Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Nick Park · 04-12-2014 9:55am

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, I concede the point that it may well not be literally infinite, but how about might as well be infinite, or close to infinite in size? Since these gods are non-existent, the only limit to them is what humans can imagine.

Hmm, now you are compounding your mathematical error with a logical fallacy.

You are calculating the odds of which gods may or may not exist. But in doing so you are, a priori, assuming that they don't exist.

That is what is known in logic as 'begging the question.'

RikuoAmero · 04-12-2014 10:07am

Nick Park wrote: »

Hmm, now you are compounding your mathematical error with a logical fallacy.

You are calculating the odds of which gods may or may not exist. But in doing so you are, a priori, assuming that they don't exist.

That is what is known in logic as 'begging the question.'

This is all done within the framework of Pascal's Wager. P.W. doesn't give me much, if anything, to use to calculate mathematically anything, nor is there any rigid logic in it. P.W. attempts to play the odds, but completely ignores the problem of there being claimed many different gods and religions, most of which have a hell component to their belief system reserved for unbelievers.
Also...I'm the one assuming these gods don't exist? Isn't that what believers in one religion or another do? They say their god exists, and then disregard the possibility of any and all other gods.

Peregrinus · 04-12-2014 10:20am

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This is all done within the framework of Pascal's Wager. P.W. doesn't give me much, if anything, to use to calculate mathematically anything, nor is there any rigid logic in it. P.W. attempts to play the odds, but completely ignores the problem of there being claimed many different gods and religions, most of which have a hell component to their belief system reserved for unbelievers.
Also...I'm the one assuming these gods don't exist? Isn't that what believers in one religion or another do? They say their god exists, and then disregard the possibility of any and all other gods.

No, no, no. The position is much more varied that that. There are lots of religious which don't posit a hell, and lots of religions which do posit some kind of hell, but don't consing unbelievers there.

And there are lots of religions which don't "disregard the possiblity of any and all other gods". Muslims are monotheists, but they happily agree that they worship the same god as Jews and Christians. (Most) Christians and Jews take the same view. Each tradition may assert that the others have failed to understand some aspect of God, but not that the others are worshipping some different and entirely imaginary God. Hindus do not assert that the God worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims does not exist. Buddhism, by and large, does not concern itself with whether the god(s) worshipped by other religions (and, in the case of some Buddhists, any god at all) exists or not. And so forth.

Atheism is as culturally-bound as any other belief position. A good deal of currently-popular atheist positions - at least, in the Anglosphere - comes from the US, and is underpinned by the assumption that all religious belief resembles evangelical American Protestantism - or, worse still, resembles an atheist caricature of evangelical American Protestantism. That assumption is just not true, even in its more benign form.

The notion that religious beleivers generally disregard the gods worshipped in all the other religious traditions to which they do not belong is false, and a rejection of relgious belief which is justified by appealing to that notion is - ironically - based on a disregard of the variety of relgious traditions that exists.

RikuoAmero · 04-12-2014 10:36am

Sigh...looks like I have to spend the next little while going back to the major religion's holy books, finding quotes that posit that there is a punishment after death for non-believers, copy and paste them, only to later be accused of taking them out of context, or of not understanding them or interpreting them wrong.
In fact, I'm not even going to bother now. I've done it all before.

tommy2bad · 04-12-2014 10:42am

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Sigh...looks like I have to spend the next little while going back to the major religion's holy books, finding quotes that posit that there is a punishment after death for non-believers, copy and paste them, only to later be accused of taking them out of context, or of not understanding them or interpreting them wrong.
In fact, I'm not even going to bother now. I've done it all before.

Don't feel bad, believers do this to each other all the time! It's not just atheists that get the treatment.

The fact that their is no agreement on everything doesn't prove anything other than that people will disagree.

catallus · 04-12-2014 10:44am

Maybe rejecting salvation makes people feel cool?

lazygal · 04-12-2014 10:49am

catallus wrote: »

Maybe rejecting salvation makes people feel cool?

No if anything I'm less cool since I rejected salvation.

J C · 04-12-2014 8:26pm

catallus wrote: »

Maybe rejecting salvation makes people feel cool?

It all depends on whether it's before or after death, whether those who reject Salvation feel cool ... or not.

J C · 04-12-2014 8:38pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

To be honest, I suspect Pascal was being ironic with his wager. It's possibly the worst reason to believe in anything.
However it dose point to a starting position, if their is a God? Then.... And thats the problem the 'if'. At a time when the default position was belief then doubt could be dismissed with reference to pascals wager much more easily. Now the default is non belief* in a God the whole thing seems whimsical at best.

It's the exact same wager whether there is a general belief in God or not.
If He exists and is everything He says He is, then you have everything to gain (and nothing to lose) from believing on Him ... and everything to lose, if you don't.
If He doesn't exist you have nothing to lose from believing in Him either.
If you believe in God, its a two way bet on a 'two horse race' (that God exists or not) ... but if you don't believe in Him, you're betting your eternal life on the result.
It is therefore quite logical to believe in God, irrespective of the odds that He exists.
... and the odds are a certainty that He (or something very like Him) exists BTW ... making it an imperative to believe in Him ... and not reject His Salvation, if people don't wish to be judged under His justice but wish to be pardoned under His mercy.

J C · 04-12-2014 9:01pm

ABC101 wrote: »

I think that is a bit simplistic really.

Christianity, Islam and Judadism believe in the same God.

Furthermore... I believe God is just.... he looks at people and judges them for the good they have done with respect to their circumstances in life. In effect.. not what you have done... but how you have done it given the circumstances you were in.

As Jesus said... there are many rooms in my fathers house, so it does not matter if you are Islamic, Jewish or Christian... or one of the other religions from Asia etc, as long as you have shown a love for God, and a love + kindness to your fellow man.

If it was the case God was very judgemental... and you were unsure of what religion to join, because as you say... I could join one religion... but the odds are against me that I get it right, because God could be in favour of someother religion.... then it would be self defeating. There would be no point in becoming religious at all... because the odds would be against you.

That sort of Logic does not strike me as coming from a divine and infinititely knowledgeable loving Being.

You make some valid points there ... however, God will not force anybody to believe on Him ... and He will accept, with a heavy heart, all rejections of His Salvation.
... and then comes the judgement ... and I don't think that the (limited) kindness that we may have shown our fellow man will balance up any of the many sins that we have committed against him and her, to say nothing about the totality of our sin against God.
Its a fact that only God can fully atone for sin ... and we are unable to do so.

MrPudding · 04-12-2014 10:20pm

catallus wrote: »

Maybe rejecting salvation makes people feel cool?

Can you not see how utterly idiotic this statement is? Seriously, who would knowingly reject salvation? Who would make a decision to intentionally not believe something knowing that by doing so one would be condemning oneself to eternal suffering at the behest of a childish supernatural being.

We don't reject salvation. To reject something implies that one actually believes it exists. We reject your 'evidence' for your god. We don't believe in your god and then reject it. That would be retarded. I can't make myself believe in you god. As a result I don't believe there is salvation and I am certainly not rejecting it.

