Guess I forgot my winky.
This is a reasonable point, and Christian theology has argued from (a) a negative viewpoint, in that we cannot make statements about God based on examination of an object, so we are unable to provide that type of definition, and (b) an assertive viewpoint in that we can discuss attributes that are meaningful in terms of personhood and a way of life, based on our understanding of Christ and teachings of the Gospel.
Without entering into a very lengthy discussion, the theology I am referring to relies on the capacity for us to reason and obtain insights into aspects of our existence that lead to good outcomes and the ultimate goal of the Christian faith, to be with God.
So I would think that atheists may find objections to (b), but I cannot see how they would object to (a).
Not every Christian engages in special pleading or mistakes what reassures them in their faith for what should persuade others to believe as they do. Leastwise not here, though I’ve never been so lucky in RL.
Most theists do seem literal minded but then again so are most atheists in my experience.
2 Likes
I don’t think most theists are theists on the basis of weight of evidence. It’s unknowable, in material evidentiary terms. If you want to strictly apply Occam’s Razor, disbelief (atheism) violates the principle of parsimony just as much as belief (theism) does. (This is why I was always agnostic, never atheist.)
I think most Christians are aware of the evidence for historicity of people and events described in the Bible, and are aware of some of the philosophical arguments for theism. But I also think most of us who are born again had to go through a kind of step of faith moment.
For me, it was kind of a nothing-ventured-nothing-gained step. I thought, ok: I am here in the dark with my head bowed and hands clasped (I was deer hunting and waiting for first light). Why not just try praying? I did, and then I perceived the spiritual realm and God as real. There was no Paul-like light and sound show but just a sense of knowing.
If your metaphysics starts with denying the existence of a nonmaterial realm of mind, then you are forced, not by evidence but by the very framework of your own thinking, to dismiss that as delusional. You can demand material evidence as much as you like but at the end of the day for those of us who were not there to witness the signs and wonders and the resurrected Jesus, there is no real material evidence, but, our spiritual experience is real.
2 Likes
Good that you dont claim bogus evidence. Many do.
Give me credit for not being so intellectually dishonest as to start with a conclusion.
There is good empirical evidence for God’s providential M.O., but it gets dismissed out of hand by resolute unbelievers, like several here. Are they really as objective as they like to think of themselves as being?
I’ve read your reply a few times and I really don’t understand it. Could you try again? I want to understand your point but I don’t want to make too many wrong guesses. Is (a) a god concept without any definitions? Are “good outcomes” meant as something tangible like “eat healthy because you’ll feel better”? Or do you mean it in a different way? Perhaps just try to say the same thing slightly differently.
1 Like
It may be easier for you to google this aspect of Christianity as a detailed discussion would be beyond this forum. Briefly, point (a) is referring to apophatic theology, or negative theology, which is a Christian theological system that attempts to describe the nature of God by focusing on what God is not rather than on what God is. The premise is that God is so far beyond human understanding and experience that the only hope we have of getting close to the nature of God is to list what God is not. This was discussed in Christianity in the late fifth century by Dionysius of Areopagite, although aspects are found in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century who proclaimed the very concept of “existence” is inappropriately applied positive attributes to God.
Theology also includes cataphatic theology, which approaches God or the Divine by affirmations or positive statements about what God is, and also uses analogies in discussions about God.
Point (b) perhaps is better understood by referring to scripture that describes the gifts of the Holy Spirit (eg., love, joy, faith, longsuffering, sound mind, and so on). Since you are not relying on scripture, I have attempted to summarise these, (eg., personhood, or attributes that define us).
1 Like
We can easily build up an apocataphatic theology artefact here on the premiss, posit of God; there are only a couple or three of dimensions to such a colour solid.
Ok. I think googling apophatic helped. But I don’t think any atheist gives that approach much thought. And I don’t think there is much use in thinking in those unfalsifiable terms. So I guess I agree that there aren’t arguments against point (a) and I don’t think anyone are claiming to have any. I think “we” would just say there’s no point, I guess.
