The Laws of Logic Imply God's Existence

[pancreasman]

Ok if Jesus wasn't who He claimed to be (which you seem to believe) ,then wouldn't that automatically mean that either He was lying ,or that He was insane? If He WAS who He claimed to be ,then that automatically means that He IS Lord ,so what fourth option could there even be?

There are several problems with the Lewis approach (It's worth noting I'm a great admirer of Lewis and read everything he wrote before, during and after I was a Christian). The first is the assumption that Jesus actually said what is claimed. After all, the direct divinity claims of Jesus come almost exclusively from one Gospel. I think it is reasonable to ask whether its possible that these sayings really represent what Jesus may have said.

Secondly, let's assume Jesus did make divinity claims. We have to remember the social and cultural environment he was in. As an apocalyptic prophet, one could imagine it possible that Jesus may have made strong statements of his identification of God. From my point of view, this would make him mistaken in his metaphysics rather than deliberately lying or crazy. He could have sincerely believed what he thought about himself and simply have been wrong.

Thirdly, elsewhere in the world, particularly in the East, we find that often people will identify themselves with God. It is a central idea in Hinduism, the realization that the self is fundamentally identical with ultimate reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi

If Jesus had said what he said in India no one would have batted an eyelid. Thus simply identifying oneself with God does not reduce one to just one of three options.

[Cerebrum123]

There are several problems with the Lewis approach (It's worth noting I'm a great admirer of Lewis and read everything he wrote before, during and after I was a Christian). The first is the assumption that Jesus actually said what is claimed. After all, the direct divinity claims of Jesus come almost exclusively from one Gospel. I think it is reasonable to ask whether its possible that these sayings really represent what Jesus may have said.

Secondly, let's assume Jesus did make divinity claims. We have to remember the social and cultural environment he was in. As an apocalyptic prophet, one could imagine it possible that Jesus may have made strong statements of his identification of God. From my point of view, this would make him mistaken in his metaphysics rather than deliberately lying or crazy. He could have sincerely believed what he thought about himself and simply have been wrong.

Thirdly, elsewhere in the world, particularly in the East, we find that often people will identify themselves with God. It is a central idea in Hinduism, the realization that the self is fundamentally identical with ultimate reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi

If Jesus had said what he said in India no one would have batted an eyelid. Thus simply identifying oneself with God does not reduce one to just one of three options.

The comparison to Hinduism is completely off base ,and is not valid(I believe you would call this a red herring). Jesus claiming to be God ,and even truly believing while being wrong(in the way that he claimed to be God anyway) ,would still mean that He had some kind of mental illness. Also remember the Jews wanted to stone Him for blasphemy ,this is hardly the kind of culture that would have any sane person claiming to be God.

[pancreasman]

The comparison to Hinduism is completely off base ,and is not valid(I believe you would call this a red herring). Jesus claiming to be God ,and even truly believing while being wrong(in the way that he claimed to be God anyway) ,would still mean that He had some kind of mental illness. Also remember the Jews wanted to stone Him for blasphemy ,this is hardly the kind of culture that would have any sane person claiming to be God.

I don't think we can suppose that claiming identity with god NECESSARILY means mental illness, even in a monotheistic culture. Mystics say this kind of thing all the time.

“The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me” Meister Eckhart

Are all mystics (including Jewish ones I might add) all liars, lunatics or lords?

[Cerebrum123]

I don't think we can suppose that claiming identity with god NECESSARILY means mental illness, even in a monotheistic culture. Mystics say this kind of thing all the time.

“The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me” Meister Eckhart

Are all mystics (including Jewish ones I might add) all liars, lunatics or lords?

What you're talking about is quite a bit different from what Jesus did. I doubt many Mystics are going ,and making claims that could get them killed in front of the people who would be doing the killing. Do you think a sane person (even a Mystic) is going to go to say the Taliban ,and claim to be Allah? Now I know that there is a big difference between the Pharisees and the Taliban ,but when you consider OT laws (and the kind of penalties for things like being a false prophet or witch) ,then the kind of danger inherent in doing such a thing is pretty similar. These actions are basically suicidal at worst ,and deluded at best ,unless the person making the claim can back it up ,which Jesus did.
Also a Jewish Mystic in OT times would actually most likely fall into the category of lunatic ,due to the fact that part of the laws demanded the death penalty for witchcraft. Again we are talking about a specific time and place ,and a specific set of claims. A monotheistic culture like that of the OT (from what I understand monolatry would be the best term to describe OT Judaism) would be entirely different ,and not NEARLY as tolerant to this kind of thing (except during the lapses into idolatry). A public claim like this in such a culture is not what a sane person would do.
Also consider during King Saul's reign when he wanted to consult a medium ,and her skeptical concern in performing the requested action. She was afraid for her life ,just for the action of performing a seance. If a seance if worthy of death ,then what of the person claiming to be the very God you worship (and Jesus didn't claim it in a Mystic sense either).