Also, Pascals Wager is really pretty stupid. First, for the reason I gave above. I can't make myself believe in something I don't believe in. There is no evidence for the existence of god, how can I make myself believe in it anyway. Secondly, is your god stupid? Could it not tell when someone was pretending to believe just to hedge his bets? Does he know but doesn't care because his childish need to be worshipped is so great that he will even accept those that don't really believe...? Some kind of sad 'bums on seats' needyness?

And what is this obsession with theists thinking atheists are only in it to look cool? Are you a theist because you want to look not cool?

MrP

catallus · 04-12-2014 10:27pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you a theist because you want to look not cool?

Hey. I am cool!

Harika · 04-12-2014 10:31pm

J C wrote: »

It's the exact same wager whether there is a general belief in God or not.
If He exists and is everything He says He is, then you have everything to gain (and nothing to lose) from believing on Him ... and everything to lose, if you don't.
If He doesn't exist you have nothing to lose from believing in Him either.
If you believe in God, its a two way bet on a 'two horse race' (that God exists or not) ... but if you don't believe in Him, you're betting your eternal life on the result.
It is therefore quite logical to believe in God, irrespective of the odds that He exists.
... and the odds are a certainty that He (or something very like Him) exists BTW ... making it an imperative to believe in Him ... and not reject His Salvation, if people don't wish to be judged under His justice but wish to be pardoned under His mercy.

Still the questions which of the 5000 gods, that are or have been worshiped by people, is the true? While you can say, doesn't matter as long as you worship, this depends how you worship. Because doing one thing is fine with some gods, does not matter for others or is a capital crime for others.
Even when you choose one, you live your life after the ideas of one of the 5000, and even as it makes no sense or against your own feeling you are doing what it commands, while in reality you could have had such a nice life before your death.
I have my difficulties to believe that if I am judged at the end of my life and I am standing next to a righteous person that have had never had contact to the "right" religion and a criminal mastermind who on the death bed committed to the right god, while living the whole life in sin and working against people, god would send the criminal to heaven and the other two to hell.

lazybones32 · 04-12-2014 11:02pm

MrPudding wrote: »

We reject your 'evidence' for your god.... There is no evidence for the existence of god, how can I make myself believe in it anyway.

MrP

What would constitute 'evidence' for you though? Mathematical problems and solutions?; arguments?; miracles?; something concrete, physical, tangible?; beauty?

J C · 04-12-2014 11:33pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Can you not see how utterly idiotic this statement is? Seriously, who would knowingly reject salvation? Who would make a decision to intentionally not believe something knowing that by doing so one would be condemning oneself to eternal suffering at the behest of a childish supernatural being.

Who would indeed?
... yet many do ... often rejecting Salvation very stridently, actually ... I put it down to pride myself ... the principle of not asking anybody for anything ... including God.

MrPudding wrote: »

We don't reject salvation. To reject something implies that one actually believes it exists. We reject your 'evidence' for your god. We don't believe in your god and then reject it. That would be retarded. I can't make myself believe in you god. As a result I don't believe there is salvation and I am certainly not rejecting it.

Salvation is available to you ... and you have the freedom to embrace it or to reject it. Equally, as a free agent you can believe on Jesus Christ ... or not, as you see fit.

MrPudding wrote: »

Also, Pascals Wager is really pretty stupid. First, for the reason I gave above. I can't make myself believe in something I don't believe in.

Belief ... or not, is a voluntary action, that you can do or not do, as you see fit. Support for your belief in God is available in the physical evidence all around you for His action. Again, you can choose to accept or reject this evidence as well.

MrPudding wrote: »

There is no evidence for the existence of god, how can I make myself believe in it anyway. Secondly, is your god stupid? Could it not tell when someone was pretending to believe just to hedge his bets? Does he know but doesn't care because his childish need to be worshipped is so great that he will even accept those that don't really believe...? Some kind of sad 'bums on seats' needyness?

God doesn't want to be blindly worshipped ... He wants to save us from ourselves ... for our own good ... not His.

MrPudding wrote: »

And what is this obsession with theists thinking atheists are only in it to look cool? Are you a theist because you want to look not cool?

MrP

Mr P ... you're a cool guy ... now ... and I'd like you to stay that way ... for eternity ... but the decision is yours and yours alone.

RikuoAmero · 05-12-2014 12:05am

Belief ... or not, is a voluntary action, that you can do or not do, as you see fit.

Then tell me how I can believe something that I am not convinced of. Examples of actual voluntary actions include sitting down on a chair or remaining standing, speaking or remaining silent, choosing between different portions of a meal to start eating, etc.
How do I flip the metaphorical switch called belief in my head, so that I believe something that, at that moment in time, I do not believe?
I predict that you're going to quote Aquinas. Don't bother. I studied him and rejected what he wrote.

Peregrinus · 05-12-2014 1:52am

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Sigh...looks like I have to spend the next little while going back to the major religion's holy books, finding quotes that posit that there is a punishment after death for non-believers, copy and paste them, only to later be accused of taking them out of context . . .

And rightly accused, obviously. You could, if you choose, go through the major religions' holy books and quote-mine for texts in support of the diametrically opposite view, with equally gratifying results.

Quote-mining isn't forming your beliefs on the basis of the evidence; it's deliberately selecting only the evidence which supports the preconception you have decided for other reasons to adopt, while taking care to remain ignorant of any less convenient evidence. I'm slightly surprised to find you admitting that this is how you would make the case for this particular belief of yours.

Nick Park · 05-12-2014 10:23am

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Sigh...looks like I have to spend the next little while going back to the major religion's holy books, finding quotes that posit that there is a punishment after death for non-believers, copy and paste them, only to later be accused of taking them out of context, or of not understanding them or interpreting them wrong.
In fact, I'm not even going to bother now. I've done it all before.

Or you could always make a genuine attempt to understand the subject you're arguing about, rather than trying to rip quotes out of context to win an argument.

If I wanted to enter a subject on Geology. I would first make an honest attempt to understand what geologists believe, and to read up on the subject. I wouldn't just select some sentences from a geology book and then, devoid of context, try to construct an argument around them.

Now, maybe we should address your point about the large number of gods that have been imagined or believed in over the years (we'll leave aside your sophistry of trying to discuss all possible gods that might be imagined in the future.)

You are missing one major point - namely that the vast majority of such posited deities is an argument against you, not for you.

You see, Christians do not insist that all other conceivable gods do not exist - they might well exist as entities that fall short of being the one Almighty God. (To illustrate this point, imagine a tribe that worships Tony Blair as a god. Christians will disagree with them over the issue of Tony's deity - but that does not mean that Christians deny the existence of Tony Blair).

So, to be a Christian, it is not necessary to prove that all other gods are non-existent. You simply need to be convinced that Jesus is who he, and his first followers, said he was. And, if someone feels that that the evidence produced for that position is convincing, then their belief in Christianity is based, to a greater or lesser degree, on the available evidence.

