How do we know that the Hebrew god Yahweh is the Creator of the Universe?



Any discussion with an orthodox/fundamentalist Christian about the validity of Christianity will at some point involve a review of the “overwhelming evidence” for the existence of a Creator God.  “Something cannot evolve from nothing”, conservative Christians are famous for saying.

However, this argument is only valid if one is debating someone who denies the existence of a Creator god—an atheist.  I, for example, have no problem with accepting the possibility that a supernatural being created the Universe.  So the fundamental issue upon which to begin a debate with an agnostic like myself is this:  

If there is a Creator, exactly who is he, or she, or it?  Can conservative Christians provide convincing evidence that the Creator of the Universe is the Hebrew god, Yahweh, who Christians believe is one and the same as their god—God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “How do we know that the Hebrew god Yahweh is the Creator of the Universe?

  1. Because I say it is true and in your own words morality is subjective so my morality says truth is defined by the bible and the bible says it is true and therefore it is true and your morality cannot trump my morality anymore than mine can trump yours and so you cannot say I am wrong since it is only in your own opinion I am wrong, it does not mean I am wrong in “actuality” because there is no “actuality” to be wrong in because everything is subjective. Your question was?

    Like

  2. I agree with you. Each person decides his or her own morality. And groups of individuals who choose to form a society together decide the morality (rules of behavior) for that society. If an individual or minority group of individuals within that society choose to follow more restrictive or more liberal rules of morality, that is their choice, as long as it is in the accepted range of behaviors allowed by the larger society.

    When Europeans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were killing each other all over the interpretation of an ancient middle-eastern holy book, by the standards of that society, it was moral to run a Catholic or a Lutheran or an Ana-Baptist through with the sword just due to what the man believed.

    And in the Old Testament era, middle eastern peoples regularly exterminated whole cities and peoples. In the morality of that time period, such behavior was moral.

    So I am not condemning these past behaviors as immoral by THEIR standards of morality. I am condemning them based on today's majority western civilization standard of morality, a morality that I share.

    There is no such thing as Objective Morality, even in fundamentalist Christianity. Morality (the rules of behavior continually change).

    Like

  3. Gary: I agree with you. Each person decides his or her own morality. And groups of individuals who choose to form a society together decide the morality (rules of behavior) for that society. If an individual or minority group of individuals within that society choose to follow more restrictive or more liberal rules of morality, that is their choice, as long as it is in the accepted range of behaviors allowed by the larger society.

    Me: So if Man Fransisco decides it is fine and moral to rape 8 year old boys you’d not judge them or their morality?

    Gary: When Europeans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were killing each other all over the interpretation of an ancient middle-eastern holy book, by the standards of that society, it was moral to run a Catholic or a Lutheran or an Ana-Baptist through with the sword just due to what the man believed.

    Me: No, it was not moral. Just because something is accepted in a society it does not make it moral. It is YOU Gary who must say what they did was moral because it is YOU Gary who says majority rules. I say it is NOT moral to do what they did no matter how many of them say it was.

    Gary: And in the Old Testament era, middle eastern peoples regularly exterminated whole cities and peoples. In the morality of that time period, such behavior was moral.

    Me: Well if it was moral then why all the hub-bub Gary? Your entire beef has been about how nasty, evil, mean and sadistic the OT God was. Now you say it was moral. Which is it Gary?

    Gary: So I am not condemning these past behaviors as immoral by THEIR standards of morality. I am condemning them based on today's majority western civilization standard of morality, a morality that I share.

    Me: So morality really does not exist then. Morality is not a floating boat on the river of rise & fall just outside the town of come and go. Gary I am so confused about what you are saying. You say the OT God is a wretch not worthy of praise or worship. Now you say you will not judge the actions of those who did what you claim God commanded them to do in the OT. This now begs the question, what problems do you have then with the OT God and the killing of the people you say He ordered killed? Your entire argument was built upon the wickedness of the OT God who you now say you cannot judge because it was moral back then but it’s not moral now. If you can say what He did was immoral back then then that means it is immoral now!