[pancreasman]

What you're talking about is quite a bit different from what Jesus did. I doubt many Mystics are going ,and making claims that could get them killed in front of the people who would be doing the killing. Do you think a sane person (even a Mystic) is going to go to say the Taliban ,and claim to be Allah? Now I know that there is a big difference between the Pharisees and the Taliban ,but when you consider OT laws (and the kind of penalties for things like being a false prophet or witch) ,then the kind of danger inherent in doing such a thing is pretty similar. These actions are basically suicidal at worst ,and deluded at best ,unless the person making the claim can back it up ,which Jesus did.
Also a Jewish Mystic in OT times would actually most likely fall into the category of lunatic ,due to the fact that part of the laws demanded the death penalty for witchcraft. Again we are talking about a specific time and place ,and a specific set of claims. A monotheistic culture like that of the OT (from what I understand monolatry would be the best term to describe OT Judaism) would be entirely different ,and not NEARLY as tolerant to this kind of thing (except during the lapses into idolatry). A public claim like this in such a culture is not what a sane person would do.
Also consider during King Saul's reign when he wanted to consult a medium ,and her skeptical concern in performing the requested action. She was afraid for her life ,just for the action of performing a seance. If a seance if worthy of death ,then what of the person claiming to be the very God you worship (and Jesus didn't claim it in a Mystic sense either).

We've said enough on this. I'm not convinced by Lewis' reasoning here for several reasons I've mentioned. You find it compelling. Ain't life grand? Perhaps we could return to the topic of the thread.

[ST Mannew]

If you are going to use the word 'Hate' i the same manner as Seer. than likewise . . .
The view that you take differences in religious beliefs as 'Hating the Truth' does reflect a an egocentric and paranoid view of why others believe the way they do and to accuse others of 'Hate' without warrant is venomous and acrimonious.

Shuny you cannot be that closed minded that you have convince yourself of this argument, in one breath you say that you believe that the truth is absolute and in the other you say that there are 1000s of truths, what is it? And because someone believes something, that does not make it true and if you know the difference and don’t tell them, is this considered kindness? NO. A hurt feeling is better than what could result from believing something that is not true.

Nothing hypocritical on my part that can be cited in any of my posts, because I have never espoused hatred of anything nor anyone. It becomes a problem when you make the unwarranted accusation, and cannot support it by citations of what I have said.

Remember now Shuny, you’re the one who says that there are 1000s of truths, then accusing someone else who believes something different from what you do of “an illusion of grandiose proportions” is self-refuting and the height of hypocrisy, there is no way of getting around this if we use your own words.

God gives the capability of humans to be humble, but claiming to know the 'absolute Truth' is far from being humble, and accusation of 'Hatred' goes over the top..

I think you are equivocating “absolute” truth with “all” truth, I don’t think any of us mean we know all truth but I do claim that I do know that Christ is Truth itself, and I think this is absolute. Is that so hard to believe to be true? And letting someone to persist in their own self-deception is a form of hate.

I never made the claim that 'there is nothing wrong with the way I am.' This is a blatent false accusation.

Well, what’s your problem then? Jesus Christ is Truth, and self is the real enemy of man. Have fun.

Not a foolish statement at all. The problem is you claim to know the what the absolute truth is, "which is an illusion of grandiose proportions” I do not make such a claim.

No, because I do not make a statement of absolute truth from the human perspective as you do.

I know Jesus Christ is Truth itself, He died so we may have the part of God that He reached out to the world to save us with, Himself, Being itself, and this is the only absolute truth I know for sure. And you cannot say this to be true or false unless you first believe it for yourself to see if it is true.

No you don’t, you just use self-refuting lines that contradict you (yourself) over and over again. This should be a sign to you that; there is something wrong with what you believe, aka. It is not true.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny you cannot be that closed minded that you have convince yourself of this argument, in one breath you say that you believe that the truth is absolute and in the other you say that there are 1000s of truths, what is it? And because someone believes something, that does not make it true and if you know the difference and don’t tell them, is this considered kindness? NO. A hurt feeling is better than what could result from believing something that is not true.

First, I have never said that there are thousands of truths. Please cite me properly before we go one. Yes, just because someone, you or I believe something is true does not make it true. Your humility is only superseded by the opinion that what you believe is the only truth.

Remember now Shuny, you’re the one who says that there are 1000s of truths, then accusing someone else who believes something different from what you do of “an illusion of grandiose proportions” is self-refuting and the height of hypocrisy, there is no way of getting around this if we use your own words.

Please cite me where I said there is a thousand truths. Please cite me properly and let's go on.

I think you are equivocating “absolute” truth with “all” truth, I don’t think any of us mean we know all truth but I do claim that I do know that Christ is Truth itself, and I think this is absolute. Is that so hard to believe to be true? And letting someone to persist in their own self-deception is a form of hate.

I never said nor intimidated any such thing, please cite me properly. It is a dangerous toy to toose around a word like 'Hate' so frivolously, It does not speak well of your ethics and morals.