However, the situation is somewhat different for the atheist. If there is a near-infinite number of possible gods, as you have argued so forcibly, then it is obvious that you cannot have examined the evidence for the existence of even a tiny fraction of such deities. Therefore, in order to make the assertion that 'there is no god', you have to abandon evidence based reasoning and logic and make a leap of faith.

(This applies only to 'atheists' who are defined as those who deny the existence of a god, or gods. It does not apply to agnostic atheists who basically don't know if there's a god or not, but stop short of asserting the non-existence of any or all gods).

So, on philosophical and logical grounds, we can say that Christianity is a position reached, at least in part, by the examination of evidence, whereas the atheism that confidently asserts the non-existence of any god is a matter of blind faith.

ABC101 · 05-12-2014 10:45am

J C wrote: »

Support for your belief in God is available in the physical evidence all around you for His action. Again, you can choose to accept or reject this evidence as well.

It is more than just physical evidence of God existance.

Many people when discussing the proof of the existance of God mention the physical world around us i.e. Earth, Solar system, Universe, variety of biological life on Earth etc etc etc.

But what must not be forgotten is the relationship which develops between a believer and God.

When a Christian undergoes a journey of faith, implementing their faith in their daily life, calling on God, talking to God, asking for help with problems in their personal life etc etc a form of personal evidence slowly develops... problems get mysteriously solved, questions get answered for the believer.

It is akin to being married.... and asking the question "How do I know my spouse really loves me?"

But after the first year... one looks back on the evidence of good work your spouse has done for you... all the acts of love... it might be just buying flowers, remembering special dates, cooking dinners, personal sacrifices the other has made so that you can go out with your friends on various evenings etc.

There are of course many other examples of evidence which I have not mentioned above which show your spouse loves you.

As year after year passes... the evidence of 'acts of love' accumulate.. so one's certainty of their commitment to you increases. Provided both spouses work at their marriage. Although in some cases... even if one spouse is abusive ... the other spouse can still carry out great acts of love, kindness to the other.

So it is with God. The person who strives to love God more, deepen their faith, they enter into and continue to develop a personal relationship with God.

For believers ... evidence of God is two fold... there is the physical evidence of the universe and all the physical things in it. This evidence is external to the person.

Then there is the evidence / acts of love which developed between the believer and God. This is internal evidence for the believer. Their conscience confirms that this is right, this relationship is good.

St Faustina Kowalska in Poland... developed a very intense deep love of God and Jesus Christ in her daily life. Her Diary book is a very informative read, and gives great insight into the relationship between God and herself and how the relationship progresses.

MrPudding · 05-12-2014 3:36pm

ABC101 wrote: »

As year after year passes... the evidence of 'acts of love' accumulate.. so one's certainty of their commitment to you increases. Provided both spouses work at their marriage. Although in some cases... even if one spouse is abusive ... the other spouse can still carry out great acts of love, kindness to the other.

So convenient that you god is only associated with the nice stuff.

MrP

ABC101 · 05-12-2014 4:17pm

MrPudding wrote: »

So convenient that you god is only associated with the nice stuff.

MrP

Would I be correct in saying there is a touch of sarcasm in that remark?

Leaving that aside... what do you mean by it?

J C · 05-12-2014 7:26pm

Harika wrote: »

Still the questions which of the 5000 gods, that are or have been worshiped by people, is the true? While you can say, doesn't matter as long as you worship, this depends how you worship. Because doing one thing is fine with some gods, does not matter for others or is a capital crime for others.
Even when you choose one, you live your life after the ideas of one of the 5000, and even as it makes no sense or against your own feeling you are doing what it commands, while in reality you could have had such a nice life before your death.
I have my difficulties to believe that if I am judged at the end of my life and I am standing next to a righteous person that have had never had contact to the "right" religion and a criminal mastermind who on the death bed committed to the right god, while living the whole life in sin and working against people, god would send the criminal to heaven and the other two to hell.

Paschal's wager only applies to the God of the Bible and no other God.
The wager is based on people accepting or rejecting Salvation ... which is a uniquely Christian concept (as a result of Jesus Christ's atoning death for sin).
I don't see how the wager applies to any other god or religion.

J C · 05-12-2014 7:29pm

MrPudding wrote: »

So convenient that you god is only associated with the nice stuff.

MrP

God is a God of supreme justice and supreme mercy ... His justice does involve dealing with nasty stuff ... while His mercy is indeed nice stuff.:)

J C · 05-12-2014 7:46pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Then tell me how I can believe something that I am not convinced of. Examples of actual voluntary actions include sitting down on a chair or remaining standing, speaking or remaining silent, choosing between different portions of a meal to start eating, etc.
How do I flip the metaphorical switch called belief in my head, so that I believe something that, at that moment in time, I do not believe?
I predict that you're going to quote Aquinas. Don't bother. I studied him and rejected what he wrote.

Nobody is asking you to place a blind faith in God or indeed to try and believe in Him against your better judgement.
The logic and the evidence is all there for God and Salvation ... but you can choose to accept or reject it.
For example, in the Natural World - it is so obvious that God exists that the Bible says that anybody denying it is without excuse for their un-belief:-
Romans 1:18-20 King James Version (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Harika · 05-12-2014 7:54pm

J C wrote: »

Paschal's wager only applies to the God of the Bible and no other God.
The wager is based on people accepting or rejecting Salvation ... which is a uniquely Christian concept (as a result of Jesus Christ's atoning death for sin).
I don't see how the wager applies to any other god or religion.

I might challenge that Salvation is a unique christian concept, as it exists also in Judaism, Islam and some Indian religions. Also the question is based on my further thinking in the subject of the wager, although I am sure that someone before me asked the question in a similar way and going even further.

RikuoAmero · 05-12-2014 8:48pm

Or you could always make a genuine attempt to understand the subject you're arguing about, rather than trying to rip quotes out of context to win an argument.

I already have, thank you very much. Going on over a decade now in research on this subject, and I don't consider myself finished.

If I wanted to enter a subject on Geology. I would first make an honest attempt to understand what geologists believe, and to read up on the subject. I wouldn't just select some sentences from a geology book and then, devoid of context, try to construct an argument around them.

Which is not what I did. When I first began to question the religion I had been brought up in, I started reading the bible. Cover to cover. I asked priests and teachers. Not a single one of them gave me satisfactory answers.

problems get mysteriously solved, questions get answered for the believer.

In my case, problems only worsened during the time I was a believer and in the past year, (a year where I was an atheist), some problems were solved (I won't go into details, private matters).

Provided both spouses work at their marriage. Although in some cases... even if one spouse is abusive ... the other spouse can still carry out great acts of love, kindness to the other.

So it is with God.

Is this a Freudian slip? Is this you admitting God can be abusive? Now I'm even less likely to want a relationship with him (if he exists). I learned a long time ago that if you're in a relationship with somebody and that person is constantly abusive, to get rid of them.

For believers ... evidence of God is two fold... there is the physical evidence of the universe and all the physical things in it. This evidence is external to the person.

Whenever I examine this so-called physical evidence, it comes up negative for your god. In fact, why don't you give me something specific to work with. Please, don't just say something vague, like life, the universe, nature or something. I need something specific I can look at and examine.

