Wednesday, January 08, 2020

What makes an act good or evil? Right or wrong?

Meta Ethical theory


Image result for Dorothy Emmet.
Dorothy Emmet. 1904-2000
Meta ethics is the term used to discuss what makes something good or bad, right or wrong.It's the superstructure of ethical theory.The problem is both sides (let's say religious s Secular) are screwed up in their muddled misconceptions about what morality is and how God affects it. In a latter post I'll give my attempt to unscrew the muddle. but for now i'm just going to talk about why both sides are screwed up. Hint: it is not so simple as "God says it so do it."

The Evangelical problem.

Before I go into this I want to point out that I studied with two fine ethicists in gradate school. One of them world famous (Dr. Frederick S. Carney Southern Methodist University Perkins School of Theology) and not as famous but an excellent prof, (Victor Worsfold of UTD ). The former was Christian the latter was not.They both thought I was a good student of ethics. I have tried to be very through in my understanding of the subject. My views on this come from a thinker who was one of the most intellectual Evangelicals ever; ironically she was a woman; Dorothy EmmetNot a fundie but Evangelical and highly respected by all camps. If you can you should find her book The Moral Prism,[1] eye opening weather you are a Christian or an atheist.

I point this out because it will schock some Christians to hear that her finding was that morality is retaliative and contestable.Yes, she is saying is a Christian not an atheist not as some secular person this is her Christian analysis of the field of morality as a whole. Moral axioms have to be grounded in values.Values are arbitrary meaning there is no "objective" sense in which it can be proven one should hold one value or another. All the talk that goes on about "objective morality" is just wrong headed. Absolute values also is a misnomer and a problem.

Morality is not objective and its' not "absolute." What it is in place of this is either grounded or not grounded. It should be grounded because otherwise it's meaningless. The problem is in what do you ground it? There is no verse in the Bible that says morality is absolute or objective. In fact the terms "objective" and "subjective" never appear in the bible. That's because they only arise out of Kantian perspective where the mind is made the object around which the sense data orbits rather then another part of the sense data itself.

The whole subject/object dichotomy only arises with Descartes to Kant. The human mind is made the subject and sense data orbit around that subject, Prior to this view we have historical Christianity. One example of historical Christianity:  Augustinian ethics.We love the eternal we use the temporal. The eternal nature of certain values grounds them in reality in way that other values are not grounded. Love for example is an eternal value. Eternal values are those that are based upon God's charter, the basis of which is love.

Just being long lasting (eternal) one might think is an advantage because it will last longer, but the real reason why it's a grounding is because it's based upon God and who and what God is.Temporal values are less grounded and not enduring because they are grounded in relative things that vanish and have no permanence and no importance beyond matters of taste. This means people are eternal because we are souls, we have eternal life. So this means each and every person is an end in himself, we are not means to ends. We have treat each person equally with dignity and love and seek the good of that person as an end in himself not a means to archive our own ends.


Now you might think that's why we talk about objective and relative, or universe and relative. I admit "universal" is a good term for moral values more so than "objective." The fact is this is not just about relative vs. absolute. The problems with terms like objective and absolute is that they are not based upon the divine character, they are not based upon Biblical values or eternal values.

(1) There is no objectivity apart from God. There are only degrees of subjectivity. so there's no point in trying to force objectivity as a phony value. God can be objective because he can understand every perspective.

(2) these things belie the nature of contextualization that is crucial to understanding. In other words, there's no flexibility. Because meaning arises from context, you can't ignore context and just demand a universal standard that can never be understood in any other light. That's what Emmit was getting at.


The true nature of morality is based upon either deontology (duty and obligation, sometimes expressed as :"rule keeping") or teleology based upon the end or the goal. This is what will determine what's true or good or right vs false, evil, or wrong. Not objectivity not absolutes, but duty and obligation vs goals or the end result.



The Atheist Problem of Morlatiy
Atheist morality is bankrupt. This is because they have no grounding, or they seek to deny the necessity of grounding. All atheist morality boils down to matter of taste. then to cover up the weakness of having no grounding they pretend that it's not important you don't need it it's all just my little feelings and what I feel like now is what makes something good.

there are three basic sources of atheist grounding, all inadequate:


(1) teleological


(2) personal feelings

(3) community or social contract.