Well, what’s your problem then? Jesus Christ is Truth, and self is the real enemy of man. Have fun.



I know Jesus Christ is Truth itself, He died so we may have the part of God that He reached out to the world to save us with, Himself, Being itself, and this is the only absolute truth I know for sure. And you cannot say this to be true or false unless you first believe it for yourself to see if it is true.

No you don’t, you just use self-refuting lines that contradict you (yourself) over and over again. This should be a sign to you that; there is something wrong with what you believe, aka. It is not true.

Please cite me properly and than we may be able to continue the discussion.

[pancreasman]

It is kind of funny to watch and read this 'you're an idiot and a liar and I know better than you' style of apologetics.

[shunyadragon]

It is kind of funny to watch and read this 'you're an idiot and a liar and I know better than you' style of apologetics.

. . . and the King was given new clothes!

[pancreasman]

. . . and the King was given new clothes!

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean nor how to respond.

[JimL]

I agree, but it doesn't make it wrong either.

Good, so you admit that you do not know, that it is possible that what you believe is false?

Scripture directs this towards unbelief in God, primarily. Though many topics can touch on the subject. And again, my presupposition is that the Bible is inspired and therefore accurately depicts the nature and motives of man.

Well again, your presupposition has nothing to do with the laws of logic. You believe that the Bible is inspired by God because the Bible tells you it is inspired by God.

Hey if you rather worship Krishna feel free. But you will only find misery and death in the end. Jesus on the other hand returned from the grave to vouchsafe His claims and teachings. So what do you have to lose James? A chapter a day, a two minute prayer per day? Be honest with God - tell Him you're not even sure if He exists, but if He does to make Himself known to you.

I'm sorry seer, whatever the end brings the end brings, but I don't believe in evil Gods who say that unless you with your imperfect knowledge, unless you believe in my existence, then I will cause eternal harm to you. To me that is a silly thing to believe, and a silly God to pray to.

[seer]

Good, so you admit that you do not know, that it is possible that what you believe is false?

Didn't I already say that?

Well again, your presupposition has nothing to do with the laws of logic. You believe that the Bible is inspired by God because the Bible tells you it is inspired by God.

What do you believe James that is based on the laws of logic? Remember you can not demonstrate deductively that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. We all use circular logic to justify our assumptions. Second, since I believe that a rational God created this universe I have a solid source for the laws of logic and an intelligible cosmos and human rationality. What source do you have for these Jim?

I'm sorry seer, whatever the end brings the end brings, but I don't believe in evil Gods who say that unless you with your imperfect knowledge, unless you believe in my existence, then I will cause eternal harm to you. To me that is a silly thing to believe, and a silly God to pray to.

Your will be done, just remember James, many of us have a deep affection for you and long to see you in eternity...

For you brother....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JUwZ...eature=related

[seer]

There are several problems with the Lewis approach (It's worth noting I'm a great admirer of Lewis and read everything he wrote before, during and after I was a Christian). The first is the assumption that Jesus actually said what is claimed. After all, the direct divinity claims of Jesus come almost exclusively from one Gospel. I think it is reasonable to ask whether its possible that these sayings really represent what Jesus may have said.

Why was Jesus put to death in the Synoptic Gospels? Second, the early letters of Paul also point to His divinity.

Secondly, let's assume Jesus did make divinity claims. We have to remember the social and cultural environment he was in. As an apocalyptic prophet, one could imagine it possible that Jesus may have made strong statements of his identification of God. From my point of view, this would make him mistaken in his metaphysics rather than deliberately lying or crazy. He could have sincerely believed what he thought about himself and simply have been wrong.

Silly, if a man really believed that he was God and wasn't - he is crazy. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

[ST Mannew]

So basically here you are agreeing that rationality cannot lead one to correct positions, one needs the magic pixie dust of divine tinkering in your head to see the TRUTH. Why bother then with argument? Why bother with this site? Why bother using rationality to support your view?

Do you actually think about what you write before you type it? The truth makes one rational; and saying something is rational without the benefit of that something being true is the definition of irrational. Your problem is not “magic pixie dust” in your eyes, but it is what happens when one tries to look into the light of truth from a dark room, the truth that would make you rational now blinds you and makes you irrational. Your enemy is not us, your enemy comes from within, you think you are arguing with us but you are actually arguing with yourself and trying to justify to yourself the things that you think you can believe. That’s the nature of untruths believed, they are vacuous in nature ever sucking for affirmation from others because they contain no substantial form in which would make them real. Pancreasman I am not arguing with you, I am arguing with and against the lies you believe, on your behalf, and trying to show you that when something in you as been exposed, meaning that it has been shown to you that it is no longer true, then you are under no obligation to believe it any longer. Your enemy is your own pride; it is called “self”, when you would stop and think about self, it is irrational in itself, because self as no reason to be proud.

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean nor how to respond.

Hans Christian Anderson story The Kings' New Clothes