Then there is the evidence / acts of love which developed between the believer and God. This is internal evidence for the believer. Their conscience confirms that this is right, this relationship is good.

This evidence is of no worth to me as the unbeliever. I cannot examine it. It is untestable.

So, to be a Christian, it is not necessary to prove that all other gods are non-existent.

I notice here Nick that you didn't address the other two problems with Pascal's Wager, the presupposition that the god you choose to worship will reward your worship, and the fact that I physically cannot choose to believe something I am not convinced of. Go on, you do it first. Pick up a comic book and somehow will yourself to believe that Batman is real and standing beside you.

However, the situation is somewhat different for the atheist. If there is a near-infinite number of possible gods, as you have argued so forcibly, then it is obvious that you cannot have examined the evidence for the existence of even a tiny fraction of such deities.

Precisely. Since I cannot examine the evidence, I cannot express a positive belief in any of those gods I have not examined. For me to do so would be me being dishonest, me saying "I believe that God number H-12-Alpha exists, out of this set of possible gods, despite the fact that I have not yet examined the evidence for any god beyond number H-11".

Therefore, in order to make the assertion that 'there is no god', you have to abandon evidence based reasoning and logic and make a leap of faith.

Which is not what I say. I say "I believe there is no god as espoused by any of the religions that I have, to date, examined and concluded, after much research, are false"

So, on philosophical and logical grounds, we can say that Christianity is a position reached, at least in part, by the examination of evidence, whereas the atheism that confidently asserts the non-existence of any god is a matter of blind faith.

I disagree with you here completely. You left out the word 'gnostic' in the phrase 'whereas the atheism'. I do not know there is no god. I am agnostic atheist. I have seen nothing indicating the presence or existence of a god, anything that I have been told actually does indicate a god I have examined and concluded is false.
As for christianity reached in part by evidence, it's funny that so far, not ONE of the christians I have debated with here has given me workable evidence at all. J C I don't trust at all (given his support of AnswersinGenesis.com, which proudly say that they willingly disregard any and all evidence that does not match with their pre-supposed conclusion in the bible).

J C · 05-12-2014 10:43pm

Harika wrote: »

I might challenge that Salvation is a unique christian concept, as it exists also in Judaism, Islam and some Indian religions. Also the question is based on my further thinking in the subject of the wager, although I am sure that someone before me asked the question in a similar way and going even further.

The atonement of Jesus Christ for sin isn't accepted by any other religion other than Christianity ... and it is this specific fact that Paschal's Wager is based on.

... so Paschal's Wager is specific to Christian Salvation and it alone.

Harika · 05-12-2014 11:16pm

J C wrote: »

The atonement of Jesus Christ for sin isn't accepted by any other religion other than Christianity ... and it is this specific fact that Paschal's Wager is based on.

... so Paschal's Wager is specific to Christian Salvation and it alone.

Yes we know what Pascals Wager is about, my question goes away from that, if you want remove Pascal completely from this, my question stays the same.
And salvation is not unique christian, only if you add jesus.

J C · 05-12-2014 11:31pm

Harika wrote: »

Yes we know what Pascals Wager is about, my question goes away from that, if you want remove Pascal completely from this, my question stays the same.
And salvation is not unique christian, only if you add jesus.

I genuinely don't understand your points ... please expand/explain further.

ABC101 · 06-12-2014 12:51am

@ Rik,

I already have, thank you very much. Going on over a decade now in research on this subject, and I don't consider myself finished.

Yes I thought I detected a certain searching in your previous posts. More than 10 years is certainly a long time…I take it this is a personal endeavour rather than a professional one (i.e. work related)? Good to see you are still trying… bit like St Peter!!!

Which is not what I did. When I first began to question the religion I had been brought up in, I started reading the bible. Cover to cover. I asked priests and teachers. Not a single one of them gave me satisfactory answers.

There are other books you might consider, however whilst I would say reading the Bible is a tremendous achievement…. I would not recommend it if you are searching for very specific answers. The reason being is that it is a spiritual book, which talks to the reader in a spiritual manner. For example the event of Jesus inspecting the fig tree… and finding no fruit… the fig tree is used here as a symbol or the Jewish nation which did not produce the fruit which God expected. But for a atheist it would be nonsensical for a person to inspect a tree for fruit when it is out of season.

Is this a Freudian slip? Is this you admitting God can be abusive? Now I'm even less likely to want a relationship with him (if he exists). I learned a long time ago that if you're in a relationship with somebody and that person is constantly abusive, to get rid of them.

Well no…. I think you have misunderstood the point I was making… or else I have not explained it well enough. Lets examine a relationship between a man and a woman. Ideally they are supposed to complement each other, but it does happen where one spouse may (unfortunately) become abusive to the other. Even when this happens… the other spouse may still continue to love the other, showing great acts of kindness, love and perseverance. The point to understand here is that the relationship is bi directional, acts of love can flow in either direction.

So it can be with a believer and God. Acts of love can a do occur between the two…. But it also occurs that God still loves the believer even if the believer from time to time hurts God, blames God… or even abuses God.

I was not suggesting a scenario where God abuses a believer… rather the other way around. I hope that clarifies it!!!

Whenever I examine this so-called physical evidence, it comes up negative for your god. In fact, why don't you give me something specific to work with. Please, don't just say something vague, like life, the universe, nature or something. I need something specific I can look at and examine.

This evidence is of no worth to me as the unbeliever. I cannot examine it. It is untestable

I have mentioned before that we are talking about the spiritual realm. What specific evidence are you suggesting? Do you require a lock of Gods hair? Or the Angel Gabriel to stand in front of you and have a two hour conversation? Or would you require a dead relative to come and visit you?

Even if one of these events occurred… how would you know it was genuine…? Lets say you obtained a piece of Gods throne…. Now what? I mean how are you going to test the material? Do you have access to a laboratory? Are you a materials expert?

You say you want evidence…. what evidence would be sufficient… and how would you test the evidence?

Because other atheists would discount your experience as being explicable to some other mental / physical cause, Nozzferrahhtoo mentioned an area of the brain which the which can be responsible for all sorts of tricks.

RikuoAmero · 06-12-2014 6:15pm

For example the event of Jesus inspecting the fig tree… and finding no fruit… the fig tree is used here as a symbol

How is it you know that the fig tree story is symbolic and not literal? The story in Matthew has Jesus finding the fig tree, recognising that it's out of season for it to grow figs, and then cursing it so that it will never again bear fruit. It boggles my mind as to how someone can read that and come to the conclusion "Hmm...right, it's the Jewish nation he's talking about here!"
Is the part about telling a mountain to throw itself into the sea figurative, symbolic or literal? Given that a believer in christianity believes Jesus to be God, and hence all-powerful, it seems contradictory to me to read a story about Jesus coming back from the dead saying "Yes, that happened, Jesus is God, therefore he can come back from the dead"...and read a story about Jesus cursing an out-of-season fig tree so that it never again produces fruit, and say "Well...that one's symbolic". I'll ask you what I've asked plenty of other people - what's your methodology from telling literal from symbolic, and how is it that you have checked your methodology to be correct over that of other people's?

