Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The existence or non-existence of a god/the gods
-
09-05-2010 6:14pm#1I don't find his treatment of the latter to be convincing, but he gives a very good defence of atheism. By that, I mean he does a very good job of explaining why atheism is a valid and consistent world-view that can be adopted with intellectual integrity if someone is not convinced by the historical or personal evidence for Christianity (or any religion).
Dare I ask, what is so robust about Dawkins' defence of atheism 1) that doesn't involve the attack of Christianity, or 2) in general?0
Comments
-
-
-
That doesn't seem robust to me though. It's about as robust as saying that there is no evidence to assure that existence is nothing more than mere perception (esse et percipi - essence is perception), or that everything we know around us are just mere immaterial ideas. (The philosophy of George Berkeley). One cannot demonstrably prove that they are material but through experiencing the world we soon realise that it is more pragmatic (and more realistic) to accept the existence of material things.
Merely mentioning perceived flaws in others argument does not bolster ones own. If one attempts to discredit Christianity, this doesn't open the door exclusively to atheism. Infact it could very well open the door to Judaism, Islam, and other such faiths. In all actuality, Islamic apologists (including some that I have spoken to) use the same tactics as many atheists do in Biblical criticism.
It intrigues me, because I have yet to hear an answer, that goes beyond what King Mob has just put forward. An answer that goes further, is what could make this discussion more interesting for both parties.
I have also disputed on numerous occasions on this forum in the past, that there is no such evidence.0 -
So basically you're side stepping the question with special pleading?That doesn't seem robust to me though. It's about as robust as saying that there is no evidence to assure that existence is nothing more than mere perception (esse et percipi - essence is perception), or that everything we know around us are just mere immaterial ideas. (The philosophy of George Berkeley). One cannot demonstrably prove that they are material but through experiencing the world we soon realise that it is more pragmatic (and more realistic) to accept the existence of material things.
Can you show scientific and verifiable evidence for the existance of God, yes or no?
But this isn't an argument against specifics of Christianity it's an argument against all supernatural ideas.Merely mentioning perceived flaws in others argument does not bolster ones own. If one attempts to discredit Christianity, this doesn't open the door exclusively to atheism. Infact it could very well open the door to Judaism, Islam, and other such faiths. In all actuality, Islamic apologists (including some that I have spoken to) use the same tactics as many atheists do in Biblical criticism.
An answer to your question or to mine?It intrigues me, because I have yet to hear an answer, that goes beyond what King Mob has just put forward. An answer that goes further, is what could make this discussion more interesting for both parties.
And have any of these resulted in you presenting actual scientific and verifiable evidence?I have also disputed on numerous occasions on this forum in the past, that there is no such evidence.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say no...
And if this is the case, why can't you?0 -
So basically you're side stepping the question with special pleading?
I asked you what is so robust about his defence, and I was merely arguing that such an answer isn't actually that robust. That position could apply to numerous other examples (the one I gave being about the existence of material things in George Berkeley's philosophy) which wouldn't be quite as logical at least in how they apply tangibly as one makes out.
It doesn't help me much to understand, why the argument is good. Rather it just serves to rehash an opinion. That's great, but it doesn't really answer my question.
A valid objection to your epistemology isn't sidestepping in the slightest. Rather, it is demonstrating this for what it is, a two sided debate. Not a one party interrogation.Can you show scientific and verifiable evidence for the existance of God, yes or no?
Is all evidence scientific? For example, can one indicate that something may well be true, by any other means? (I'm referring to indicatory evidence rather than proof, as indeed you know, I don't believe there is absolute proof in either way in this). Indicatory evidence = What suggests that God may exist, or what suggests that God may not exist. That's the only level we can get to in this debate.
If you want absolute 100% proof. Neither of us can provide it.But this isn't an argument against specifics of Christianity it's an argument against all supernatural ideas.
Dawkins' book doesn't do this, in the same way as Hitchens' does. Dawkins' book only serves at most as an attack on Abrahamic ideas.An answer to your question or to mine?
The one I asked you. In a tangible way, which doesn't just result in saying that "it reinforces what I think, ergo it is true".And have any of these resulted in you presenting actual scientific and verifiable evidence?
I'm going to hazard a guess and say no...
And if this is the case, why can't you?
I've explained that the nature of evidence doesn't exclusively pertain to proof. This is something that a lot of people don't seem to grasp.0 -
Advertisement
-
Eagleton is one of the most pathetic wafflers I have ever had the misfortune to read, a mealy-mouthed intellectually dishonest apologetic of monstrous proportions, a prolific strawmanner one of who's favourite tactics is ad-homs amidst all the verbal diarrahoea - imho :pac:
When push comes to shove he's got nothing, he merely builds towers of words, special pleading and baseless assertions with no solid evidential foundations, the same as all the rest. PZ Myer's courtiers reply best describes the likes of him and his so-called arguments. Just don't waste your time like I wasted mine, I nearly had to scrub for hours I felt so unclean after reading his garbage. Now, shall I tell you how I really feel ?0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Compare:MackDeToaster wrote: »Eagleton is one of the most pathetic wafflers I have ever had the misfortune to read, a mealy-mouthed intellectually dishonest apologetic of monstrous proportions, a prolific strawmanner one of who's favourite tactics is ad-homs amidst all the verbal diarrahoea - imho :pac:
When push comes to shove he's got nothing, he merely builds towers of words, special pleading and baseless assertions with no solid evidential foundations, the same as all the rest. PZ Myer's courtiers reply best describes the likes of him and his so-called arguments. Just don't waste your time like I wasted mine, I nearly had to scrub for hours I felt so unclean after reading his garbage. Now, shall I tell you how I really feel ?
with...Professor John Sitter, Chairman of the English Department at the University of Notre Dame and Editor of The Cambridge Companion to Eighteenth Century Poetry, describes Eagleton as "someone widely regarded as the most influential contemporary literary critic and theorist in the English-speaking world"
One is word-salad. The other is something of substance. Guess which is which.0 -
-
Except it doesn't work like that does it?I asked you what is so robust about his defence, and I was merely arguing that such an answer isn't actually that robust. That position could apply to numerous other examples (the one I gave being about the existence of material things in George Berkeley's philosophy) which wouldn't be quite as logical at least in how they apply tangibly as one makes out.
It doesn't help me much to understand, why the argument is good. Rather it just serves to rehash an opinion. That's great, but it doesn't really answer my question.
You can use your exact argument for anything's existence.
Well we can't prove anything exists therefore Thor/unicorn/russel's teapot
Does.
That arguement doesn't hold water for one.
For two, I imagine you'd look for scientific evidence before believing other non-metaphysical thing as well, right?
Why is God different?