*When I as in graduate school this what they were saying:teleological ethics has been totally discredited in meta ethical circles. no one really claims to be a utilitarian or consequential anymore. That a 20 years ago so it may have changed, One difference since I was in graduate school is the rise of moral realism.


* No grounding in personal feelings at all. Your feelings can be selfish they can change and how do you deal with the feelings of others?


* relative to the community. what if your community is Nazi?


this is sort of what I was trying to get at when I was talking about overlapping communities. Because there is a way to build a consensus among communities and make assumptions about values and their grounding that would stack up to a universal morality without appealing to religion: except for the fact that with most communities the values are embedded in religious past.

You can't take religion out of the mix. It's inherent and normative. In other words. the value we hold we hold because they came to us from religious traditions and that's why they are special and why they are wroth using to ground axioms. So you have to include that in the mix, although it is possible to construct a serviceable morality that can guide a secular society without imposing religion, but you can't ignore it as though its not a source of knowledge to draw upon for the values.

Both sides contribute big problems:



(1) The theistic, or especially Abrahamic religions: rigidity and lack the flexibility to understand contexts and situations.


(2) Atheist: destroy the basis for grounding all morality in anything stable in an attempt to deny the need for stability in axioms.

This last assertion I argue only in terms of those who try to down play or deny the need for grounding of axioms. That process,the process of down playing, merely says "we don't need moral thinking."

Now an atheist might argue as did "Asimov" on CARM:

Social contract is grounded upon the recognizance of the fact that a society is a population of individual moral agents striving for survival at the basic level and the flourishing of life at the higher level.

A social contract applies to all citizens equally, and define the right to action of all citizens, equally. A Nazi social contract wouldn't be reasonable or equal, so your point is moot.


Social contract is the only true basis for a moral compact, that is rules to run a society by. But it doesn't tell us why something something is good or evil, right or wrong. It's not adequate grounding. Granted its' better than divine right of Kings, which it emerged in the enlightenment to opposes, it's better than brute force or mob rule but it's not adequate.


[1] Dorothy Emmet.Moral Prism: Morality as Contestable, London:

 Macmillan 1979, no page


Springer link offers a summary of the book:

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-349-81421-3


buy my book The Traced of God


Image result for Victor Worsfold proof of ethics UT Dallas

Victor Wrosfold d 2013

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joe: Social contract is the only true basis for a moral compact, that is rules to run a society by. But it doesn't tell us why something something is good or evil, right or wrong. It's not adequate grounding.

Ah, yes, the usual "God did it", or in this case "God says it". No need to say why murder is bad, just declare that God said it is evil, and that way you do not need to actually think.

Even better, when God says slavery is okay, just ignore it if you disagree!

See, these claims about the superiority of Christian morality would sound less hollow if Christian morality was (1) clearly good and (2) universal to all Christians.

Christians disputing issues like homosexuality and abortion tell me that they do not have a hot line to God; they are just offering their opinion, the same as the rest of us. The only difference is that they then mine the Bible to support their opinions, and then declare those opinions to be facts.

Anyone can claim there is a grounding to their morality. Until you can prove a direct link from that grounding to a moral claim, then it is meaningless. It does not matter if God is real if you cannot show conclusively that he is good AND that his opinion is the same as your own. Neither of those are true.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Anominus


Joe: Social contract is the only true basis for a moral compact, that is rules to run a society by. But it doesn't tell us why something something is good or evil, right or wrong. It's not adequate grounding.

Ah, yes, the usual "God did it", or in this case "God says it". No need to say why murder is bad, just declare that God said it is evil, and that way you do not need to actually think.

that trite little question begging bull shit wont work here.Up have failed to provide rounding. So appeal to God is all we have.

Even better, when God says slavery is okay, just ignore it if you disagree!


that's just poisoning the well. First of all I never anything about God approving slavery, I don't accept the passages in OT that seem to approve slavery. Sec only it;s totally irrelevant to that issue because unless you can provide grounding your axiom of anti slavery is just a matter of chaste. So third, you owe my system for making anti slavery a moral axiom. I can apply the grounding to male anti slavery a valid axiom.


