something that can be seen. Jehovah has a different nature; his hindparts can be seen with safety. Therefore, truth and Jehovah are two separate things.



... things can be true insofar as they correspond to the one principle of truth. True things do not become truth itself.

And truth itself cannot take a day off to rest.



Secondly, people are afraid of truth all the time. I, and I presume my opponent, are afraid of many things that are true, but only because such things are consistent with the guiding light of absolute truth.

Christians believe that good people are supposed to be afraid of Jehovah, that that's part of being good. Nobody believes that being afraid of truth is a required part of being good.

Summary:

1. Our topic, regardless of whether we both believe it, is, "Resolved: The Christian God Exists."

2. Punk has brought a single relevant argument to the table: If, when Chrisitans say, "God," they really mean, "truth," then (since truth does exist) the Christian god does in fact exist.

3. However, as has been shown, while there may be "correspondences" between Jehovah and truth, they are clearly not the same thing.

4. Therefore, having presented but a single argument, and that transparently false, punk has failed to substantially support his claim that the Christian god exists.


crc

* Quoted from memory, and with assured inaccuracy. I don't remember the source.

[punkforchrist]

Wiploc, the ambiguity of my use of the word “truth” is well-noted. I’d like to clarify my argument for TAG in this rebuttal.

The transcendental argument states that without God, we are left without the necessary precondition for all reasoning. Absolute standards of logic, science, and morality presuppose God if these things require an ultimate source. I have focused my attention on logic primarily because, as wip observed, we have agreed to 1000-word statements. Hence, my use of the word “truth” refers directly to what I argued in my opening statement to the source of logic.

But we don't believe that truth was born in Galilee. We don't believe that truth is literally it's own son. We don't believe that truth would need a whirlwind or a pillar of fire to get around on. We don't believe that truth would have to ask where Adam and Eve were hiding. Nobody blasphemes by saying "truth" in vain.

When I talk about the need to focus on the Christian concept of God, and not on historic-theological issues, here is what I mean: My argument is meant to support what the Bible states God is, not what the Bible states God has done in history. My focus is on his nature, not the subsequent act.

No way is that on topic. If Christians generally agreed with your exegesis, it wouldn't have to be right. But in fact, they generally think the word was Jesus, not truth.

As I demonstrated, the doctors of the Church believe that God is truth, so if Jesus is both the Word and God, then He is truth itself.

This once again illustrates that truth and Jehovah are not congruent concepts. If I asked 100 Christians whether truth itself wants people to believe lies, I wouldn't expect a single affirmative answer.

I haven’t argued that God (or truth) wants people to believe lies. The word “want” or “desire” is not in the above quote, nor is it in my presentation. Rather, I stated that God has handed people over to the hardness of their hearts.

See, the Christian god, if he existed, would be more than just truth. He would also be the way and the life. Jehovah is different from truth. For all your wordplay, you can't really be confused about this.

Truth is necessary to live by. It is the way and the life. Christian theism in particular aside for the moment, would you agree that people ought to live according to truth?

So it's relevant for you to claim that Jehovah is the same as truth, but not relevant for me to show that they are different. Fat chance.

No, it is relevant for you to show they are different. I made my statement in regard to the need to focus on what God is, instead of what God has done (i.e. “historic-theological issues”).
Truth is a relationship between statements and reality.

Yes, and my argument states that God is the epistemological precondition of this relationship. Without God (and I recognize that this is the point of disagreement), it is impossible to prove anything.

By it's very nature, therefore, it is not something that can be seen.

So do you agree that truth is immaterial? If so, this is inconsistent with atheistic materialism. The only worldview that can account for immaterial entities, without undermining reason, is the Christian one.

Jehovah has a different nature; his hindparts can be seen with safety.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by “hindparts”? I have not stated that God can be seen. In fact, I quoted John 1:18, which states that no one has seen God. It is impossible to physically see what is immaterial.

And truth itself cannot take a day off to rest.

In my rebuttal I stated that God took a day off to rest “from creation.” In other words, God had finished creating everything.

Christians believe that good people are supposed to be afraid of Jehovah, that that's part of being good. Nobody believes that being afraid of truth is a required part of being good.

Being good does require being afraid of truth. If we are supposed to be moral, then there must be a true standard of morality. Is it true that I ought not to lie, or to steal? We are afraid of many things that reflect truth.

In my opponent’s reasoning above, he begs the question that we are not required to fear truth. Should we not fear God’s Word if it is true?

Here is what the transcendental argument boils down to: the laws of logic, science, and morality have an ultimate source. This is much like the argument C.S. Lewis offers in Mere Christianity. If we have a moral law, then we must have a moral law-giver. My focus in this debate is that if we have objective standards of reasoning, like in the laws of logic, then we must have a reason-giver.

Are the laws of logic absolute? Are they abstract, universal, and unchanging?