I don’t however, find your replies pointless. Thanks for those.
Oh hey, dude! Welcome to the forum!
1 Like
I find this amusing - to me it seems as if atheists who present this attitude may criticize Christians for not worshiping idols.
What are you pointing to as “this attitude”? My attitude or atheists objecting to things that God or Christianity is NOT? If I should consider whatever God is NOT then my personal starting point is tentatively anything and everything (other atheist may just start from the point of undetermined). Then, from an apophatic view, we would get a list of things where we agree and a list of remaining things where I say “probably not” and you say “undetermined”, right? So the question “is God anything” is still unknown.
It feels like searching for a gold nugget in a hoarders home and then you start to examine each thing and and asking “is this expired yoghurt a gold nugget?” and throwing that away. But then it is essentially unfindable so if you bump into a gold nugget then it must be the wrong one because the real one is somewhere outside the house that you can’t access. This probably sounds both a bit degrading and wrong but I’m just trying to relay how it comes across to me.
I would think an objection to theism (or anything really) relies on the assumption that there is some positive claim about WHAT that is. I listen to some atheist call-in shows and for some calls the hosts will get a bit impatient when the caller gives a long list of what God is not. Now I know they are taking an apophatic approach. Words are fun 
I can appreciate that you are trying to make short responses but when I don’t really know what you are saying then keeping it short defeats the purpose. This was probably waaay too long. Sorry.
1 Like
We can easily misunderstand each other because we are coming from different settings. I will try a more detailed, albeit simple approach;
a) On attitude. The atheistic objections that I have heard more often are along the lines of evidence they should consider and study regarding god. This means to me they require from us something that can be measured, analysed, examined, using scientific methods, that would arrive at a definition and properties for critical discussion. My response briefly is that this amounts to asking a Christian to worship an idol, and providing this to atheists. Thus my somewhat (odd) humerous response.
b) On WHAT God is and is not; I was trying to point out that this is the topic of theology, and has been discussed and argued for centuries, with a consensus achieved termed Orthodoxy. So, my response to atheists who seek discussion on what God is in these type of forums, has been to suggest that they should read and consider the many volumes on the topic, and after that they would be in a position to make critical comments. This approach is considered reasonable for the sciences and humanities, so why should it not be applied to atheists who comment so freely on theology?
c) I cannot understand your discussion of gold nugget/yoghurt so I will not comment.
d) Positive claims about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are plentiful, and these are derived from the Bible, so again, we need to find a setting that would be suitable for such discussions.
If you have specific point for discussion I will be happy to respond.
You have some claim. Tangible evidence is nice. I think you will agree that you should have SOMETHING if you are to be convincing. That could be just a logical argument.
Physics has also been studied for aeons. You don’t need more than very basic education to chime in and ask questions about things that seem inconsistent or unconvincing. You could for instance ask “why is it called a parabolic trajectory when satellites orbit in a path that is not a parabola?” and then someone can explain the difference and why it makes sense or agree that it is a misnomer. You do not need to read any university level physics book let alone consider every textbook you can get your hands on to ask that. I don’t see atheist comments that are as ill informed as you make it sound.
1 Like
I guess we may start with a claim I can make, that Christ is the Son of God who was born of Mary, live amongst us, and was resurrected. I can continue to speak of the Trinity and what that means to me.
How would a discussion go from your end. From my position these are obvious claims/statements, theology 101 we may say.
That subjective reality is fine, I can do the same. What has that got to so with objective reality?
Once again I’m not quite following where you’re headed. Yes, those are claims. Should I believe any of them? I don’t care what the Trinity means to you per se. But if you believe it is something that exists then yes, you should define it and make a case for it. Just as with anything.
From my end? You mean some claims? I can go for the easy claim that have not found a reasonable justification to warrant belief in any deity. Or the harder case that no deities exist.
1 Like
If some act as you say its good to point it out.
Sounds like the things creationists say about science.