See, these claims about the superiority of Christian morality would sound less hollow if Christian morality was (1) clearly good and (2) universal to all Christians.

too bad about those commie atheists murdering 100 million people


Christians disputing issues like homosexuality and abortion tell me that they do not have a hot line to God; they are just offering their opinion, the same as the rest of us. The only difference is that they then mine the Bible to support their opinions, and then declare those opinions to be facts.


I said I'm trying tom make a contribution to the world of thought by helping with moral philosophy, you are being anti intellectual by resisting attempts to make moral philosophy work.Check out the dialogue it said Christianity is a part of the mix not that it's going take over

Anyone can claim there is a grounding to their morality. Until you can prove a direct link from that grounding to a moral claim, then it is meaningless.

sure I can you can't, I've die proven all the choices atheists have,


It does not matter if God is real if you cannot show conclusively that he is good AND that his opinion is the same as your own. Neither of those are true.

God is synonymous with the Good, That's the only option left logically, all the non God options were disprove the dialogue. You have no choice but to accent that there is something that is good because you already evoked it as your value. Since God is the only choice standing then no chose but to think 'god is good.

we can also know God is good because he loves us, The mystical experience proves that. Don't be afraid to risk being loved

The Pixie said...

Joe: that trite little question begging bull shit wont work here.Up have failed to provide rounding. So appeal to God is all we have.

So you have nothing of substance? Oh well. Better luck next time.

Joe: that's just poisoning the well. First of all I never anything about God approving slavery, I don't accept the passages in OT that seem to approve slavery.

So there goes your grounding in God. You just pick and choose the morality you want, just the same as atheists. There is nothing special about your opinion any more than there is mine.

Joe: Sec only it;s totally irrelevant to that issue because unless you can provide grounding your axiom of anti slavery is just a matter of chaste.

Why is slavery wrong? Show how your view is grounded.

This is fundamental to your claims, it seems to me. You assert your morality is grounded. Show that with a real example.

Joe: too bad about those commie atheists murdering 100 million people

No one claims atheists all get their morality from a single source. Unlike Christians, who do claim to get their morality from God. If Christians are right, we would expect them to all agree on points of morality. That is clearly not true.

A few centuries ago, most Christians considered slavery was moral - and could point to the Bible to justify that view. Why should I think your opinion on slavery is any more "grounded" than theirs?

Joe: I said I'm trying tom make a contribution to the world of thought by helping with moral philosophy, you are being anti intellectual by resisting attempts to make moral philosophy work.Check out the dialogue it said Christianity is a part of the mix not that it's going take over

Doing it for noble reasons does not magically make it right. Grow up.

Joe: God is synonymous with the Good, That's the only option left logically, all the non God options were disprove the dialogue. You have no choice but to accent that there is something that is good because you already evoked it as your value. Since God is the only choice standing then no chose but to think 'god is good.

That is just plain nonsense. Of course I accept there is something that is good. It in no way implies God is perfectly good.

Here is an option: God lies, and pretends to be perfectly good when he is anything but. Prove it is not possible, not a logical option (see if you can do it without invoking God as the grounding of morality, as obviously that would be circular).

Joe: we can also know God is good because he loves us, The mystical experience proves that. Don't be afraid to risk being loved

Again, pure nonsense.

1. If God loved us, he would do more to stop suffering.

2. I love my kids, am I therefore "good" like God? Or does this reasoning only apply to God?

3. Are you really claiming that mystical experiences allow you to know God's nature with no chance of being confused, deluded or tricked? Suppose God was a liar, but wanted you to believe he was perfectly good, do you really think you would be able to expose that deceit during a mystical experience? How can you be sure?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: that trite little question begging bull shit wont work here.Up have failed to provide grounding. So appeal to God is all we have.

So you have nothing of substance? Oh well. Better luck next time.

I can ground my axioms and you can't.

Joe: that's just poisoning the well. First of all I never said anything about God approving slavery, I don't accept the passages in OT that seem to approve slavery.

So there goes your grounding in God. You just pick and choose the morality you want, just the same as atheists. There is nothing special about your opinion any more than there is mine.

again you are assuming fundamentalist notions of Inerency and I don't. If I don't accept the OT asimerrent why should I accept those passages?

Joe: Sec only it;s totally irrelevant to that issue because unless you can provide grounding your axiom of anti slavery is just a matter of chaste.

Why is slavery wrong? Show how your view is grounded.