But it also occurs that God still loves the believer even if the believer from time to time hurts God, blames God… or even abuses God.

I have to question your understanding of logic, since God, being defined as an infinite being (in one way or another) cannot therefore be hurt or abused by anyone or anything.

I have mentioned before that we are talking about the spiritual realm. What specific evidence are you suggesting?

Something that indicates that what you say the spiritual/supernatural realm to be like is actually true.

Do you require a lock of Gods hair? Or the Angel Gabriel to stand in front of you and have a two hour conversation? Or would you require a dead relative to come and visit you?

Something along those lines yes, but even then, I have to admit, I am unsure as to whether that would indeed convince me. Unlike the people in the first century (e.g. Doubting Thomas. From the story, for him, he was aware of only two possibilities, God or Not God), I am aware of other possibilities. For one, if a dead relative popped up in front of me right now, how would I know that that is indeed the christian god responsible...or just a malicious trickster type entity like Q from Star Trek? (Q in the Star Trek universe killed and brought back to life a few people; it can be argued that within Next Generation canon, he caused or helped to cause the extinction of the human race, and then helped to cause its resurrection...yet you don't see Picard bowing down and worshiping him afterward, despite him knowing of Q's power).
I will admit that in the dead relative scenario, I would have to admit to something strange and fantastical happening (I would be idiotic not to), but to make the leap to "It's the christian god, and no other possible explanation"?

Even if one of these events occurred… how would you know it was genuine…? Lets say you obtained a piece of Gods throne…. Now what? I mean how are you going to test the material? Do you have access to a laboratory? Are you a materials expert?

You say you want evidence…. what evidence would be sufficient… and how would you test the evidence?

This then is what I take to be an unconscious admittance from the theist that what he's saying cannot be proven. Let me throw the question right back at you - imagine I get a mysterious object. How would you know to apply the label 'God's throne' to it? In the natural universe, we have no example of that object at all. This can be contrasted with you applying the label 'tree' to something - we have in the universe examples of trees, thus we can attach the label to a mysterious object and then test to see if it shares properties with what we have labelled trees in the past.
Imagine if I did find a mysterious object, and you come up to me and say 'That's from the supernatural realm, it's a piece of God's Throne"...well, why should I believe you?

ABC101 · 07-12-2014 12:39am

How is it you know that the fig tree story is symbolic and not literal? The story in Matthew has Jesus finding the fig tree, recognising that it's out of season for it to grow figs, and then cursing it so that it will never again bear fruit.

Rik, with respect you are taking things out of context, you are reading into things which are not there. You may be able to quote the Bible inside out…. and outside in… but you are like somebody who has learnt to speak German but with no knowledge of what they are saying… you are in effect just regurgitating sounds and syllables. Some other posters on here have also commented about your approach of the Bible to this effect. You appear to be taking the Bible stories out of context from their true meaning.

It boggles my mind as to how someone can read that and come to the conclusion "Hmm...right, it's the Jewish nation he's talking about here!"

I will not bother answering this point myself… however you had better prepare your mind to be “further Boggled” after reading this link. Because I am not the only one to take this interpretation

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

Here is another link.. this time about the Parable of the Fig Tree… please note…

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

The section… Interpretation…second paragraph… First line… “The Fig Tree was a common symbol for Israel.”

I have to question your understanding of logic, since God, being defined as an infinite being (in one way or another) cannot therefore be hurt or abused by anyone or anything.

Hmmm… o.k. for you to understand the possibility of offending God.. you have to understand the word Dignity.

Imagine you are a student… 14 years old… and you offend your teacher, lets say you curse at him / her or tell them they are very very stupid. Now imagine you offend the Headmaster by saying the same thing. Now imagine you offend the Mayor of Dublin, who is on a visit to your school… again you curse him / say something offensive to him. Now imagine Enda Kenny visits your school, and again you cause the same offence. Now imagine the President of Ireland visits your school… and again you cause the same offence.

So in this hypothetical situation… what has happened? You have used the same offensive language to all these different people. But is the offence the same? Have you committed the same crime in all examples?

The answer of course in NO. While you have literally used the same offensive term in all cases… the offence caused is different for each case. This is because the office which each of these people hold is different. There is a different level of dignity attached to each office.

If you were to cause trouble at school, offending your teacher… the Gardai would not be called in to deal with you. However if you were to offend the President of Ireland… in all probability the Gardai would be called in and a case file sent to the DPP.
Now… as the office of God is at a much higher level than the office of President of Ireland… therefore if you curse God, offend God… the level of offence you have given is much greater.

Yes you are correct … it is not possible for a human being to physically harm / attack God…. But it is still possible to cause offence to the great Dignity of God.

I hope I have managed to explain that o.k.

Something along those lines yes, but even then, I have to admit, I am unsure as to whether that would indeed convince me. Unlike the people in the first century (e.g. Doubting Thomas. From the story, for him, he was aware of only two possibilities, God or Not God), I am aware of other possibilities. For one, if a dead relative popped up in front of me right now, how would I know that that is indeed the christian god responsible...or just a malicious trickster type entity like Q from Star Trek? (Q in the Star Trek universe killed and brought back to life a few people; it can be argued that within Next Generation canon, he caused or helped to cause the extinction of the human race, and then helped to cause its resurrection...yet you don't see Picard bowing down and worshiping him afterward, despite him knowing of Q's power).
I will admit that in the dead relative scenario, I would have to admit to something strange and fantastical happening (I would be idiotic not to), but to make the leap to "It's the christian god, and no other possible explanation"?

If you are looking for evidence… how will you recognise it when you come across it? From your admission of spending 10 years reading the Bible… it is clear you are still searching.

If God were to make himself known to you…. He would do it in a manner which would leave no doubt in your mind. Just as Howard Storm experienced… he was in no doubt after the event.

This then is what I take to be an unconscious admittance from the theist that what he's saying cannot be proven.

I get the impression Rik…. That you have the unfortunate habit of reading into things which are not there…. Just as you take things in the Bible out of context, so you appear to take my attempts to answer your points out of context as well.

I have stated that apart from the physical evidence of the world / universe and everything else around me… that there is the internal or personal evidence in my life which show me my relationship with God is real, hence I have two forms of evidence for me… the universe and everything in it.. and my internal personal relationship with God.

I can honestly tell you Rik… if there was no God… I would be dead by now…quiet a few close encounters I have had with avoiding serious injury, quiet a few indeed.

Let me throw the question right back at you - imagine I get a mysterious object. How would you know to apply the label 'God's throne' to it? In the natural universe, we have no example of that object at all. This can be contrasted with you applying the label 'tree' to something - we have in the universe examples of trees, thus we can attach the label to a mysterious object and then test to see if it shares properties with what we have labelled trees in the past.
Imagine if I did find a mysterious object, and you come up to me and say 'That's from the supernatural realm, it's a piece of God's Throne"...well, why should I believe you?

You may never believe anything which I have written here on this thread. But that is your choice. Even if I had a certain item from the spiritual world, yes you would most probably not believe me.