    Gary: There is no such thing as Objective Morality, even in fundamentalist Christianity. Morality (the rules of behavior continually change).

    Me: Nihilism Gary? Will you then agree that it is moral for a person to travel to Mexico to a certain town there and have sex with a 12 year old child? It is legal in that town to do it Gary, you tell me, is it moral or immoral to do it.

    Like

  4. Your argument using “Francisco” is a logical fallacy.

    slippery slope

    The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

    Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

    Like

  5. Gary: The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

    Me: It is a reality that in parts of Mexico it is perfectly legal to have sexual intercourse with a 12 year old if you are an adult. That is a reality Gary, it happened and it is not just “possible” it is a fact. My analogy stands and if you doubt the real risk of something like that ever happening here you need to catch up on the news.

    Gary: Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

    Me: That is a perfectly logic conclusion to draw from not having an absolute definition of what marriage is. If you o not define it strictly and clearly then it IS open to other definitions and to new terms. If it is legal to marry two men then you must provide a reason why it is not legal to marry three men. That is a slippery slope and it is absolutely with merit.

    Like

  6. Just because the majority in society change their position on a moral issue does not mean that I must change mine. I can continue to hold to my personal subjective morality. However I may be curtailed from acting on my personal morality by the enforcement of the moral boundaries of the majority in society in the form of a law.

    For instance, the day may come when the majority in our society outlaw the killing of animals and the eating of meat. I can continue to believe that it is ok to eat meat, but I will suffer consequences if a kill a deer to do so. To the other extreme, if the majority in society decide that every family must sacrifice one child to the god Orion, I will not adopt that morality.

    Morality is ultimately a PERSONAL subjective decision regarding appropriate and inappropriate behavior.

    Like

  7. You are not listening. I never said that the religious wars in the seventeenth century nor the behavior of the Israelites in Canaan were moral. They were both immoral in MY morality.

    Like

  8. But your morality should mean what to anyone other than you? Why should I give a rats behind about your morality and how can you pass any judgement on my morality if it differs from yours?

    Like

  9. Gary: Just because the majority in society change their position on a moral issue does not mean that I must change mine. I can continue to hold to my personal subjective morality. However I may be curtailed from acting on my personal morality by the enforcement of the moral boundaries of the majority in society in the form of a law.

    Me: You don't seem to realize you are confusing legality with morality. The mere fact something is legal or illegal does not mean it is also moral or immoral. All a society can do is declare something legal or illegal within their society, they cannot declare something moral or immoral. Morality stands all on it's own and the mere fact that morality has been written upon the heart of man as God said He did is a screaming testimony to His existence.

    Gary: For instance, the day may come when the majority in our society outlaw the killing of animals and the eating of meat. I can continue to believe that it is ok to eat meat, but I will suffer consequences if a kill a deer to do so. To the other extreme, if the majority in society decide that every family must sacrifice one child to the god Orion, I will not adopt that morality.

    Me: Gary Gary Gary… Legality is not morality. If they declare it is illegal to kill a deer that does nothing to the morality of killing a deer.

    Gary: Morality is ultimately a PERSONAL subjective decision regarding appropriate and inappropriate behavior.

    Me: Morality is not subjective, the fact that you are debating what is right and wrong and good or bad shows that you know what is right and wrong, good and bad INSTINCTIVELY because morality was placed within you by God just as He said He would:

    Hebrews 10:16 – This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

    It is when you go against what you know is moral when your conscience speaks to you. To have NO morals you must have NO conscience and that is over a period of debasement and ignoring what you know to be right and wrong. You know it is wrong to have sex with a 12 year old, you just need a way to justify explaining why you hold that it is wrong without giving in to the moral laws God has placed with us.

    Like

  10. You shouldn't care unless you are a politician. I vote, and the majority of people in my city, state, and country hold similar moral values and voting habits as I do.

    Like

  11. Gary: You shouldn't care unless you are a politician. I vote, and the majority of people in my city, state, and country hold similar moral values and voting habits as I do.

    Me: California right?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s