And for three, using the idea that we look for verifiable scientific evidence has work pretty well so far, what with all the modern medicine and stuff.
Not a single other form of enquiry has ever been able to provide insight into the truth.
No, just the evidence that excludes cheating, psychological effects and other phenomenon that could falsify such evidence.Is all evidence scientific?
Again can you provide a better form of evidence?
That's exactly what I'm asking for.For example, can one indicate that something may well be true, by any other means? (I'm referring to indicatory evidence rather than proof, as indeed you know, I don't believe there is absolute proof in either way in this). Indicatory evidence = What suggests that God may exist, or what suggests that God may not exist. That's the only level we can get to in this debate.
Do you have any yes or no?
I'm not asking for it. I never ask for it. I never claimed to have it.If you want absolute 100% proof. Neither of us can provide it.
So this argument I'm putting forward never came up in his books?Dawkins' book doesn't do this, in the same way as Hitchens' does. Dawkins' book only serves at most as an attack on Abrahamic ideas.
Answered above.The one I asked you. In a tangible way, which doesn't just result in saying that "it reinforces what I think, ergo it is true".
But I've yet to hear an answer for it that wasn't special pleading or claiming science doesn't work.
I know as much, that's why I specifically asked for evidence not proof.I've explained that the nature of evidence doesn't exclusively pertain to proof. This is something that a lot of people don't seem to grasp.
Have you ever wondered why you have to dance around the subject like this?0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Relevance to topic?
You presumably reject both of those belief systems. Yet your understanding of them both is presumably less than Dawkins understanding of theology.
Still don't see the relevance?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Relevance to topic?
So no then?
Why do you guys not just give yes or no answers?
How can you criticise (more precisely support a criticism of) Dawkins for rejecting the concept of the Christian god with reading a lot of theology, when you've done the exact same thing?0 -
King Mob: It's clear that you've totally ignored the point I was making concerning George Berkeleys philosophy.
George Berkeley holds in his idea of "subjective idealism", that nothing can be demonstrated to be material. Infact all that can be known about the existence of things is that they are perceived through sense perceptions.
If this is true, what possibly could convince someone in such a position that things are material, if one cannot be assured that such ideas exist outside of the mind?
There is nothing that can 100% prove to Berkeley that things, exist external to the mind, as one cannot break themselves from what they perceive. Therefore it is reasonable for Berkeley to deny that material things exist?
Its pretty much using the same reasoning as you do concerning God.
I'm questioning your epistemology. That's what we are dealing with rather than its conclusions. Therefore my question is still entirely valid.
I can't absolutely prove that things are material, but pragmatically it seems more reasonable that things are material, therefore I conclude that things are really material. Likewise, I can't absolutely prove the existence of God, yet from what is indicated from cosmology, archaeology, history, personal experience, the authenticity of the Biblical canon, and philosophy, it seems more likely to me that God actually exists rather than just being akin to a fairy tale.
It is your choice, as to whether or not you wish to entertain this discussion about how your epistemology and thought processes concerning atheism actually work, but lets not pretend that it has anything to do with shifting the burden of proof (that is if one subscribes to Bertrand Russell's philosophy on this. Personally I find it lazy. Indeed, I won't ever be compelled to hold his philosophy either). I won't be goaded into making this into a one sided interrogation. I'm still wondering about why Dawkins is apparently so convincing.
As for indicatory evidence, it is something that I have been through numerous times in the past on these fora. I've listed a few areas which I think give particular credence to God's existence. The last times I brought up such areas, I received a rather unwarranted and aggressive response from posters on this forum.
The answer to the question remains ambiguous, particularly when you are just saying that because Dawkins thinks that there is no evidence for God that it is good. That to me doesn't seem particularly robust given what argument theists have brought to the table over the last few centuries. To me it seems like petty unwarranted triumphalism to argue that much.
The door is wide open on the God debate. More open than ever perhaps, which explains why there seems to be a polarisation in most societies on the God question itself.0 -
-
It really really isn't.King Mob: It's clear that you've totally ignored the point I was making concerning George Berkeleys philosophy.
George Berkeley holds in his idea of "subjective idealism", that nothing can be demonstrated to be material. Infact all that can be known about the existence of things is that they are perceived through sense perceptions.
If this is true, what possibly could convince someone in such a position that things are material, if one cannot be assured that such ideas exist outside of the mind?
There is nothing that can 100% prove to Berkeley that things, exist external to the mind, as one cannot break themselves from what they perceive. Therefore it is reasonable for Berkeley to deny that material things exist?
Its pretty much using the same reasoning as you do concerning God.
It can be shown to him to physically laws exist and are both predictable and mathematical derivable.
He can independently arrive that the same laws and quantities other independent observers can.
He can both exclude trickery and psychological effects from these results and can confirm that the other observers experiments are also so controlled.
It can be shown to him that things are likely (as is scientific version of the word) to exist.
This is how science works.
Not really, because it's not how I'm reasoning it out and it's not what I'm arguing.I'm questioning your epistemology. That's what we are dealing with rather than its conclusions. Therefore my question is still entirely valid.
I am not now asking or ever have asked for proof, only evidence.
So then you can provide evidence for phenomena that indicate the existence of god that cannot be explained by anything else?I can't absolutely prove that things are material, but pragmatically it seems more reasonable that things are material, therefore I conclude that things are really material. Likewise, I can't absolutely prove the existence of God, yet from what is indicated from cosmology, archaeology, history, personal experience, the authenticity of the Biblical canon, and philosophy, it seems more likely to me that God actually exists rather than just being akin to a fairy tale.
I think we can both agree that you have the burden of proof. If not I'd love to see the reason.It is your choice, as to whether or not you wish to entertain this discussion about how your epistemology and thought processes concerning atheism actually work, but lets not pretend that it has anything to do with shifting the burden of proof (that is if one subscribes to Bertrand Russell's philosophy on this. Personally I find it lazy. Indeed, I won't ever be compelled to hold his philosophy either). I won't be goaded into making this into a one sided interrogation.
Because there is no scientific or verifiable evidence for the existance of god, and the only apparent answer that theists can give is special pleading.I'm still wondering about why Dawkins is apparently so convincing.
So why not post the absolute best of it then?As for indicatory evidence, it is something that I have been through numerous times in the past on these fora. I've listed a few areas which I think give particular credence to God's existence. The last times I brought up such areas, I received a rather unwarranted and aggressive response from posters on this forum.
One piece of evidence that you consider the strongest. (particularly if it's from cosmology )
Cause that's kinda what I've been asking for, not special pleading and other such nonsense.
Again, it's not because Dawkins says so it's because there isn't.The answer to the question remains ambiguous, particularly when you are just saying that because Dawkins thinks that there is no evidence for God that it is good. That to me doesn't seem particularly robust given what argument theists have brought to the table over the last few centuries. To me it seems like petty unwarranted triumphalism to argue that much.
You were faced with this very point and instead of actually just providing said evidence you go off on a tangent involving how you have to exclude god from science and trying to pretend I'm asking for 100% proof.
Why is that? What does that tell you?
Except you seem pretty convinced...The door is wide open on the God debate. More open than ever perhaps, which explains why there seems to be a polarisation in most societies on the God question itself.0 -
This post has been deleted.
Would that reason extend to dawkins series of books? Or is it just reserved for pro-christian authors?This post has been deleted.
Such as genetics and faith? Sounds much the same as a certain geneticist that can see through the emperors clothes of theistic "arguments" and write in such a way that makes universally popular literature to me...This post has been deleted.
I think he's a blustery, old fashioned academic whose self importance and embittered frustration, at both others arguments and their success, is in danger of defining him...but I'm not literary genius nor professor of theology so my opinion counts for diddly squat.
This post has been deleted.
What issues? The man makes statements such as;
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnQ4.t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=sloginI don’t actually read other peoples’ books. If I want to read a book, I write one myself. I have written more than 40 books.
as he takes a pop at dawkins as unqualified to touch theology. It's laughable. Repeatedly accusing dawkins of gratuitous insult while indulging in schoolboy tactics and ad hominems. To be honest, at this stage I think he's just riding on dawkins atheistic coat-tails in the desperate attempt to get dragged into relevance by association.
He's clearly no atheist, he has long history with the RCC and religious papers and publications but he's smart enough to know the Zietgeist is moving towards non-religion. I think he's jumped on the bandwagon and decided to create himself a successful niche as christian poster boy against dawkins under the guise of "atheist" to make him seem less dated and more rational. He's certainly no better than the worst critique he offers.
The inimitable PZ Myers saying it better than I ever could, here.. :cool:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_eagleton_delusion.php0 -
It really really isn't.
It can be shown to him to physically laws exist and are both predictable and mathematical derivable.
He can independently arrive that the same laws and quantities other independent observers can.
He can both exclude trickery and psychological effects from these results and can confirm that the other observers experiments are also so controlled.
He will never perceive anything external to his own mind however. He can be told and demonstrated about why these things must of necessity exist. However, he is being told in the sense that he can perceive the noise of speech, and he is being demonstrated through the means of sound, and sight and perhaps touch. However, there is no assurance that he can ever be 100% convinced that these things exist apart from in the visual and sensory perceptions.
It could be possible that something else is producing these sensations in his mind.
Indeed, if I am to bring René Descartes to the table as he is a first class expert on trickery and deception, he would say that the senses are prone to deceiving us, as in the First Meditation. Isn't it possible that we are all deceived in thinking that external things must of necessity exist? How do we know that your claims are any less prone to deception than mine?
This is reasoning that is unverifiable, if we understand that the senses are prone to deception, and that we can never know anything other than what we perceive. I.E - We have no clear way of knowing that the objects that we perceive exist in any meaningful way external to our mind, if we are to hold that the material is something to be demonstrated.
Likewise with experimentation, the results can only be witnessed and perceived as ideas, there can never be full assurance that they are actually external.
Now, thankfully I do not hold to this reasoning on a day to day basis, because it is hardly pragmatic. However, it would be snubbing off my point not to consider it fully.It can be shown to him that things are likely (as is scientific version of the word) to exist.
This is how science works.
Read above about what I have said about senses, and sense perception as a means of showing data, and how that could possibly be argued against.Not really, because it's not how I'm reasoning it out and it's not what I'm arguing.
I am not now asking or ever have asked for proof, only evidence.
These are the 9 areas I find to be convincing in my personal faith:1) Historical figures in the Bible
2) Biblical archaeology
3) Arguments from Creation
4) Arguments from Experience (by far the most convincing)
5) Argument from the existence of Moral Absolutes
6) Argument from Biblical Prophesy
7) Argument from Textual Authenticity of the Bible
8) Argument from the Resurrection, and the Apostles
9) The sense of the Gospel on human nature
To not take the argument from Terry Eagleton, perhaps taking these up via PM or on the Christianity forum might be best. This was originally posted on the Bible, Creationism and Prophesy thread.So then you can provide evidence for phenomena that indicate the existence of god that cannot be explained by anything else?
That is up to you to decide. I find numerous areas convincing as I've just linked to above.I think we can both agree that you have the burden of proof. If not I'd love to see the reason.
Again, I'm not obliged to adhere to Russell's philosophy. Both Christianity and your form of atheism deviate from the most neutral position, agnosticism, which suggests that there may be a God or there may not be a God. My position goes further in saying that there is a God, or at least that it is most likely that there is one. Your position goes further in saying that there is no God, or at least that it is most likely that there isn't one.
Indeed, its a shame that people get into a situation whereby lousy reasoning is deemed to be acceptable in respect to whether or not it is most likely that God doesn't exist. Indeed, it is a shame in the respect that many other philosophers have been able to do this in the past in the Philosophy of Religion.
I'd love for people to give good reasons why they don't believe that God exists, but unfortunately much of the time they hide behind Russell's teapot and take the lazy way out.Because there is no scientific or verifiable evidence for the existance of god, and the only apparent answer that theists can give is special pleading.
There is no verifiable evidence of material things, if all that I am able to witness is sense perception, indeed sense perception that may well be inaccurate. The only apparent answer that materialists can give is special pleading.
Such responses are a mere coddery and don't bring us any further in the argument we are making.
Again pseudo-triumphalism.So why not post the absolute best of it then?
One piece of evidence that you consider the strongest.
I've been through this argument with a lot of other atheist posters in the past on this forum. I will proceed with such a discussion, only on the assurance that I will for the first time on boards.ie be able to get a decent full answer from atheists about the merits of their position. I.E - Why it is more reasonable that God doesn't exist than not, in the same way I have given attention as to why God exists rather than not.Cause that's kinda what I've been asking for, not special pleading and other such nonsense.
I'll deal with your posts as I see fit. Particularly when the subject area is one we have been through extensively in the past.Again, it's not because Dawkins says so it's because there isn't.
You were faced with this very point and instead of actually just providing said evidence you go off on a tangent involving how you have to exclude god from science and trying to pretend I'm asking for 100% proof.
Why is that? What does that tell you?
I'm not pretending anything. Rather I am clarifying what you mean by evidence before we begin. Most atheists on this forum in the past seem to obfuscate the concept of proof with evidence. We need to do some presuppositional work before we get into a discussion to make sure that we are mildly on the same radar.
If you wish to say that this is pretence, that is more a reflection on your honesty than mine.Except you seem pretty convinced...
I seem convinced, because of my experience with faith since I decided to believe for myself. (I'm in my fourth year since I made this decision now)
EDIT: I did some more fishing for you. Here is a previous post I made on my reasons for believing. Although, it is probably due a rehash by now.0 -
The most neutral position is complete ignorance of religion and so atheistic, it's not a neutral position to be drip fed faith over a life time and then adhere to that position or consider that position a possibility...0
-
It's more neutral to be entirely agnostic, than to lean towards the point of view that God does not exist, or indeed that it isn't likely that God exists. I'd view this to be the equivalent of saying that God does exist, or indeed that it is likely that God exists.0
-
I just don't understand how having to develop a faith in some degree could ever be considered holding a neutral view other than in some desperate attempt to have faith viewed as the rational centre.
I'm atheist towards god as I am towards unicorns and the loch ness monster, of course they may exist and some people certainly believe they do and are convinced they have seen them, but the complete lack of supporting "evidence" - evidence as I know it - is not enough to convince me...that's the view I have always held, it hasn't changed, I remain in the same position as the one in which I was born. :cool:0 -
Advertisement
-
My personal view on why I reject these:
1) Historical figures in the Bible (I do not consider the Bible to be reliable)
2) Biblical archaeology (Practically non-existent. Not a shard of pottery found in the Sinai)
3) Arguments from Creation (Not required/passes the buck)
4) Arguments from Experience (by far the most convincing) (subjective/not useful to me)
5) Argument from the existence of Moral Absolutes (no such thing/from a "universe" point of view, nothing is right or wrong)
6) Argument from Biblical Prophesy (nostradamus/interpretation of vague statements)
7) Argument from Textual Authenticity of the Bible (i do not trust books written by the victors/before the printing press
8) Argument from the Resurrection, and the Apostles (David Koresh and his followers)
9) The sense of the Gospel on human nature (the sense on human nature, on the gospel... plus the gay-bashing...)0 -
-
It's more neutral to be entirely agnostic, than to lean towards the point of view that God does not exist, or indeed that it isn't likely that God exists. I'd view this to be the equivalent of saying that God does exist, or indeed that it is likely that God exists.
Agnosticism is a lot more nuanced than people realise, and a simple Wikipedia page would cure this "lack of knowledge".0 -
It's more neutral to be entirely agnostic, than to lean towards the point of view that God does not exist, or indeed that it isn't likely that God exists. I'd view this to be the equivalent of saying that God does exist, or indeed that it is likely that God exists.
It's not likely I have a million Euro in my bank account, It's not likely I have a million Euro in my bank account, It's not likely I have a million Euro in my bank account...
*crosses fingers*0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »My personal view on why I reject these:
1) Historical figures in the Bible (I do not consider the Bible to be reliable)
2) Biblical archaeology (Practically non-existent. Not a shard of pottery found in the Sinai)
3) Arguments from Creation (Not required/passes the buck)
4) Arguments from Experience (by far the most convincing) (subjective/not useful to me)
5) Argument from the existence of Moral Absolutes (no such thing/from a "universe" point of view, nothing is right or wrong)
6) Argument from Biblical Prophesy (nostradamus/interpretation of vague statements)
7) Argument from Textual Authenticity of the Bible (i do not trust books written by the victors/before the printing press
8) Argument from the Resurrection, and the Apostles (David Koresh and his followers)
9) The sense of the Gospel on human nature (the sense on human nature, on the gospel... plus the gay-bashing...)
Luckily, on all counts you are strawmanning what I am actually arguing.
By 1, I mean historical verification of the existence of Biblical figures.
By 2, I mean the huge wealth of Biblical sites that have been found in the region of Israel and Jordan, hardly non-existent. They have recently re-discovered much of 1st century Nazareth, a town which skeptics used to argue didn't exist at that time. The archaeological record that is unfolding is testing peoples previous doubts about the veracity of the Scriptures.
By 3, I mean the infeasibility of an uncaused universe, both from the perspective of philosophy and what we know from cosmology.
By 4, I mean that experience is a pivotal aspect of ones faith, and perhaps the single strongest component of it.
By 5, I mean that people operate on the basis of universal moral principles. Irrespective of whether one argues that there is no right and wrong, they pretty much depend on it for moral disputes they or others find themselves in.
By 6, I mean the explicit mention of Gospel events, and the description of patterns in the Old Testament pertaining to the life of Jesus.
By 7, I mean that there is manuscript evidence to show that the Bible since the first century is largely unchanged. Bruce Metzger in his Biblical scholarship confirms that 99.6% of the New Testament has remained the same since the 1st century. Likewise, the Jewish Scriptures and their authenticity was tested with the Isaiah scroll at Qumran in 1948 matching the previous. I.E - The Bible is reliably dated to when its respective books were written.
By 8, I am referring to the motivations of the disciples following Christ's death.
By 9, I am arguing about the Biblical notion of how humanity has fallen, and how we are fallible beings, amongst other things that it has to offer concerning the nature of humanity. This represents the world, from my perspective perfectly.
Feel free to use them to whatever ends you wish. It might be best if the mods created a separate thread concerning the reasons why people believe or don't believe (Both being of equal emphasis) to keep people talking about Terry Eagleton.
sonicthebadger* - Flawed example. One cannot really compare the unverifiable (God's existence currently) to the verifiable (your bank balance)0 -
But all this information is consistant, or at least appears to be.He will never perceive anything external to his own mind however. He can be told and demonstrated about why these things must of necessity exist. However, he is being told in the sense that he can perceive the noise of speech, and he is being demonstrated through the means of sound, and sight and perhaps touch. However, there is no assurance that he can ever be 100% convinced that these things exist apart from in the visual and sensory perceptions.
He can observe and measure things, be they real or illusion and verify that they are predictable and consistent.
He might not be able to tell if it's an illusion or not but he can show and verify that certain facts and phenomena (ie things fall at 9.8 m/s^2, hydrogen has a neutral charge) an so on.
Yes, as long as it's maintaining an illusion of an observable and consistent universe.It could be possible that something else is producing these sensations in his mind.
So you say all this but later say your personal experiences are a large part of you reasoning....?Indeed, if I am to bring René Descartes to the table as he is a first class expert on trickery and deception, he would say that the senses are prone to deceiving us, as in the First Meditation. Isn't it possible that we are all deceived in thinking that external things must of necessity exist? How do we know that your claims are any less prone to deception than mine?
This is reasoning that is unverifiable, if we understand that the senses are prone to deception, and that we can never know anything other than what we perceive. I.E - We have no clear way of knowing that the objects that we perceive exist in any meaningful way external to our mind, if we are to hold that the material is something to be demonstrated.
Likewise with experimentation, the results can only be witnessed and perceived as ideas, there can never be full assurance that they are actually external.
Have you actually applied it to your own reasoning? Or just to the atheists? How does you reasoning stand up to this?Now, thankfully I do not hold to this reasoning on a day to day basis, because it is hardly pragmatic. However, it would be snubbing off my point not to consider it fully.
I believe that rationalism stands up against this, due to the simple fact things are both observable and consistent.
This means that stuff must follow some rules, regardless of their reality.
And you realise that science specially takes the fallibility of human senses out of the equation right?Read above about what I have said about senses, and sense perception as a means of showing data, and how that could possibly be argued against.
But your belief as you state later does not.These are the 9 areas I find to be convincing in my personal faith:
1) Historical figures in the Bible
Not sure how this is evidence for God.
2) Biblical archaeology
Same here. Unless you where talking about evidence of his miracles...
3) Arguments from Creation
Yea.....
4) Arguments from Experience (by far the most convincing)
Not verifiable by definition.
5) Argument from the existence of Moral Absolutes
Subjective only, assumes the existance of a God/absolutes. Not verifiable.
6) Argument from Biblical Prophesy
Really?
7) Argument from Textual Authenticity of the Bible
That they are old? or that the miracles that happen in them are real?
8) Argument from the Resurrection, and the Apostles
Unverifiable. I would love to see evidence if you think otherwise.
9) The sense of the Gospel on human nature
Subjective only, not verifiable.
I asked for you absolute best. and seeing as we have to eliminate all the subjective things and unverifiable things, it should be narrowed down enough.That is up to you to decide. I find numerous areas convincing as I've just linked to above.
No actually mine is the neutral position.Again, I'm not obliged to adhere to Russell's philosophy. Both Christianity and your form of atheism deviate from the most neutral position, agnosticism, which suggests that there may be a God or there may not be a God. My position goes further in saying that there is a God, or at least that it is most likely that there is one. Your position goes further in saying that there is no God, or at least that it is most likely that there isn't one.
You're claiming there is evidence for God, you have to back it up.
I did. I have never seen any verifiable evidence for God, where trickery and delusion have been excluded.I'd love for people to give good reasons why they don't believe that God exists, but unfortunately much of the time they hide behind Russell's teapot and take the lazy way out.
The only arguments I've ever heard against it are really easily debunked "miracles" and special pleading.
Neither are convincing.
So how do you explain the consistency of the universe?There is no verifiable evidence of material things, if all that I am able to witness is sense perception, indeed sense perception that may well be inaccurate. The only apparent answer that materialists can give is special pleading.
Why does it appear that the universe isn't subjective?
Is there some guy making you think that?
If so what exactly is the difference between that and the universe just being objective?
Again because there is no scientific verifiable evidence for the existence of god.I've been through this argument with a lot of other atheist posters in the past on this forum. I will proceed with such a discussion, only on the assurance that I will for the first time on boards.ie be able to get a decent full answer from atheists about the merits of their position. I.E - Why it is more reasonable that God doesn't exist than not, in the same way I have given attention as to why God exists rather than not.
There's not much more to it than that.
Ok then informal fallacies are fair game to use?I'll deal with your posts as I see fit. Particularly when the subject area is one we have been through extensively in the past.
I never once asked for proof and clarified in my second post I specifically was not looking for it.I'm not pretending anything. Rather I am clarifying what you mean by evidence before we begin. Most atheists on this forum in the past seem to obfuscate the concept of proof with evidence. We need to do some presuppositional work before we get into a discussion to make sure that we are mildly on the same radar.
If you wish to say that this is pretence, that is more a reflection on your honesty than mine.
Yet you still tried to avoid giving evidence by saying you can't give 100% proof.
Out of curiosity is there any evidence or reasoning that could ever convince you?I seem convinced, because of my experience with faith since I decided to believe for myself. (I'm in my fourth year since I made this decision now)0 -
Luckily, on all counts you are strawmanning what I am actually arguing.
By 1, I mean historical verification of the existence of Biblical figures.
By 2, I mean the huge wealth of Biblical sites that have been found in the region of Israel and Jordan, hardly non-existent.
By 3, I mean the infeasibility of an uncaused universe, both from the perspective of philosophy and what we know from cosmology.
By 4, I mean that experience is a pivotal aspect of ones faith, and perhaps the single strongest component of it.
By 5, I mean that people operate on the basis of universal moral principles. Irrespective of whether one argues that there is no right and wrong, they pretty much depend on it for moral disputes they or others find themselves in.
By 6, I mean the explicit mention of Gospel events, and the description of patterns in the Old Testament pertaining to the life of Jesus.
By 7, I mean that there is manuscript evidence to show that the Bible since the first century is largely unchanged. Bruce Metzger in his Biblical scholarship confirms that 99.6% of the New Testament has remained the same since the 1st century. Likewise, the Jewish Scriptures and their authenticity was tested with the Isaiah scroll at Qumran in 1948 matching the previous. I.E - The Bible is reliably dated to when its respective books were written.
By 8, I am referring to the motivations of the disciples following Christ's death.
By 9, I am arguing about the Biblical notion of how humanity has fallen, and how we are fallible beings, amongst other things that it has to offer concerning the nature of humanity. This represents the world, from my perspective perfectly.
Feel free to use them to whatever ends you wish. It might be best if the mods created a separate thread concerning the reasons why people believe or don't believe (Both being of equal emphasis) to keep people talking about Terry Eagleton.
Read the list, and I must say that my assertions are more galvanised than ever.
Cheers.0 -
I asked you to clarify some of these in my post above, and misunderstood a few, stretch what i said up there and replace with the following.
And unless they can be shown to have preformed miracles, they are not evidence of God.By 1, I mean historical verification of the existence of Biblical figures.
And? Spider-man is set in NewYork, New York exists therefore Spider-man.By 2, I mean the huge wealth of Biblical sites that have been found in the region of Israel and Jordan, hardly non-existent. They have recently re-discovered much of 1st century Nazareth, a town which skeptics used to argue didn't exist at that time. The archaeological record that is unfolding is testing peoples previous doubts about the veracity of the Scriptures.
What about events in the bible that would have definitely left easily spotted evidence, but didn't?
Noah's Ark, Jews in Egypt etc.
That's a whole nother thread....By 3, I mean the infeasibility of an uncaused universe, both from the perspective of philosophy and what we know from cosmology.
And is totally unverifable and ultimately indistinguishable from delusion or fakery.By 4, I mean that experience is a pivotal aspect of ones faith, and perhaps the single strongest component of it.
Not quite true, and still not verifable evidence of either god or absolute morals.By 5, I mean that people operate on the basis of universal moral principles. Irrespective of whether one argues that there is no right and wrong, they pretty much depend on it for moral disputes they or others find themselves in.
And Star Wars: Episode 3 had explicit mention of events in the original trilogy...By 6, I mean the explicit mention of Gospel events, and the description of patterns in the Old Testament pertaining to the life of Jesus.
Again how is this evidence for God?By 7, I mean that there is manuscript evidence to show that the Bible since the first century is largely unchanged. Bruce Metzger in his Biblical scholarship confirms that 99.6% of the New Testament has remained the same since the 1st century. Likewise, the Jewish Scriptures and their authenticity was tested with the Isaiah scroll at Qumran in 1948 matching the previous. I.E - The Bible is reliably dated to when its respective books were written.
Again how is this evidence for God?By 8, I am referring to the motivations of the disciples following Christ's death.
Not verifiable, not scientific.By 9, I am arguing about the Biblical notion of how humanity has fallen, and how we are fallible beings, amongst other things that it has to offer concerning the nature of humanity. This represents the world, from my perspective perfectly.0 -
This is verging on dishonesty.I never once asked for proof and clarified in my second post I specifically was not looking for it.
Yet you still tried to avoid giving evidence by saying you can't give 100% proof.
Out of curiosity is there any evidence or reasoning that could ever convince you?
I wanted to find out your concept of evidence. That's why I brought up questions concerning proof. It wasn't to "avoid" giving my reasoning on anything.
Its your decision if you want to skew the reality on this one, but it really isn't helpful to constructive dialogue.
In terms of evidence. I find it interesting, that you refer to evidence as being of necessity "scientific". I asked if its being scientific was of necessity you this earlier and you responded in the negative. To me, all fields of learning including history, philosophy, and other such areas are to be considered. Science doesn't get a pedestal, but it is certainly a field of learning that is worthwhile.
Secondly, I'd prefer it if you didn't address my posts as if I owed you anything. I certainly don't any more than you do in respect to me. I respect your objections to my views, and indeed they are natural, but if it is just a matter of a one way Q&A session. I'm not that interested. I come and post here, because I am interested in why you are where you are at as well as why I am where I am at.
I'm certainly intrigued at how you can view your position as neutral, given that you're very much in opposition at least in terms of reasoning to the position of Christianity. This doesn't seem very "neutral" to me.0 -
Advertisement
-
sonicthebadger* - Flawed example. One cannot really compare the unverifiable (God's existence currently) to the verifiable (your bank balance)
I was specifically referring to what you said, so yes... very flawed indeed, lack of belief due to lack of knowledge does not existance imply.0 -
sonicthebadger* wrote: »I was specifically referring to what you said, so yes... very flawed indeed, lack of belief due to lack of knowledge does not existance imply.
When did I say this?0 -
I said:This is verging on dishonesty.
I wanted to find out your concept of evidence. That's why I brought up questions concerning proof. It wasn't to "avoid" giving my reasoning on anything.
Its your decision if you want to skew the reality on this one, but it really isn't helpful to constructive dialogue.
You then continue to explain how you can't prove anything.
I'm not asking for it. I never ask for it. I never claimed to have it.originally Posted by Jakkass View Post
If you want absolute 100% proof. Neither of us can provide it.
I don't honestly know how I could have been clearer than that.
Again I defined very early on what I meant by scientific evidence.In terms of evidence. I find it interesting, that you refer to evidence as being of necessity "scientific". I asked if its being scientific was of necessity you this earlier and you responded in the negative. To me, all fields of learning including history, philosophy, and other such areas are to be considered. Science doesn't get a pedestal, but it is certainly a field of learning that is worthwhile.No, just the evidence that excludes cheating, psychological effects and other phenomenon that could falsify such evidence.
Well all I've asked the question "Do you have scientific verifiable evidence for God".Secondly, I'd prefer it if you didn't address my posts as if I owed you anything. I certainly don't any more than you do in respect to me. I respect your objections to my views, and indeed they are natural, but if it is just a matter of a one way Q&A session. I'm not that interested. I come and post here, because I am interested in why you are where you are at as well as why I am where I am at.
You don't seem to keen on answering that question in a straight forward manner.
All you've posted so far is waffle and special pleading, simple as.
If you do have such evidence post it.
If not at least admit it.
Because the null hypothesis is the default position when there is no evidence for something.I'm certainly intrigued at how you can view your position as neutral, given that you're very much in opposition at least in terms of reasoning to the position of Christianity. This doesn't seem very "neutral" to me.
You seem to have ignored my other question there....0 -
You're moving the goalposts. Do you want evidence in general or just scientific evidence? That's the simple question. I can take you up on discussing the indicatory evidence I have put across on boards in the past perhaps on another thread. However, I won't be limiting it to any one field or form of argumentation.
If I am to do this, I would also like you to present your case for why you do not find it likely that God exists.
That's a real discussion. Not a one sided Q&A session, which as I've already said I'm not interested in.0 -
I've been very clear on what I asked for.You're moving the goalposts. Do you want evidence in general or just scientific evidence? That's the simple question. I can take you up on discussing the indicatory evidence I have put across on boards in the past perhaps on another thread. However, I won't be limiting it to any one field or form of argumentation.
If I am to do this, I would also like you to present your case for why you do not find it likely that God exists.
That's a real discussion. Not a one sided Q&A session, which as I've already said I'm not interested in.
I asked for verifiable evidence where the possibility of cheating, psychological effects or other phenomena that might invalidate it have all been excluded.
AKA, verifiable scientific evidence.
I honestly don't know how much clearer I can be on that.
Also I have already explained the main reason for my position (several times now.) There is no verifiable scientific evidence for the existence of a supernatural God.
Again I don't think I can be clearer...0 -
So, you have 1 reason and 1 reason only for why God seems unlikely to exist? - There is absolutely nothing else, apart from this that would imply that God couldn't exist?
Genuinely curious here.
You asked earlier if there was anything that would convince me that God doesn't exist. To be honest with you, it would have to be fairly rigorous given what I've been through in the last few years. However, if one could make a solid case as to why the Resurrection did not happen, it would undermine the central position in Christianity:1 Corinthians 15:14 wrote:And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
Back to the question of evidence - what would be indicatory evidence of Christianity isn't exclusively scientific. There is a philosophical case that involves cosmology to a certain degree that it is incredibly unlikely that this universe can exist without a cause. Indeed, it would be illogical for me to hold that position. How may I ask can you?
I'm going to make clear, that this isn't going to be just a case of Q&A, I'm going to ask you questions about how you came to your current conclusions as well. Discussion, not interrogation is what I am looking for (Unfortunately much argument in this forum tends to be interrogation, which is again, not what I am looking for at all).0 -
Advertisement
-
Poor Jesus. Provided all his wisdom and teachings, etc. Went to such lengths to show people how to be good to each other. And the tipping point in the faith of his followers is some party trick he pulled off when he made his exit.
That must be so frustrating.0 -
No I clearly said: the Main reason.So, you have 1 reason and 1 reason only for why God seems unlikely to exist? - There is absolutely nothing else, apart from this that would imply that God couldn't exist?
Genuinely curious here.
There are other ones, but they really are irrelevant compared to this one.
Well what form would this evidence or reasoning take?You asked earlier if there was anything that would convince me that God doesn't exist. To be honest with you, it would have to be fairly rigorous given what I've been through in the last few years.
Simple, there is no verifiable evidence that such an event ever happened.However, if one could make a solid case as to why the Resurrection did not happen, it would undermine the central position in Christianity:
Why do you think it did?
So why not provide the scientific stuff?Back to the question of evidence - what would be indicatory evidence of Christianity isn't exclusively scientific.
Simple, follow this reasoning, what caused God?There is a philosophical case that involves cosmology to a certain degree that it is incredibly unlikely that this universe can exist without a cause.
Indeed, it would be illogical for me to hold that position. How may I ask can you?
Never mind.
I'll let Carl explain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34-1W_9BhoU0 -
Simple, follow this reasoning, what caused God?
Never mind.
I'll let Carl explain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34-1W_9BhoU
Philosophers have contested this claim as well:
Particularly figures such as Avicenna, and Aquinas, more recently James Sadowsky.
Firstly, lets start with James Sadowsky - A chain of events has to come to termination, if it doesn't it would still be ongoing. If there was no terminating cause, we would have to assume that Y caused Z and X caused Y and so on back to infinity. It brings us no closer to solving the actual question. Creation would never have happened if there was an unterminating series of causes, rather there would be an infinite amount of time before it ever could begin.
A sequence of events cannot have an infinite amount of causes, as it has to take place within a finite timespan.
That's one perspective. My paraphrasing might be slightly off, but if you want to find a full version of this, "The Philosophy of Religion: A guide and anthology" by Brian Davies should be in most university libraries, and indeed it is available online.
The older perspective from Aquinas, and Avicenna:There are two types of existence:
1) Contingent existence - Can either exist, or not exist, and it's existence is dependant upon some necessary being.
2) Necessary existence - Has to exist, and is the underlying reason as to why all things exist.
This argument distinguishes God's existence which is eternal, from finite existence such as that of the universe which is around 13.7 billion years old. Therefore the universe couldn't have caused itself, or brought itself into its own creation, as it has only been here for a certain period of time.
The finite age of the world, demands a necessary cause as Aquinas discussed in the First and Second Ways. As God has existed eternally, it is at the very least a sound possibility for how the universe came into being.
Such a distinction also refutes the infinite regress argument, which in itself is nonsensical. As if the chain of causation went back to the beginning, the chain of causation would have never been fulfilled. However, since the earth exists, and since we exist, the causation involved in Creation, must already be completed. It makes no logical sense in terms of time, that it would be any other way. This makes Aquinas' insistence on an Unmoved Mover, or First Cause much more reasonable than the infinite regress argument. Then again, nobody postulates the infinite regress argument as a real possibility.
The infinite regress problem isn't as "unsolvable" as people tend to make out.
The question of what caused God is irrelevant, precisely because Christianity doesn't even claim that God required a cause. God is a necessary being, not a contingent being, in that He isn't claimed by Christians to have an explicitly defined finite age. The earth (4.3bn) , and the universe (13.7bn) do. That's why such reasoning is valid.0 -
Philosophers have contested this claim as well:
Particularly figures such as Avicenna, and Aquinas, more recently James Sadowsky.
Firstly, lets start with James Sadowsky - A chain of events has to come to termination, if it doesn't it would still be ongoing. If there was no terminating cause, we would have to assume that Y caused Z and X caused Y and so on back to infinity. It brings us no closer to solving the actual question. Creation would never have happened if there was an unterminating series of causes, rather there would be an infinite amount of time before it ever could begin.
A sequence of events cannot have an infinite amount of causes, as it has to take place within a finite timespan.
That's one perspective. My paraphrasing might be slightly off, but if you want to find a full version of this, "The Philosophy of Religion: A guide and anthology" by Brian Davies should be in most university libraries, and indeed it is available online.
The older perspective from Aquinas, and Avicenna:
The infinite regress problem isn't as "unsolvable" as people tend to make out.
And yep you seem to have total misunderstood entirely.
The idea he was putting forward is that the God concept doesn't explain anything.
Him causing the universe is dependant on the insistence that everything must have a cause.
So for God to exist he must either have a cause, or must have always existed.
The always existing thing means he violates the premiss he exists to explain.
If he had a cause it means that cause must have a cause and so on.
None of what you posted makes a lick of sense or explains anything.
So seeing as you don;'t subscribe to the whole "everything must have a cause" stuff ,why couldn't the universe have always existed in some form? Perhaps going through cycles of bangs and crunches?The question of what caused God is irrelevant, precisely because Christianity doesn't even claim that God required a cause. God is a necessary being, not a contingent being, in that He isn't claimed by Christians to have an explicitly defined finite age. The earth (4.3bn) , and the universe (13.7bn) do. That's why such reasoning is valid.
Remember it's only been 13 bn years since the Big Bang, the universe could have existed in many forms before then.
And more importantly, why isn't the answer to this question in the bible?
And any luck on finding the evidence I keep asking for?0 -
I'm merely explaining how your question "what caused God?" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I've given you the reasons that make it apparent to me that God exists rather than not. I also said, that I won't be engaging in a Q&A session, but rather we can work through each point at a time. This would involve me asking you how you came to your conclusions as well as how I came to mine. If you are going to engage in a "give me what I want" discussion. I'm not interested. You can have that out with someone else.
The point of providing the contingent and necessary beings was to make clear, that there is no sense at all in claiming that something with a finite age could have possibly resulted in its own causation. It is about as reasonable, and indeed more reasonable from my perspective that an intelligent being created this universe and the laws of physics, biology chemistry, and the circumstances by which life could be sustained in the universe than it occurring spontaneously of its own accord.
It is down to the precision of these processes that you and I are here having this discussion with one another, and it is of course the reason that humanity in its entirety exists.
It is the gross improbability of this having taken place by mere chance that causes me to think that it is more likely that these processes were guided by a Creator, rather than mere nothingness.
Can you explain to me how you think it is reasonable that the universe, if we are to agree that it is dated to 13.7bn years ago, could have possibly caused itself given its finite age? - It is a huge issue I have with a view of the universe that rejects a consideration of God.0 -
Advertisement
-
The question of what caused God is irrelevant, precisely because Christianity doesn't even claim that God required a cause. God is a necessary being, not a contingent being, in that He isn't claimed by Christians to have an explicitly defined finite age. The earth (4.3bn) , and the universe (13.7bn) do. That's why such reasoning is valid.
I literally just giggle when I hear this tripe these days. Far more enjoyable than the incandescent rage invoked by the sensation "People are being wrong on the internet!"
Like really; "God is a necessary being, not a contingent being", bwahaha.Can you explain to me how you think it is reasonable that the universe, if we are to agree that it is dated to 13.7bn years ago, could have possibly caused itself given its finite age? - It is a huge issue I have with a view of the universe that rejects a consideration of God.
There are an infinity of potential answers to this extraordinarily difficult question and anyone who committs to one of those answers is almost certainly a deluded fool. How's that?0 -
Again it's only been a finite time since the big bang.The point of providing the contingent and necessary beings was to make clear, that there is no sense at all in claiming that something with a finite age could have possibly resulted in its own causation.
The universe could have existed in any number of forms before this.
Ranging from, not at all existing and springing from quantum foam, a succession of big bangs and crunches or just existing as the singularity in a timeless state.
And how exactly did he do that?It is about as reasonable, and indeed more reasonable from my perspective that an intelligent being created this universe and the laws of physics, biology chemistry, and the circumstances by which life could be sustained in the universe than it occurring spontaneously of its own accord.
Magic?
Why if he did do all this was none of it in the bible?
Why is the bible story so different to what actually happened?
So which bit exactly requires a creator and would be impossible for it to arise naturally?It is down to the precision of these processes that you and I are here having this discussion with one another, and it is of course the reason that humanity in its entirety exists.
It is the gross improbability of this having taken place by mere chance that causes me to think that it is more likely that these processes were guided by a Creator, rather than mere nothingness.
And how exactly are you judging improbability?
Seems more like opinion than anything else.
Because physics is weird.Can you explain to me how you think it is reasonable that the universe, if we are to agree that it is dated to 13.7bn years ago, could have possibly caused itself given its finite age?
This was just a random idea I threw out.
I also provide more supported ideas as well.
And why are you so opposed to providing the evidence I asked for in my original posts and you claimed to have?
Can you actually provide scientific verifiable evidence of the existence of god or would you prefer to stick to tired old arguments from incredulity?0 -
sonicthebadger* wrote: »I was specifically referring to what you said, so yes... very flawed indeed, lack of belief due to lack of knowledge does not existance imply.When did I say this?
HereIt's more neutral to be entirely agnostic, than to lean towards the point of view that God does not exist, or indeed that it isn't likely that God exists. I'd view this to be the equivalent of saying that God does exist, or indeed that it is likely that God exists.0 -
To be honest with you, it would have to be fairly rigorous given what I've been through in the last few years. However, if one could make a solid case as to why the Resurrection did not happen, it would undermine the central position in Christianity:
No it wouldn't, and you know it. The whole Jesus story makes just as much sense if he died and went straight back to heaven (having died for our sins etc.). The resurrection and walking around with holes in his hands for a few days is a nice touch, a bit of drama to end the story with, but a story about God making a human version of himself to be killed so that people who haven't been born yet can be saved makes just as much sense ending without the resurrection as with it.0 -
No it wouldn't, and you know it. The whole Jesus story makes just as much sense if he died and went straight back to heaven (having died for our sins etc.). The resurrection and walking around with holes in his hands for a few days is a nice touch, a bit of drama to end the story with, but a story about God making a human version of himself to be killed so that people who haven't been born yet can be saved makes just as much sense ending without the resurrection as with it.
I haven't heard a decent account of early church history that makes sense without considering the Resurrection. That's perhaps my biggest gripe with rejecting it. Its fine to regard the events themselves as dubious, but it is especially difficult to account for the motivation of the disciples to tell a message, with no personal gain, to the point of death if it had never taken place. It might be enough for 1 person to go to this fate, but for the 11, and the others who had believed at Jerusalem to go into this fate as well, is starting to look unlikely without something major having happened.
A post I wrote over a year ago on this subject:2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.0 -
Try reading Chapter 15 et seq from Gibbon's Decline and Fall which discusses the history of the early church in straightforward terms:I haven't heard a decent account of early church history that makes sense without considering the Resurrection.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_gibbon_1_15_1.htm0 -
Arguments from incredulity.I haven't heard a decent account of early church history that makes sense without considering the Resurrection. That's perhaps my biggest gripe with rejecting it. Its fine to regard the events themselves as dubious, but it is especially difficult to account for the motivation of the disciples to tell a message, with no personal gain, to the point of death if it had never taken place. It might be enough for 1 person to go to this fate, but for the 11, and the others who had believed at Jerusalem to go into this fate as well, is starting to look unlikely without something major having happened.
A post I wrote over a year ago on this subject:
Just because you can't imagine another reason why they go around preaching doesn't mean no one else can.
1) they were genuinely fooled by either a very good huckster or by stories of a huckster.
2) their stories became exaggerated if they even happened at all.
Both of these scenarios are possible and have happened before in other places, also they explain it all without the need for a supernatural event.
Now can you provide any clear verifiable evidence that could exclude these possibilities?
And seriously is this the best evidence you have for the resurrection?
This is exactly why I am unconvinced that there is a God.
I ask for clear verifiable evidence that trickery, delusion and other factors have been excluded from. And for some reason you cannot provide that.
Why is that?0 -
The early history of the mormons is littered with corpses, both their own, those of their enemies as well as that of their founder.it is especially difficult to account for the motivation of the disciples to tell a message, with no personal gain, to the point of death if it had never taken place.
With this logic, you have just proved the Church of the Latter Day Saints is true.0 -
The early history of the mormons is littered with corpses, both their own, those of their enemies as well as that of their founder.
With this logic, you have just proved the Church of the Latter Day Saints is true.
Falun Gong is a cult/religion whose practitioners are being arrested, tortured and killed by the Chinese government.
But by Jakkass's logic, they must then have all the superpowers they claim to have, as there is no other explanation for why they would endure so much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong
And this isn't 2000 year old hearsay, this is happening today and we can show evidence that it is.0 -
Not sure how anybody else feels about it, but for me, if a person is prepared to get themselves killed for an idea -- as opposed, say, to sacrificing one's life to save another's -- then I'd be concerned not only about their mental stability to start with, but also about their consequent ability to assess the wisdom of a choice of this magnitude.0
-
Advertisement
Advertisement