My intention is not to shift the burden of proof. When I ask my opponent to account for the laws of logic, I am asking how it is possible to allow immaterial entities in a worldview that is strictly materialistic. The end result, if other worldviews are compared, is that Christianity alone can account for such entities.

Now, the debate is not about proving materialism. Agreed. However, the debate is about demonstrating how the proponent’s argument fails to prove the resolve. My contention is that if we allow immaterial things to exist, no other worldview other than the Christian one can account for them. So when I ask my opponent to provide an example of a non-Christian worldview providing an explanation, I am simply asking for the “contrary” in “the Christian God exists from the impossibility of the contrary.”

[wiploc]

Round 3
Third Negative, by wiploc


I love our thousand word post limit, but I do feel the pinch at times. I have to boil your post down in order to respond to it succinctly. As I see it, you have spoken to four issues: hind parts; truth = Jehovah; TAG, and "materialism,". I'll address them in that order.


1. Hind Parts:

I don't see how I could describe god's hind parts, or why you would want me to, or why you think your bible verse trumps my bible verse (Exodus 33:23) (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html), or what this could have to do with the subject of our debate. I'm ignoring this issue.


2. Truth = Jehovah.

Okay, I had written about a page here, but a private message has made that obsolete. My understanding now is that you no longer advance this claim as a literal truth. Rather, you believe that god is the source of truth. That claim will be treated under "TAG," below.


3. TAG: god is a necessary precondition for truth.

TAG always consists of this bald claim, that god is a necessary precondition for for logic, science, and morality. The claim is never explained, rather it is just reasserted, along with the "worldview" trueism that, if we believed, then we'd agree. TAG is therefore totally unpersuasive. We have no reason to believe that god is a necessary precondition for logic to exist. No reason at all. TAG is not an argument; it is a mere assertion. It has no support other than reiteration of the original claim.

TAG is also self defeating nonsense: If it were true that there can be no truth without Jehovah, then, given the absence of Jehovah, it is not true that there is no truth.


Here is what the transcendental argument boils down to: the laws of logic, science, and morality have an ultimate source. <snip> If we have a moral law, then we must have a moral law-giver.


You seem to be equating natural laws to statutes and ordinances. Your argument fails, because natural laws are discovered, not enacted. Further, your argument, if I understand it, is unpersuasive if written clearly:

P1: If any X has a cause, then, for any Y, Y must also have a cause.
P2: Legislative laws are an X with a cause.
P3: Morality is a Y. Therefore,
C1: Morality has a cause.

This argument is unpersuasive, not only is there no reason to believe P1, but also because the same logic can "prove" the nonexistence of the same god.

P4: The first cause, if it existed, would be an X. Therefore,
C2: The first cause, if it existed, would itself have a cause.

4. "Materialism."

First, to suggest that atheists must be materialists is wrong by definition, though I am a materialist myself.

Second, to say that materialists cannot believe in immaterial things like energy and relationships, is a straw-man. Actual materialists are not like that; you can ask any of them.

Third, to leap from your premise (that materialism cannot explain relationships) to your conclusion (that therefore only the Christian god can) is an extreme example of the fallacy of begging the question.

Fourth, I've never seen a Christian explain why relationships exist better than an materialist can. An unexplainable god who just happened to exist and just happened to want relationships and just happened to have the power to create them is not a better "explanation" of relationships than no explanation at all.


Summary Statement:

The god=truth argument has been conceded. The hind-parts argument can be ignored now, since it was really part of the god=truth argument. Since god isn't literally truth, it doesn't matter that truth cannot be seen but god's hindquarters can be seen.

The materialism argument was based on a misunderstanding of the word, "materialism." That misunderstanding aside, it was no more persuasive than saying that if Teddy Kennedy isn't president then Mr. Magoo must be. You cannot prove that one thing true by proving a random other thing to be false.

TAG fails because it is an assertion unsupported by logical argument. Why should we believe that Jehovah is the only possible source of truth, logic, relationships, and morality? We don't have a reason. In fact, reason, logic, and truth are less reliable if magic-throwing gods exist. For an example, just consider the loaves and the fishes. If there are no gods, then either they did bring enough for the multitude, or they didn't. One of those is true; the other is false; and logic works. But if there is a god, then, as Christians claim, they could both be true. They didn't bring enough ... and yet ... they did. People with an affinity for logic should be glad not to have to account for magic when the do math and science.

Only by ignoring the possibility of magic is any knowledge possible. When LaPlace explained the working of the heavens without a god, because he "had no need of that hypothesis," he was saying that science had grown up. Science and logic stand now on their own two feet, as they never could when we believed angels pushed the planets around, and that two plus two equaled four because that happened to be how a god wanted it on that particular day.

crc

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

wiploc and punkforchrist have informed me privately that they both wish to end the formal debate at this point. We would like to thank both of them for their participation. Discussion can be continued in the peanut gallery.

- NS, FD Moderator