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
The existence or non-existence of a god/the gods
Options
Comments
-
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
-
David Koresh anyone?0
-
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?
The most common criticisms of atheism I am faced with are the following three questions: If there is no God then where does morality come from? If there is no God then where does design in life come from? If there is no God then where does the universe itself come from?
Dawkins does a good job answering such questions.0 -
Thread created for new discussion0
-
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 here where the disagreement lies. We do not believe cosmology, archaeology, history, my personal experiences, the authenticity of bible canon, or philosophy support the claim that God exists. It is generally accepted amongst philosophers and theologians that God's existence cannot be rationally demonstrated (i.e. Cosmology and philosophical arguments for God's existence aren't up to scratch.) I don't have any personal experiences of God, and while early Christians certainly held their beliefs with great conviction (a conviction that got a lot of them killed), the divinity of Jesus is certainly not a simple historical fact.
This doesn't mean Christianity is necessarily wrong. It just means that atheism hasn't been demonstrated to be wrong either, and is a pragmatic conclusion for a lot of people.0 -
Jakkass wrote: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.
Having seen this particular argument quite a few times, and knowing how much stock you put into it as a central tenet, I'm just wondering how you reconcile the bolded sections above with your own thoughts on trusting first-hand evidence in general from a few posts previous: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.
Surely you've answered your own question, no?0 -
1) Historical figures in the Bible
2) Biblical archaeology
This is hardly evidence of god entities. At most this is evidence of something we already know already... that much fiction is based on real places, events and people. I trust you do not believe that the super solider Jason Bourne actually exists, nor do we expect people to think he ever existed despite the fact that 2000 years from now many of the location, people, political happenings and characters, technologies etc in this book will all be historically verifiable.
If political fiction did NOT have verifiable overlaps with real life then that would be the real miracle, not that people, places and objects mentioned therein turn out to have actually existed. That is no surprise at all.
If however your argument is "of all the works of fiction ever with real life places and figures in it, in this ONE case thats evidence the book is actually "true" then I am afraid you will not convince anyone here.3) Arguments from Creation
Circular. To make an argument from creation you have to posit a creator. To posit a creator you have to assume we were created. Too circular to be of use. You would have to establish one as true in isolation first before ascribing it as evidence for the other. What are your arguments for there being a creator? What are your arguments to say we were "created"?4) Arguments from Experience (by far the most convincing)
Must like 1 and 2, you only allow these things to be "convincing" when it suits you and you ignore it when it does not. Like the fact that so much fiction has parallels in real life, and you only take the one case where you want it to be evidence and ignore the rest.... the world is full of "experiences" much of which you appear to also reject.
People "experience" alien abductions, reincarnation, contact with spirits, voices in their head, sightings of a still living elvis, and miracles performed on our planet today by gurus and so on (including many of the ones attributed to the jesus character being performed today in places like India). How come "arguments from experience" are not relevant there but they are here? How come the performance of miracles in the world today does not impress you, but put the same miracles in the context of a 2000 year old book written by bronze aged peasants and suddenly they are convincing?5) Argument from the existence of Moral Absolutes
But you have established no such existence of any such thing, which essentially means you are wholesale inventing evidence now. I have seen your posts on this subject before and basically it amounts to taking areas of subjective moral consensus and buying into the illusion that this therefore makes those morals "absolute".6) Argument from Biblical Prophesy
Aside from selective retrospective reading of the text I am aware of no such prophesy being made, let alone coming true. If however you can make a specific prophesy NOW that has not occurred yet based only on the biblical text, and it then does come to pass... you would at least have our attention.7) Argument from Textual Authenticity of the Bible
Just because it remains "largely unchanged" this makes it true(r) somehow? You will have to explain that one to me. If we preserve the purity of The Bourne Identity for another 2000 years, will it suddenly become truer than it is now, or have any credence as a document of actual events?8) Argument from the Resurrection, and the Apostles
Again like 6, you are wholesale inventing evidence, as you have shown no such event actually occurred let alone should be lent even a modicum of credence.9) The sense of the Gospel on human nature
Not entirely sure what you mean by this, but given that the books are apparently man written, I am unsurprised that they have insights into the nature of the human condition. So do John Keats and Shelly and Shakespeare. You do not need to presume any divine miracle to realise the writings of man will have deep insight into the nature of man.0 -
Three men are climbing a mountain, they are half way up when from above them there is an rockslide, which misses them...