However I will repeat the point I have made above..

If God were to make himself known to you so as to change your unbelief…. He would do it in a manner which would leave no doubt in your mind. Just as Howard Storm experienced… he was in no doubt after the event.

So too did St Paul..or Saul as he was previously known. These people knew when they had been converted…. The conversion was real enough for them…. And guess what….. that was all that mattered.

You never know Rik.... you may yet get your own personal "Road to Damascus moment"!!

RikuoAmero · 07-12-2014 1:49am

You appear to be taking the Bible stories out of context from their true meaning.

As I have mentioned a few times before, how is it that you know that the meaning you read in it is the 'true' meaning? As I've mentioned a few times before, if I were to talk with members of different denominations what they thought of the fig tree story, I would more than likely get different responses, each one saying their interpretation, their meaning, is the right one, and everyone else's must therefore be wrong.
Also, you completely avoided my question as to methodology.

About the fig tree, thanks for telling me about that. I honestly hadn't heard about that symbol usage before.

Now about your analogy of me cursing a storm at the president...really? I'd be arrested and a case file prepared against me? I highly doubt that. For one thing, where in the law does it say "A 14 year old kid who swears at the president has committed an offence" or something that like.

I hope I have managed to explain that o.k.

Nope, you didn't. You just tried a very weird analogy, completely unsupported by evidence, that the higher the office the person I am swearing at holds, the greater the crime. You didn't provide evidence that I am hurting their dignity, just stated that if I were to do the action, then they would, for some unexplained reason, be completely justified in retaliating against me. Let's imagine I'm the one being cursed at. Let's imagine I'm in my 20's, and the person cursing at me is a 4 year old child. I have a higher station than them; is it all right for me to retaliate against them?
Given that I am a fierce advocate for free speech, this is completely the wrong kind of argument to use with me.
Also, why did you sneak the word physically in there? I didn't use it, so why try and pass off the type of harm I was talking about as being limited to just the physical?
The fault with that line of thinking is that it involves an infinite being. We are humans, and our minds simply don't like dealing with infinities. We can get a good grasp some of the time, but others, we don't.
The problem with your president analogy is that it involved humans the whole way through. Not one being in there was an infinity. As you said, my actions somehow merited a greater and worse response the higher up the chain I went. Once we get to God, to infinity, this then means that my action merits an infinitely bad response. However, we know, in real life, that punishments must always be in proportion to the crime. So if I see God, and I utter "You f*cker", the problem with your line of thinking is that now I'm somehow due an infinitely harsh punishment.

If God were to make himself known to you…. He would do it in a manner which would leave no doubt in your mind

If this is true, then the ball's entirely in his court, and I do mean ENTIRELY. For whatever reason, I have not had a revelation, and I highly doubt I ever will.

I would be dead by now…quiet a few close encounters I have had with avoiding serious injury, quiet a few indeed.

Forgive me please for not being convinced at this. I've seen these types of arguments before - anecdotal stories of disasters avoided. So I'm going to go out on a hunch and say...you had a weird feeling, cancelled the plane ticket, didn't pick up the dangerous power tool or checked your brakes or something along those lines?
If you don't want to give details, that's fine (just as I don't give details for my own experience), just understand that you're here trying to posit the positive claim. Burden of proof is on you, and simply saying to me "I almost was injured several times" with no context or details whatsoever will not convince me.
Also, I'm going to guess something else as well...you have been seriously injured at least once in your life. If you credit God with helping you avoid injury several times, why didn't he help you that one time?
I also toss in the completely expected question of "If God is willing to help you avoid injury, why doesn't he help millions of others? Like kids who step on landmines". Answering with "God works in mysterious ways" will not cut it for me.

You may never believe anything which I have written here on this thread. But that is your choice.

Wrong. As I've said before, I don't view belief as being something one can choose. I belief Batman to be a fictional character, his story told in comic books and movies. I can't choose to believe he is real, I have not been convinced that he is.
Same with the god character from the bible. So I repeat my challenge - somehow will yourself to believe Batman is real and is standing beside you, and let me know how it goes.

Festus · 07-12-2014 2:17am

@ Rik,

This evidence is of no worth to me as the unbeliever. I cannot examine it. It is untestable

The evidence is testable. The prophecies in the Old Testament that were specific to the Messiah were written hundreds of years before Christ was born. Then He was born and fulfilled those prophecies. No scholar of the Bible can deny that.

Festus · 07-12-2014 2:21am

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Wrong. As I've said before, I don't view belief as being something one can choose. I belief Batman to be a fictional character, his story told in comic books and movies. I can't choose to believe he is real, I have not been convinced that he is.
Same with the god character from the bible. So I repeat my challenge - somehow will yourself to believe Batman is real and is standing beside you, and let me know how it goes.

Truth is something you can choose. Seek it first. Belief will follow.

As for Batman - well, we know who Kane and Finger were, and we know what they did so as an analogy, or a challenge, it's not a very good one.

RikuoAmero · 07-12-2014 10:22am

The evidence is testable.

No, it's not. What I said there was in response to someone else saying they had 'internal' evidence, in other words a revelation. I cannot examine that or test that. I am not them, I cannot see or view their revelation (if they indeed had one at all).

As for believing Batman, I mean the Batman character, Bruce Wayne from Gotham City who trained as a ninja and fights characters like the Joker. I see no evidence that Gotham City is a real place, that the Joker is real, etc. I did not say believe that Bob Kane is real, we know he was. I mean THE BATMAN.

ABC101 · 07-12-2014 2:33pm

Rik,

Unfortunately the more I reply to your posts in this debate... the more abuse and sharp remarks I invite from you.

The fact that you were not aware of the importance of symbology used in the Bible even after spending more than 10 years studying it tells more about you than you realise, and in fact it is disappointing.

I have attempted in a polite and fair manner to show you a different approach / view point to that of your own.

All efforts to do this only invite demands of physical proof (which is impossible on a blog site), blaming God, demanding to boil everthing down to 1st principles, condescending remarks about my approach i.e. You just tried a very weird analogy, accusing me of being sneaky / underhand why did you sneak the word physically in there and so on.

I do not have time for this paranoia, endless circular arguments, argument reversals, you inability to understand concepts such as Dignity and so on.

Making statements such as then the ball's entirely in his court, and I do mean ENTIRELY is nonsensical... when it is clear you are the one who is searching... not God. If you want the answer.. and after 10 years you are more confused than before ... then it is clear it is you who has the wrong approach. Perhaps your Pride will not allow you to admit this even to yourself.

I wish you the best of luck in your search... however just as you mentioned in a previous post where you did not receive a satisfactory answer from others Priests / teachers etc... and you were not satisified with ANY of my own reasons..I doubt any reasoning / logic offered to you will be enough.

I doubt your attitude is genuine.. because you only seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

You are free to have the last word... as I will not be responding to your posts anymore.

Festus · 07-12-2014 3:40pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

No, it's not. What I said there was in response to someone else saying they had 'internal' evidence, in other words a revelation. I cannot examine that or test that. I am not them, I cannot see or view their revelation (if they indeed had one at all).