This is fundamental to your claims, it seems to me. You assert your morality is grounded. Show that with a real example.

I knew didn't understand the notion of grounding. what i fundamental to my claim? The OT? why I don;t need the OT to ground moral axioms in God. I know why slavery is wrong because it's contrary to God's love. show me how it is wrong from your perspective? Since you have no grounding how do you imagine that anything is wrong?

Joe: too bad about those commie atheists murdering 100 million people

No one claims atheists all get their morality from a single source. Unlike Christians, who do claim to get their morality from God. If Christians are right, we would expect them to all agree on points of morality. That is clearly not true.

I didn't say I get morality from a source other than God,I didn't even say I don't find the OT to be source of a valid revelation. You are saying that Christians have to see everything alike but atheists can be diverse and that is illogical.

you also doing guilt by association.


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

A few centuries ago, most Christians considered slavery was moral - and could point to the Bible to justify that view. Why should I think your opinion on slavery is any more "grounded" than theirs?

No you have no evidence that it was most. The abolition movement was big and lots of Christians opposed slavery, The major leaders of abolition were Christian, Wilberforce in England. They used the Bible to justify abolition. The civil rights movement was led by Christians too.

Joe: I said I'm trying tom make a contribution to the world of thought by helping with moral philosophy, you are being anti intellectual by resisting attempts to make moral philosophy work.Check out the dialogue it said Christianity is a part of the mix not that it's going take over

Doing it for noble reasons does not magically make it right. Grow up.

You are just interpreted like the moral precepts are with you even though you have no moral philosophy to underpin it.In the next generation its going to flip because you have nothing to hold it down,

Joe: God is synonymous with the Good, That's the only option left logically, all the non God options were disproved in the dialogue. You have no choice but to accent that there is something that is good because you already evoked it as your value. Since God is the only choice standing then no chose but to think 'god is good.

That is just plain nonsense. Of course I accept there is something that is good. It in no way implies God is perfectly good.

try to think logically now since you can't ground your axioms you can't justify your values. I can ground my axioms, that means I have a rationally justifiable reason to believe in God, but you are unable to rationally justify your moral choices other than personal feeling. Yet you would condemn personal feeling for belief in God.


Here is an option: God lies, and pretends to be perfectly good when he is anything but. Prove it is not possible, not a logical option (see if you can do it without invoking God as the grounding of morality, as obviously that would be circular).

why should I accept something just you assert it? Ot
s your burden of proof. Besides God is synonymous with the Good, That's the only option left logically, all the non God options were disproved in the dialogue. You have no choice but to accept that there is something that is good because you already evoked it as your value. Since God is the only choice standing then no chose but to think 'god is good.




Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: we can also know God is good because he loves us, The mystical experience proves that. Don't be afraid to risk being loved

Again, pure nonsense.

the sense of the ingenious is the second major aspect of mystical experience , that is over whelming all pervasive presence all pervasive presence of love.It is empirically demonstrated to be universal to all cultures and all faiths through the 200+ studies peer reviewed academe journal armistices containing studies on mystical experience.




1. If God loved us, he would do more to stop suffering.

that assumes God is a big man in the sky. There's a lot more to it than that.


2. I love my kids, am I therefore "good" like God? Or does this reasoning only apply to God?

We are created by Trans personal God thus we have the fundamental ability to love it was put in us by the original source of love.

3. Are you really claiming that mystical experiences allow you to know God's nature with no chance of being confused, deluded or tricked?

Obviously I can be wrong about many things, I can no More be wrong about God's love than I could be wrong about my parent's love.I am sure most of my doctrines and pinons are just crude approximations of what's true with many misconceptions. God's love is too fundamental.

Suppose God was a liar, but wanted you to believe he was perfectly good, do you really think you would be able to expose that deceit during a mystical experience? How can you be sure?

We can rule out the notion of being evil logically. We don't need mystical experince for that but is icing on the cake,

3:55 AM Delete

7th Stooge said...

I find your terminology a little confusing. Instead of moral objectivity, I thought the term was moral objectivism. It doesn't claim absolute objectivity, which, as you point out, is impossible, but aims at objectivity as a norm or goal. It distinguishes itself from moral absolutism on the one hand, which is rigid and exceptionless, and moral relativism and moral subjectivity on the other hand, which claims that morality is just a matter of personal preference.

The closest parallel to it would be critical realism in the sciences which claims that there are probably mind-independent truths about the physical world and that the best working hypothesis of the sciences is to operate under this assumption, even though we will probably never reach a completely accurate picture of physical reality.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I find your terminology a little confusing. Instead of moral objectivity, I thought the term was moral objectivism. It doesn't claim absolute objectivity, which, as you point out, is impossible, but aims at objectivity as a norm or goal. It distinguishes itself from moral absolutism on the one hand, which is rigid and exceptionless, and moral relativism and moral subjectivity on the other hand, which claims that morality is just a matter of personal preference.


was I talking about a school of thought or an act or belief in an act

The closest parallel to it would be critical realism in the sciences which claims that there are probably mind-independent truths about the physical world and that the best working hypothesis of the sciences is to operate under this assumption, even though we will probably never reach a completely accurate picture of physical reality.

yes good point, interesting

7th Stooge said...

was I talking about a school of thought or an act or belief in an act

No, not in that case, and that was what was odd. You were laying out the major meta-ethical positions: teleological, deontological, and you did mention absolute and objective several times, so it was strange you didn't mention absolutism or objectivism, which are major meta-ethical positions and very different from each other.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

If you mean Rand's Collectivism I don't consider it a valid idea.

7th Stooge said...

No, it's not Rand's objectivism. It's the meta-ethical theory. I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Randroid :)

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I know you are not into Ayn Rand. I have have a high opinion of your views. Who is the major thinker or thinkers in that school the one you are talking about?

Cuttlebones said...

"ironically she was a woman"
What? I miss the irony.

Cuttlebones said...

we can also know God is good because he loves us, The mystical experience proves that.
I'm sorry but it doesn't. The mystical experience proves nothing. We may have the experience but We can't get beyond that.

Cuttlebones said...

How does God ground Moral Axioms? I'm still not understanding how one supports the other.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Cuttlebones said...
"ironically she was a woman"
What? I miss the irony.

7:12 PM

Probably any irony to be had

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Cuttlebones said...
How does God ground Moral Axioms? I'm still not understanding how one supports the other.

He's the original basis for morality, so anything opposed to his nature is immoral or is the basis for immoral

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

we can also know God is good because he loves us, The mystical experience proves that.
I'm sorry but it doesn't. The mystical experience proves nothing. We may have the experience but We can't get beyond that.

Assuming ME is insight not just misfire,then obliviously it does prove it. It shows the undifferentiated unity is all predicated upon God's love. That is the essence of the senes of the numinous. The sense that it takes so the world which is the nature of the experience is all ponying to that idea.I'm not impressed by cynical stupidity that denies the obvious good in things.

Cuttlebones said...

He's the original basis for morality, so anything opposed to his nature is immoral or is the basis for immoral

How do we ascertain what God's nature is? And how do we get from there to what morally aligns with that nature?
Is it as simple as saying God is Loving so morally we should be loving?

Cuttlebones said...

Assuming ME is insight not just misfire,then obliviously it does prove it. It shows the undifferentiated unity is all predicated upon God's love. That is the essence of the senes of the numinous. The sense that it takes so the world which is the nature of the experience is all ponying to that idea.I'm not impressed by cynical stupidity that denies the obvious good in things.

"Assuming".
I don't deny the good in things I'm just unwilling to make the leap to an unverifiable source.
I can accept that MEs may be the basis of our concept of God but they don't make that concept a reality.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Cuttlebones said...
He's the original basis for morality, so anything opposed to his nature is immoral or is the basis for immoral

How do we ascertain what God's nature is? And how do we get from there to what morally aligns with that nature?
Is it as simple as saying God is Loving so morally we should be loving?
6:20 PM

One very obvious way is by looking at Jesus and listening to his tracings. Then there's Biblical revelation and extra Biblical through prophets.


Cuttlebones said...
Assuming ME is insight not just misfire,then obliviously it does prove it. It shows the undifferentiated unity is all predicated upon God's love. That is the essence of the senes of the numinous. The sense that it takes so the world which is the nature of the experience is all ponying to that idea.I'm not impressed by cynical stupidity that denies the obvious good in things.

"Assuming".
I don't deny the good in things I'm just unwilling to make the leap to an unverifiable source.


that;s easy. no risk Also no gain, if you are brave you can dare to trust God then you get somewhere.,


I can accept that MEs may be the basis of our concept of God but they don't make that concept a reality.

Yes they do in pretty obvious ways. That's one of my major points those who have mystical experience score higher on self actualization scales than those who don't, there are real tamale multiple positive effects.

Cuttlebones said...

One very obvious way is by looking at Jesus and listening to his tracings. Then there's Biblical revelation and extra Biblical through prophets.
Not so obvious to non-Christians

You have to show that that has something to do with God. Otherwise you're grounding your morality in the Bible not God.

If I believe in God but not the Bible how do I go about it?


Yes they do in pretty obvious ways. That's one of my major points those who have mystical experience score higher on self actualization scales than those who don't, there are real tamale multiple positive effects.


Again you are making huge assumptions. Mystical experience could turn you into a genius and give you super powers too. That still wouldn't show that God is the source of these experiences.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe:One very obvious way is by looking at Jesus and listening to his tracings. Then there's Biblical revelation and extra Biblical through prophets.
Not so obvious to non-Christians

CB:You have to show that that has something to do with God. Otherwise you're grounding your morality in the Bible not God.

It's pretty obvious the Bible has something to do with God just read it.


CB:If I believe in God but not the Bible how do I go about it?


The Bible is essentially testimony. So yo can find testimony you do trust. Read books by people who have had experiences.Or talk to such people

[subject change]

Joe:Yes they do in pretty obvious ways. That's one of my major points those who have mystical experience score higher on self actualization scales than those who don't, there are real tamale multiple positive effects.

CB:Again you are making huge assumptions. Mystical experience could turn you into a genius and give you super powers too. That still wouldn't show that God is the source of these experiences.


You are the one who is making assumptions. You are not listening to what I said here' a word burn it into your brain: "Warrant!" not proof but warrant, belief is warranted. That means there's good reason to accept it. It's not proven, it's warranted.

Even if it is not proven it can still be warranted.

This is point that my arguments warrant Christian belief, The evidence for that is the data from the book. I've presented several resows as to why mystic experience warrants belief, you are not looking at those reasons read the article part 2

7th Stooge said...

"ironically she was a woman"

Who wrote that and in reference to what?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

U don't know, I wondered that too.

Cuttlebones said...


It's pretty obvious the Bible has something to do with God just read it.

I have and I'm not convinced. I see nothing in it to elevate it above any other supposed holy book

You are the one who is making assumptions. You are not listening to what I said here' a word burn it into your brain: "Warrant!" not proof but warrant, belief is warranted. That means there's good reason to accept it. It's not proven, it's warranted.

Even if it is not proven it can still be warranted.

This is point that my arguments warrant Christian belief, The evidence for that is the data from the book. I've presented several reasons as to why mystic experience warrants belief, you are not looking at those reasons read the article part 2


I see nothing that nudges the argument either way. I accept that it doesn't have to be proven to be warranted. I just don't see that belief in God is warranted.
To warrant Christian belief in particular would be a bigger step.


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe:It's pretty obvious the Bible has something to do with God just read it.

CB:I have and I'm not convinced. I see nothing in it to elevate it above any other supposed holy book

you said "something to do with: being about God is something to do with God.

Joe: You are the one who is making assumptions. You are not listening to what I said here' a word burn it into your brain: "Warrant!" not proof but warrant, belief is warranted. That means there's good reason to accept it. It's not proven, it's warranted.

Even if it is not proven it can still be warranted.

This is point that my arguments warrant Christian belief, The evidence for that is the data from the book. I've presented several reasons as to why mystic experience warrants belief, you are not looking at those reasons read the article part 2

CB:I see nothing that nudges the argument either way. I accept that it doesn't have to be proven to be warranted. I just don't see that belief in God is warranted.
To warrant Christian belief in particular would be a bigger step.

there are lots of Good arguments for that you haven;t hit the right discussion yet, I think to some extent it;s intuitive, you have to read it and see what those passages that really speak to you say

read the two volumes of evidence that demands a verdict, some of that is good, read the teachings of Jesus and consult some good commentates, you see the greatness of his teachings can't be fabricated by hoaxes.

the main thing is to let it speak to you for that you need to focus on Jesus.