The first man says. "there must be a man up there that pushed the first rock... He must like us because the rocks missed us..."
The second man says, "what are you talking about the man ontop of the mountain just tried to kill us with a rockslide! He must not want us to climb his mountain."
The third man says, "What man? Maybe it was a goat, the wind or the rocks getting warmed by the sun?"
While they are discussing this the rockslide rumbles down into the valley and wipes out a little village.
1st man: Wow! He must not like that village!
2nd man: Yeah... They must have done something to piss him off...
3rd man: What man? Stop making all these asumptions, anyway there were children and babies in that village... They can't have done much that deserves killing... Seems like a bit of jerk move.
1st and 2nd: ssssh don't say that, he'll hear you.
Eventually they get to the top of the mountain and there is no man. The 3rd man says, "See there's no man up here. It must have been something natural".
The other two give in and agree... It must have been the wind, but who caused the wind... The sun... But then who made the sun? And what did the village do to annoy him?
The 3rd man is annoyed now, "Why do you keep assuming a person?! The rockslide was caused by the wind or the sun, the village was destroyed because they built it in a bad spot, look we can see there's been loads of landslides here before..."
1st man: Well the chain of events can't go back forever... At the start of it all there must be a person...
2nd man: Yeah and he didn't like that village
3rd man: Why must it be a person? That doesn't make any sense... I don't understand why you keep assuming these things, there was no person behind the land slide, there was no man on the mountain, there was no man behind the wind, or behind the sun... Everywhere we've looked there is no hidden mystery man and now we've find somewhere we cannot look... And you assume a man is there too? Why?
1st: well something has to happen before everything happens...
3nd: ok...
1st: and that has to be a person...
3rd: Why?...
1st: because everything needs a cause...
3rd: ... Why do you think that needs to be a person?
2nd: ... Because the village was destroyed and we were saved!
1st: Two against one, you're the odd one out, we win, Person exists...
(EDIT: this appears to be the wrong thread... making this post off topic... trying to figure out where thought I was posting it)
(EDIT2: Thanks for the move Mystery mod! )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.
Not really. There is a ton of scientific evidence that humans invent gods (supernatural agents) for various evolutionary reasons, and such concepts are pleasing to the human brain and much more likely to be accepted as "common sense" that other concepts that have been shown to be closer to reality.
Couple that with the fact that no one has ever been able to demonstrate in a repeatable demonstrationaly way that any religious supernatural event actually happened, and then couple that with the way we know the human brain can fall into logical fallacies in support of a popular idea, it is really hard not to come to the conclusion that gods are invented by humans.
Of course this is not a particular popular position, by definition people like/want to believe in gods. That is why most people do.
So most people, including yourself, simply ignore the above and retreat to comfortable positions where they can be safe in their belief without fear of being shown to be wrong.0 -
So jakkass given your initial dodging and now absence from the thread can I assume you cannot provide a single piece of clear verifiable evidence from which the possibilities of trickery, psychological effects and other factors have been excluded?
Why is that?
What I don't understand is how you can hold your position with only stuff that cannot be verified and is subject to trickery, psychological effects and other factors.0 -
Advertisement
-
King Mob - I still haven't been presented a reasonable case to demonstrate how we progress from Jesus having died, and remained dead, to the disciples and all followers at Jerusalem proclaiming that Jesus had actually risen, to the risk of their own lives, without any financial gain in doing so.
If I had received any other reasonable possibility that held up to criticism, it would be a good reason to doubt that the Resurrection infact took place. It is this huge gaping hole that arises after one does away with the Resurrection that would be a real stumbling block for me, as a Christian who cares deeply about the Gospel to reject it.
Just to make clear. I won't be dealing with any accusations, implied or otherwise that people make concerning my presence or absence from this thread. Boards.ie isn't going to be the only thing I do, and it is something I do for my own recreation rather than for your pleasure.0
Advertisement