As for believing Batman, I mean the Batman character, Bruce Wayne from Gotham City who trained as a ninja and fights characters like the Joker. I see no evidence that Gotham City is a real place, that the Joker is real, etc. I did not say believe that Bob Kane is real, we know he was. I mean THE BATMAN.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Whenever I examine this so-called physical evidence, it comes up negative for your god. In fact, why don't you give me something specific to work with. Please, don't just say something vague, like life, the universe, nature or something. I need something specific I can look at and examine.

I was responding to this comment on physical evidence, not personal revelation.

The Bible is physical, and testable, as outlined. The Jews had their physical copies of what we refer to as the Old Testament before the birth of Christ that contained many prophecies over hundreds of years from many authors about the Messiah.

The fulfillment of these prophecies is recorded in the Gospels.

Now, having been through a discussion with you previously I have every expectation from experience that any further continuance of this discussion with you will likely proceed as it did in the past like it has for your more recent discussion with ABC101 and I too concur with their sentiments and am more than happy for you to have the last word.

Harika · 08-12-2014 9:35am

Festus wrote: »

The Bible is physical, and testable, as outlined.

So are the Harry Potter books. Are they now proof for magic?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2014 9:51am

Festus wrote: »

The prophecies in the Old Testament that were specific to the Messiah were written hundreds of years before Christ was born. Then He was born and fulfilled those prophecies. No scholar of the Bible can deny that.

First you would have to show the events really did happen. You can not simply assume this. And you certainly have not shown it. That Book 2 in a work of fiction is written to fulfill the prophecies made in Book 1, for example, would be no shock. Otherwise you would have to stand in awe of the Lord of the Rings too, because prophecies made in the start of that, were fulfilled in the latter books too.

Second, you have to also be concerned with self fulfilling prophecy. If, for example, a prophecy stated that the true messiah would ride into town on a donkey.... then any wannabe worth his salt is going to ensure he is seen to ride into town on a donkey.

RikuoAmero · 08-12-2014 9:54am

The Bible is physical, and testable, as outlined. The Jews had their physical copies of what we refer to as the Old Testament before the birth of Christ that contained many prophecies over hundreds of years from many authors about the Messiah.

The fulfillment of these prophecies is recorded in the Gospels.

Okay, so let's concentrate on the new testament alone for now. Give me please an old testament prophecy that you believe was fulfilled by Jesus. In order for us to work together on this, the prophecy must have the following attributes

It must actually be a prophecy. Not a documentation of events that is misinterpreted as a prophecy after a similar event occurs later.
It must be written before the events that it predicts.
The predicted events must actually occur.
The prediction must be both falsifiable and verifiable.
It must not be overly vague.
It must not predict a likely event.
It must not be self-fulfilling.

Even if you find such a prophecy, that doesn't then automatically mean that the only possible explanation is God. I am aware now of any number of possible explanations. It could have been aliens with advanced technology who time travelled who gave that prophecy.
Imagine I, right this minute, travel back in time to...let's say 100 AD. I'm met by people of the time, and I show off my 'godly' powers such as creating light out of 'nothing' (out of my smartphone, which I keep hidden in my sleeve) and I heal someone suffering from nut allergies via use of an epipen (and make it look like I just touched them). I then give a prophecy that fulfills all of the criteria such as
"In 2005 AD, Hurricane Katrina will cost over 100 billion dollars in damages and kill just over 1,800 people"...and the event happens, have I just demonstrated that I am a god?

tommy2bad · 08-12-2014 12:07pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, so let's concentrate on the new testament alone for now. Give me please an old testament prophecy that you believe was fulfilled by Jesus. In order for us to work together on this, the prophecy must have the following attributes

It must actually be a prophecy. Not a documentation of events that is misinterpreted as a prophecy after a similar event occurs later.
It must be written before the events that it predicts.
The predicted events must actually occur.
The prediction must be both falsifiable and verifiable.
It must not be overly vague.
It must not predict a likely event.
It must not be self-fulfilling.

Even if you find such a prophecy, that doesn't then automatically mean that the only possible explanation is God. I am aware now of any number of possible explanations. It could have been aliens with advanced technology who time travelled who gave that prophecy.
Imagine I, right this minute, travel back in time to...let's say 100 AD. I'm met by people of the time, and I show off my 'godly' powers such as creating light out of 'nothing' (out of my smartphone, which I keep hidden in my sleeve) and I heal someone suffering from nut allergies via use of an epipen (and make it look like I just touched them). I then give a prophecy that fulfills all of the criteria such as
"In 2005 AD, Hurricane Katrina will cost over 100 billion dollars in damages and kill just over 1,800 people"...and the event happens, have I just demonstrated that I am a god?

So your case against the prophesy in the OT is as far fetched as god did it?
This is the problem to explain the events in the bible requires mental gymnastics or dismissal or acceptance. We have no real world explanation other than ' they made it up' or 'aliens'. We never seem to accept the bibles own explanation, Miracle! An event outside the laws of reality.

RikuoAmero · 08-12-2014 12:15pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

So your case against the prophesy in the OT is as far fetched as god did it?
This is the problem to explain the events in the bible requires mental gymnastics or dismissal or acceptance. We have no real world explanation other than ' they made it up' or 'aliens'. We never seem to accept the bibles own explanation, Miracle! An event outside the laws of reality.

I was hoping someone would say something like that. Okay...how do you figure that my 'aliens' hypothesis (just for the record, I don't actually believe this hypothesis myself, it's merely a possibility I raise that I have not yet dismissed) is as far fetched as 'God did it'?
Where's the work, in math, to indicate that aliens are as unlikely/as far fetched as God? I would say that they are far more believable, since to prove aliens, you only need to find evidence of an alien civilisation somewhere in space, who have the technology or ability to travel through time. This is an infinitely simpler task than ascertaining whether or not they are the creators of the universe.
As for not accepting the bible's own explanation...why should we? It's not offering evidence in favour of its explanation, only (in the most favourable scenario) there being no evidence in favour of other possible explanations.
There's no evidence in favour of my time-travelling aliens explanation, just as there is no evidence in favour of the God did it explanation, but using the very same logic used to propose God, the aliens explanation has not yet been ruled out. It's possible that tomorrow we find strong evidence of an alien civilization who broadcast to us that they deliberately fooled early humans for sheer lulz.
(Also, for the record, I have not yet been presented with a genuine prophecy. We haven't even gotten past step number one yet. I'm waiting on Festus, as the guy who posits the positive belief that there are genuine biblical prophecies, to give me one).

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2014 12:42pm

Actually I would add that the aliens thing is less far fetched than god for a simple reason. We have evidence that intelligent life exists. Us. We have as yet no evidence that a god exists.

And I think any hypothesis that postulates only things we already know exist, is by default less "far fetched" than one that invents things we have absolutely no support for at all.

Does not mean either hypothesis has been substantiated of course, neither has, but it certainly puts one ahead of the other in terms of credibility. Even if only a baby step ahead.

Festus · 08-12-2014 3:47pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

First you would have to show the events really did happen. You can not simply assume this. And you certainly have not shown it. That Book 2 in a work of fiction is written to fulfill the prophecies made in Book 1, for example, would be no shock. Otherwise you would have to stand in awe of the Lord of the Rings too, because prophecies made in the start of that, were fulfilled in the latter books too.

Second, you have to also be concerned with self fulfilling prophecy. If, for example, a prophecy stated that the true messiah would ride into town on a donkey.... then any wannabe worth his salt is going to ensure he is seen to ride into town on a donkey.

I know atheists are prone to believe anything that suits them but is there any merit to my debating this topic with a conspiracy theorist?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2014 4:29pm

Festus wrote: »

I know atheists are prone to believe anything that suits them but is there any merit to my debating this topic with a conspiracy theorist?

You would have to find a conspiracy theorist and ask them. I believe we have a forum for that very thing. But if we are to discuss "merits" then I must say I fail to see the merit in your just replying to my post with a blanket dismissal ad hominem.

But given you did not respond to my last post to you _at all_ then I guess this is at least something of an improvement.

What I have raised however are two genuine concerns that one has to be aware of. Concerns that are not going to dilute into nothing merely by pouring enough dismissal on them.

In the interests of staying on topic I will merely repeat them and perhaps you will engage with them in your next reply, rather than lash out an ad hominem.

FIRST: When you declare that events in "Part 2" (for want of a better name) of a book were predicted in "Part 1" of a book then you are not saying anything special. This happens in fiction all the time. To make it something special you would have to establish the events in question actually did happen in reality. You appear not to have done so. And actually in your "Go use Google yourself" approach so far, you have not even made the attempt to do so. Can you show us, for example, one event predicted in Part 1 that actually happened in reality? And show it to be more than simply political commentary. After all if a "miracle" is merely predicting future political events, and those events come to pass, then we have some messiahs in our world even today as this happens often.

SECOND: Self fulfilling prophecy is actually a genuine concern. Not something I am making up for conspiracy reasons. When predictions and prophecies are made, some people will genuinely go out of their way to ensure they happen as predicted. If you want to set yourself up as the Messiah and be taken seriously, then you are going to ensure that the portents of your arrival fit with the expectations of the target audience.

tommy2bad · 08-12-2014 4:40pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I was hoping someone would say something like that. Okay...how do you figure that my 'aliens' hypothesis (just for the record, I don't actually believe this hypothesis myself, it's merely a possibility I raise that I have not yet dismissed) is as far fetched as 'God did it'?
Where's the work, in math, to indicate that aliens are as unlikely/as far fetched as God? I would say that they are far more believable, since to prove aliens, you only need to find evidence of an alien civilisation somewhere in space, who have the technology or ability to travel through time. This is an infinitely simpler task than ascertaining whether or not they are the creators of the universe.
As for not accepting the bible's own explanation...why should we? It's not offering evidence in favour of its explanation, only (in the most favourable scenario) there being no evidence in favour of other possible explanations.
There's no evidence in favour of my time-travelling aliens explanation, just as there is no evidence in favour of the God did it explanation, but using the very same logic used to propose God, the aliens explanation has not yet been ruled out. It's possible that tomorrow we find strong evidence of an alien civilization who broadcast to us that they deliberately fooled early humans for sheer lulz.
(Also, for the record, I have not yet been presented with a genuine prophecy. We haven't even gotten past step number one yet. I'm waiting on Festus, as the guy who posits the positive belief that there are genuine biblical prophecies, to give me one).

Well your making my point for me again. Either hypothesis is unlikely. The aliens one is currently fashionable but has the draw back of leading back to the first theory, God. Aliens who could master faster than light travel and or time travel would be less likely to be as hidden as God after all they are physical beings. Once we confirm their existence we are back at square 1. Who made the aliens? What if when they do turn up it's to preach their gospel (blessed be his noodley appendages)? This is why faith tells us faith comes first then evidence. If we wait for evidence we end up with the same problem. Until in the end we reject or accept the God theory.

tommy2bad · 08-12-2014 4:41pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually I would add that the aliens thing is less far fetched than god for a simple reason. We have evidence that intelligent life exists. Us. We have as yet no evidence that a god exists.

And I think any hypothesis that postulates only things we already know exist, is by default less "far fetched" than one that invents things we have absolutely no support for at all.

Does not mean either hypothesis has been substantiated of course, neither has, but it certainly puts one ahead of the other in terms of credibility. Even if only a baby step ahead.

Or just adds more steps back to the God theory. Aliens doesn't answer the question, it just add more data to the set.

tommy2bad · 08-12-2014 4:48pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You would have to find a conspiracy theorist and ask them. I believe we have a forum for that very thing. But if we are to discuss "merits" then I must say I fail to see the merit in your just replying to my post with a blanket dismissal ad hominem.

But given you did not respond to my last post to you _at all_ then I guess this is at least something of an improvement.

What I have raised however are two genuine concerns that one has to be aware of. Concerns that are not going to dilute into nothing merely by pouring enough dismissal on them.

In the interests of staying on topic I will merely repeat them and perhaps you will engage with them in your next reply, rather than lash out an ad hominem.

FIRST: When you declare that events in "Part 2" (for want of a better name) of a book were predicted in "Part 1" of a book then you are not saying anything special. This happens in fiction all the time. To make it something special you would have to establish the events in question actually did happen in reality. You appear not to have done so. And actually in your "Go use Google yourself" approach so far, you have not even made the attempt to do so. Can you show us, for example, one event predicted in Part 1 that actually happened in reality? And show it to be more than simply political commentary. After all if a "miracle" is merely predicting future political events, and those events come to pass, then we have some messiahs in our world even today as this happens often.

SECOND: Self fulfilling prophecy is actually a genuine concern. Not something I am making up for conspiracy reasons. When predictions and prophecies are made, some people will genuinely go out of their way to ensure they happen as predicted. If you want to set yourself up as the Messiah and be taken seriously, then you are going to ensure that the portents of your arrival fit with the expectations of the target audience.

I would add it's a good idea to make sure your arrival fits the expectations of your audience as well, audiences get kinda shirty about being disappointed in their expectations, a man could get himself crucified for disappointing them.
You know the way Jesus did.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2014 4:52pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Or just adds more steps back to the God theory. Aliens doesn't answer the question, it just add more data to the set.

Depends on the question being asked really. The point being again that any answer that postulates only elements we know exist has a credibility advantage over answers that postulate elements we are simply making up.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I would add it's a good idea to make sure your arrival fits the expectations of your audience as well, audiences get kinda shirty about being disappointed in their expectations, a man could get himself crucified for disappointing them. You know the way Jesus did.

Not sure what your point here is really as most of what you just said repeats what I myself said: That if you are going to style yourself as some propheized character then you will make moves to fit the expectations of the target audience.

So if a text were to say you will arrive on the third full moon riding a donkey, you are certainly not going to arrive at the fifth half moon in a horse drawn carriage.

Not exactly sure what your reply to this point actually is intended to mean.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments