Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's nonsense. The whole purpose of logic is to discover truth objectively. The best way to run a society is a subjective question - not an objective one.

I see. So compassion, justice, beauty etc are not truth?

If you said something like, the most efficient way to collect tax from self employed people well then that's not so objective and logic comes into play.

And the fact you immediately jump to something as prosaic as tax collection demonstrates the limitations of your 'logic' much better than I ever could.

Thank God that Marin Luther King and Mother Theresa were illogical enough not to think like accountants.

J C

JimiTime wrote: »

There was a time when your posts had a bit more to them than this type of carry on Tim. What happened??

Sounds like he must have got owned by a Creationist ... and has never recovered from the experience!!!:):eek:

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't 100% hate it. Where this started was I pointed out a trend in humanity where the more intelligent and educated you were the less chance you'd be religious. This is supported by ample evidence and none of you have refuted this.

Where is this 'ample evidence' that you speak of. The only graph produce had a 'hockeystick' trendline, which means that there is no correlation between 'religiosity' and IQ. The 'hockeystick' trendline also indicates that there are other factors that are correlated with IQ ... possibly factors such as the economic and educational advancement of each country.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

All you say is "yeah it might be true, but I don't care". Well then you probably don't really care about what's true and should really admit that?

It obviously isn't true ... and in my own personal experience, I have found high levels of intelligence to be equally found amongst people of faith in God and those who believe in His absence.

muppeteer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'd agree with you that children will at times favour agentival causes as explanations for natural phenomena. They also may readily determine that there is purpose in seemingly purposeless objects. Both of these seem to be largely uncontroversial claims, especially if one removes the oft used phrase "hardwired" and replace it with something like "propensity".

However, unless you first presuppose materialistic reductionism, it is not obvious why a natural explanation for a particular phenomena would mean that we ought to stop believing in this phenomena, especially if it is claimed that these phenomena have supernatural origins.

One might propose reductionist explanations for things like love, beauty, truth, the inherent value of life, morality etc. and still not see love, beauty, etc. as merely tricks of evolution or whatever materialistic "just so" story you care to come up with. To take someone else's analogy, offering physical explanations of why a Model T worked doesn't explain away it's creator, Henry Ford.

Somebody like Justin Barrett (who just so happens to be a Christian as well a cognitive scientist of some sort) looks at the same cases and comes to different conclusions. This is because you are both drawing conclusions that are metaphysical/ ontological in nature. You departed from the science after your first sentence. Perhaps you didn't realise this.

Click here for a talk entitled The Naturalness of Childhood Theism and here for a critique of Barrett from some atheist chap.

I had a listen to the Barrett talk and he doesn't seem to deviate from the generally accepted view of childhood propensity to believe in gods. Where he does deviate I would have to agree with Grayling's comments in the other link but it's a small matter either way. He makes no argument for Christianity at all in the talk so I don't know how it fits into his religion.

What makes these conclusions matter, whether or not you presuppose naturalism or not, is that they help fill a vacuum left by the lack of evidence for supernatural events. We have a world where there hasn't been a single verifiable supernatural event ever. Not one. All we have are anecdote, and ambiguous intuition to support the supernatural world view.
Now just because we have a lack of evidence for the supernatural doesn't mean it's not true. (Now I would default to no evidence=not true but others, including yourself, may not)
So we have to try and fill the void of evidence for you.

I can point out the buckets of evidence for natural explanations in physics and biology and you can just say that your god created those and that the evidence doesn't preclude a god, which is again technically possible.
What the research of Barrett and others helps us to do is explain why you find the idea of a god appealing and natural. It shows that what can be appealing and natural can have absolutely no relation to what is real and yet it is still appealing and natural to you(the princess example). It helps explain why you persist with the idea of a god which is only technically possible in the face of a deficit of evidence which would be unacceptable in any other part of your life.

Naturalistic explanations predict and explain with such power that to abandon them in favour of anecdote only when they conflict with a particular bias seems to be wilfully ignorant.
Want to know how your computer works = naturalistic explanation
Want medicine to heal you = naturalistic explanation
Want to know why a statue is moving = lets throw that naturalistic stuff out the window!

An explanation of why you believe the way you do can help you determine what is our bias and what is the external reality. Having a naturalistic explanation of what you are pre disposed to believe doesn't mean you have to reject all other explanations just because it is naturalistic. It can't prove in itself that you should either stop or start believing in something, only that you had better be aware of your bias.

muppeteer

J C wrote: »

As I recall, people who were ill and were prayed for, even when they didn't know it was happening, had significantly better out-turns.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

Supernatural causes aren't claimed in many situations!!!!
However, where supernatural cause is a definite possibility (the origins issue) conventional science doesn't allow a Divine foot inside the door ... and that is fair enough ... provided this isn't denied!!!:)



I'd term it being consistent.


... chicken !!!:):eek:

I agree that independently verified evidence is critical ...
... so if the physical evidence unambiguously points towards the existence of a God of effectively infinite creative capacity ... this should be accorded the scientific respect that it is due.
... and as God also helps those who help themselves ... it should never be a choice between prayer and medical care ... both should obviously be used.

Your link is a paragon of impartiality, hallelujah I've seen the light:rolleyes:

Take a glance at the meta studies or even the wiki entry if you want.


Oh and I won't be goaded into that creationist train wreck, I'm just not that masochistic.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

Want to know how your computer works = naturalistic explanation

Appliance of Intelligence explantion is the more powerful one.

muppeteer wrote: »

Want medicine to heal you = naturalistic explanation

Appliance of Intelligence explantion is the more powerful one.

J C wrote:

... origins of the CFSI found in living organisms - what is the explanation?

Appliance of Intelligence explantion is the more powerful one.

... there is a pattern developing here !!!!:)

muppeteer wrote: »

Want to know why a statue is moving = lets throw that naturalistic stuff out the window!

You're on your own on that one!!!:):eek:

muppeteer wrote: »

An explanation of why you believe the way you do can help you determine what is our bias and what is the external reality. Having a naturalistic explanation of what you are pre disposed to believe doesn't mean you have to reject all other explanations just because it is naturalistic.

The real challenge for such people is what they believe when there is no plausible naturalistic explanation ... which is the case with all of the 'origins' issues.:)

Fanny Cradock

muppeteer wrote: »

I had a listen to the Barrett talk and he doesn't seem to deviate from the generally accepted view of childhood propensity to believe in gods. Where he does deviate I would have to agree with Grayling's comments in the other link but it's a small matter either way. He makes no argument for Christianity at all in the talk so I don't know how it fits into his religion.

What makes these conclusions matter, whether or not you presuppose naturalism or not, is that they help fill a vacuum left by the lack of evidence for supernatural events. We have a world where there hasn't been a single verifiable supernatural event ever. Not one. All we have are anecdote, and ambiguous intuition to support the supernatural world view.
Now just because we have a lack of evidence for the supernatural doesn't mean it's not true. (Now I would default to no evidence=not true but others, including yourself, may not)
So we have to try and fill the void of evidence for you.

I can point out the buckets of evidence for natural explanations in physics and biology and you can just say that your god created those and that the evidence doesn't preclude a god, which is again technically possible.
What the research of Barrett and others helps us to do is explain why you find the idea of a god appealing and natural. It shows that what can be appealing and natural can have absolutely no relation to what is real and yet it is still appealing and natural to you(the princess example). It helps explain why you persist with the idea of a god which is only technically possible in the face of a deficit of evidence which would be unacceptable in any other part of your life.

Naturalistic explanations predict and explain with such power that to abandon them in favour of anecdote only when they conflict with a particular bias seems to be wilfully ignorant.
Want to know how your computer works = naturalistic explanation
Want medicine to heal you = naturalistic explanation
Want to know why a statue is moving = lets throw that naturalistic stuff out the window!

An explanation of why you believe the way you do can help you determine what is our bias and what is the external reality. Having a naturalistic explanation of what you are pre disposed to believe doesn't mean you have to reject all other explanations just because it is naturalistic. It can't prove in itself that you should either stop or start believing in something, only that you had better be aware of your bias.

It's a bold claim to state that there has been no verifiable supernatural event ever. How exactly do you know such a thing? It surely isn't through science because it deals only with the material world and we are talking about supernatural events. And why exactly should something be scientifically verifiable to be considered true? Many forms of knowledge that we hold dearly and take to be fundamentally true are not verifiable by science. Indeed, science itself is built upon foundations that are beyond the purview of science and simply have to be taken axiomatically.

So we are again brought back to metaphysics. Which leads me to ask what type of supernatural event you think could be verified as such and how would you go about doing so?

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

Your link is a paragon of impartiality, hallelujah I've seen the light:rolleyes:

It's always interesting to take a walk on the other side!!!:)

muppeteer wrote: »

Oh and I won't be goaded into that creationist train wreck, I'm just not that masochistic.

I wouldn't blame you!!!

The truth can be tough to hear ... when you want to cling to a cherished worldview!!!:)

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a bold claim to state that there has been no verifiable supernatural event ever. How exactly do you know such a thing? It surely isn't through science because it deals only with the material world and we are talking about supernatural events. And why exactly should something be scientifically verifiable to be considered true? Many forms of knowledge that we hold dearly and take to be fundamentally true are not verifiable by science. Indeed, science itself is built upon axioms that are beyond the purview of science and simply have to be taken axiomatically.

So we are again brought back to metaphysics. Which leads me to ask what type of supernatural event you think could be verified as such and how would you go about doing so?

Can you give some examples of verifiable supernatural events Fanny ?

philologos

I can't believe someone compared a computer to creation. It is not a good example for an atheist to use. A computer is designed, it is put together with an intention and a purpose. For Christians, this is true of Creation as well.

J C

philologos wrote: »

I can't believe someone compared a computer to creation. It is not a good example for an atheist to use. A computer is designed, it is put together with an intention and a purpose. For Christians, this is true of Creation as well.

In fairness to muppeteer, I made that comparison ... and for the reason you cite.:)

muppeteer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a bold claim to state that there has been no verifiable supernatural event ever. How exactly do you know such a thing? It surely isn't through science because it deals only with the material world and we are talking about supernatural events. And why exactly should something be scientifically verifiable to be considered true? Many forms of knowledge that we hold dearly and take to be fundamentally true are not verifiable by science. Indeed, science itself is built upon axioms that are beyond the purview of science and simply have to be taken axiomatically.

So we are again brought back to metaphysics. Which leads me to ask what type of supernatural event you think could be verified as such and how would you go about doing so?

Well I am unaware of any so I'll provisionally say yes there has never been an example recorded and verified, as far as I know. Are you aware of any supernatural event which has been independently verified?
Science can test many claims. There are supernatural claims which claim to have physical effects, these can and have been tested.
Beyond formal logic and mathematics we need to test and verify that which we assume to be objective reality. We are awfully poor at gaining useful knowledge without independent verification.
I assume you are talking about the softer subjective forms of knowledge that you consider fundamentally true as being outside of the remit of science. These forms of knowledge have no bearing on an objective reality and don't exist outside of human thought.

Yes we build science on axioms, but we try to have as few and as non contradictory axioms as possible. Introducing a set of supernatural axioms is an unnecessary addition.

Well in my mind a supernatural event which could be verified would have to be spectacular, universal, and so profound as to defy all known laws of the universe at the same time as being verifiable by all who would want to test it. A common example would be the stars re arranging themselves in the galaxy to spell out "there is no god but Allah". But even this would be a singular event so me being a little greedy with my demands I would also like a host of other supernatural events to become apparent and obvious such the whole plethora of supernatural claims suddenly becoming functional. This would include things working in a verifiable way such as prayer, miracles, visions and prophecy. This would show that the whole paradigm of a supernatural universe is true not just a single supernatural event which could still somehow fit into a natural universe. I don't ask for much:)

J C

marienbad wrote: »

Can you give some examples of verifiable supernatural events Fanny ?

The Creation of the Universe ... the Creation of life ... some UFO phenomena ... verified demonic possession ... possibly even the appearance of the devil in Monaghan!!!:eek:

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

I can't believe someone compared a computer to creation. It is not a good example for an atheist to use. A computer is designed, it is put together with an intention and a purpose. For Christians, this is true of Creation as well.

Well I was mostly thinking of the understanding of electrons and semi conductors as being fully within the naturalistic understanding of the universe.

You have in fact inadvertently made a perfect example of the flaw in your reasoning though. You have assumed a purpose and intent in a theory of how natural processes such as electrons are excited gets explained in naturalistic ways. You have jumped from how electrons behave in a computer to assuming that all electrons must be guided by design because a few of them are designed by humans. Huge assumption and huge flaw.
There is no comparison being made between a computer and creation only that natural explanations can help understand phenomena in both.

philologos

muppeteer wrote: »

Well I was mostly thinking of the understanding of electrons and semi conductors as being fully within the naturalistic understanding of the universe.

You have in fact inadvertently made a perfect example of the flaw in your reasoning though. You have assumed a purpose and intent in a theory of how natural processes such as electrons are excited gets explained in naturalistic ways. You have jumped from how electrons behave in a computer to assuming that all electrons must be guided by design because a few of them are designed by humans. Huge assumption and huge flaw.
There is no comparison being made between a computer and creation only that natural explanations can help understand phenomena in both.

Man built computers, and used components in the process of doing so, in the knowledge that it would serve a particular purpose.

God according to Christianity created the world, and used scientific processes (which He created) in the process, in the knowledge that it would serve a particular purpose.

I don't give God half enough thanks for being able to walk in this Creation. I certainly don't give God enough thanks for forgiving a sinner like me despite blaspheming against Him and His authority by my lifestyle. What about you? Why do you keep ignoring Him?

Your interpretation doesn't preclude Christianity. Your interpretation assumes that natural phenomenon happen with no accord. Your interpretation assumes that these things can happen for no reason. That to me is absolutely bizarre.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Man built computers, and used components in the process of doing so, in the knowledge that it would serve a particular purpose.

God according to Christianity created the world, and used scientific processes (which He created) in the process, in the knowledge that it would serve a particular purpose.

I don't give God half enough thanks for being able to walk in this Creation. I certainly don't give God enough thanks for forgiving a sinner like me despite blaspheming against Him and His authority by my lifestyle. What about you? Why do you keep ignoring Him?

Your interpretation doesn't preclude Christianity. Your interpretation assumes that natural phenomenon happen with no accord. Your interpretation assumes that these things can happen for no reason. That to me is absolutely bizarre.

So how do you explain all the different gods and what is unique about your one ?

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

Man built computers, and used components in the process of doing so, in the knowledge that it would serve a particular purpose.

God according to Christianity created the world, and used scientific processes (which He created) in the process, in the knowledge that it would serve a particular purpose.

I don't give God half enough thanks for being able to walk in this Creation. I certainly don't give God enough thanks for forgiving a sinner like me despite blaspheming against Him and His authority by my lifestyle. What about you? Why do you keep ignoring Him?

Your interpretation doesn't preclude Christianity. Your interpretation assumes that natural phenomenon happen with no accord. Your interpretation assumes that these things can happen for no reason. That to me is absolutely bizarre.

Why is it bizarre? Is the thought of a universe where you are not special so frightening to you?

The interpretation doesn't preclude any god, not a Christian god or a Norse god or any other. The interpretation has no need of unnecessary gods and their associated unnecessary extra assumptions.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

Well I was mostly thinking of the understanding of electrons and semi conductors as being fully within the naturalistic understanding of the universe.

... but electrons and semiconductors don't naturally combine together in the specific complex functional ways that they are found in computers ... computers are Intelligently Designed!!!!

muppeteer wrote: »

You have in fact inadvertently made a perfect example of the flaw in your reasoning though. You have assumed a purpose and intent in a theory of how natural processes such as electrons are excited gets explained in naturalistic ways. You have jumped from how electrons behave in a computer to assuming that all electrons must be guided by design because a few of them are designed by humans. Huge assumption and huge flaw.
There is no comparison being made between a computer and creation only that natural explanations can help understand phenomena in both.

... but 'natural explanations' don't explain how either computers or life were created ... they only explain how they function.
... and that is the huge flaw in your argument.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

Why is it bizarre? Is the thought of a universe where you are not special so frightening to you?

not particularly ... it could be much more frightening to be face to face with a Just God and no way of making recompense for your sin.

muppeteer wrote: »

The interpretation doesn't preclude any god, not a Christian god or a Norse god or any other. The interpretation has no need of unnecessary gods and their associated unnecessary extra assumptions.

The fatal flaw is that the naturalistic interpretation (in relation to 'origins') is invalid.

... and you are hiding behind the fact that naturalistic interpretations about how created phenomena function are valid.

muppeteer

J C wrote: »

... but electrons and semiconductors don't naturally combine together in the specific complex functional ways that they are found in computers ... computers are Intelligently Designed!!!!

... but 'natural explanations' don't explain how either computers or life were created ... they only explain how they function.
... and that is the huge flaw in your argument.

I'm afraid you have asserted that that electrons were created without anything to back it up. Knowing how things function allows us to see through complexity that gives the impression of design, to dispel the initially intuitive and easy answer that it looks designed so there must be a designer.

Natural explanations of how things function don't claim to know how they were created. They only dispel your illusions of designed complexity.

lmaopml

At the root Muppeteer would you say that Atheists believe in chance ultimately? Or at the very least don't see why they shouldn't? Scientists (not particularly Atheists) have been on the road of discovery because it's a wise thing to do so, and now some think 'chance' is the best theory for the creation of the universe.

philologos

muppeteer wrote: »

Why is it bizarre? Is the thought of a universe where you are not special so frightening to you?

The interpretation doesn't preclude any god, not a Christian god or a Norse god or any other. The interpretation has no need of unnecessary gods and their associated unnecessary extra assumptions.

The thought of the universe without an intelligent cause is just odd, weird, and nonsensical to me. All those things more than frightening.

The universe mightn't preclude a Norse god. But what I do know is that there is much more testimony to the God of the Bible than there is to any other, and what I do know is that there is eyewitness testimony showing Jesus coming into this world to pay the price for sin. What I do know also is that there is testimony outside of the Bible concerning Him, and what I do know also is that the Bible is affirmed not only in the lives of other people, but it's claims are substantiated in the world around us.

Honestly that is enough for me.

The question I have for you is, are you afraid of the possibility that Jesus might be Lord, and you might be living a life of blasphemy against the God who created you? How can you be sure that you're right concerning Jesus? Have you spent time examining Him and examining His claims? How can I know that what you say about the Gospel, and what you say about Jesus have any authority of weight?

Have you ever thought that perhaps the Gospel is true? Have you ever thought that perhaps the Bible is accurate when it says that we've all fallen short of God's glory and have fallen into sin (Romans 3:23)? Have you ever thought that you need genuine forgiveness for what you have done in God's creation? Perhaps God is right, and perhaps Jesus did come into the world to pay the penalty for sin once and for all if you'd only stop being so stubborn and repent and believe.

Do you realise that the Christians who post here, genuinely want you to know Jesus, and genuinely want you to know about Him, and genuinely want you to receive eternal life in the Father's glory? Don't you realise that Christians aren't all that interested in boasting about how much better they are than others in the world? That's the reason why I don't care about what Tim says about Christians being stupid. Other than it being demonstrably false, he doesn't seem to realise that we're for the most part here and posting because we long for him and for many others to be saved. To repent and believe in Jesus as Lord, and to commit their lives to living and speaking for Him, and for the sake of the Gospel.

There's more at stake than a superiority complex, or a bit of pseudo-intellectualism. There's the God of the universe at stake, and He longs for all to know Him.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

I'm afraid you have asserted that that electrons were created without anything to back it up.

I didn't go that far ... what I said was that "electrons and semiconductors don't naturally combine together in the specific complex functional ways that they are found in computers ... and computers are Intelligently Designed!!!!

muppeteer wrote: »

Knowing how things function allows us to see through complexity that gives the impression of design, to dispel the initially intuitive and easy answer that it looks designed so there must be a designer.

Knowing how things function doesn't tell us anything about how they were created. Knowing how to drive a car doesn't tell us anything about how it was manufactured!!!

muppeteer wrote: »

Natural explanations of how things function don't claim to know how they were created.

I agree.

muppeteer wrote: »

They only dispel your illusions of designed complexity.

Inelligently designed complexity is a function of the creation of the artefact ... and therefore how it functions tells us nothing about how it was designed ... and thus it is incapable of dispeling the fact that it was intelligently designed.

J C

lmaopml wrote: »

At the root Muppeteer would you say that Atheists believe in chance ultimately? Or at the very least don't see why they shouldn't? Scientists (not particularly Atheists) have been on the road of discovery because it's a wise thing to do so, and now some think 'chance' is the best theory for the creation of the universe.

If you don't accept that intelligence was used ... the only alternative is chance.

... and chance is a very very wasteful thing ... and that is why we don't produce anything by chance ... all intelligently designed manufacturing processes are tightly controlled ... and interestingly, that's what we also find with living organisms and their many tightly controlled physiological processes.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

The thought of the universe without an intelligent cause is just odd, weird, and nonsensical to me. All those things more than frightening.

The universe mightn't preclude a Norse god. But what I do know is that there is much more testimony to the God of the Bible than there is to any other, and what I do know is that there is eyewitness testimony showing Jesus coming into this world to pay the price for sin. What I do know also is that there is testimony outside of the Bible concerning Him, and what I do know also is that the Bible is affirmed not only in the lives of other people, but it's claims are substantiated in the world around us.

Honestly that is enough for me.

The question I have for you is, are you afraid of the possibility that Jesus might be Lord, and you ...... Sweet but pointless questions as the particular wants and needs of a god are irrelevant if the god is un-believable in the first place .......... longs for all to know Him.

Have you thought about why such a notion is alien to you? How can you know that the feeling of weirdness isn't just your natural propensity to believe in god like explanations carried forward into adulthood?


Each of your other points in support of your god have been dealt with before so I won't bother typing it all again. All I'll say is that the standard of your testimony is nowhere near the standard of evidence needed to jump to such wild conclusions. Can I ask why you find testimony good enough for God but I assume you would find testimony insufficient for me making a claim that I can fly?

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

The thought of the universe without an intelligent cause is just odd, weird, and nonsensical to me. All those things more than frightening.

The universe mightn't preclude a Norse god. But what I do know is that there is much more testimony to the God of the Bible than there is to any other, and what I do know is that there is eyewitness testimony showing Jesus coming into this world to pay the price for sin. What I do know also is that there is testimony outside of the Bible concerning Him, and what I do know also is that the Bible is affirmed not only in the lives of other people, but it's claims are substantiated in the world around us.

Honestly that is enough for me.

The question I have for you is, are you afraid of the possibility that Jesus might be Lord, and you might be living a life of blasphemy against the God who created you? How can you be sure that you're right concerning Jesus? Have you spent time examining Him and examining His claims? How can I know that what you say about the Gospel, and what you say about Jesus have any authority of weight?

Have you ever thought that perhaps the Gospel is true? Have you ever thought that perhaps the Bible is accurate when it says that we've all fallen short of God's glory and have fallen into sin (Romans 3:23)? Have you ever thought that you need genuine forgiveness for what you have done in God's creation? Perhaps God is right, and perhaps Jesus did come into the world to pay the penalty for sin once and for all if you'd only stop being so stubborn and repent and believe.

Do you realise that the Christians who post here, genuinely want you to know Jesus, and genuinely want you to know about Him, and genuinely want you to receive eternal life in the Father's glory? Don't you realise that Christians aren't all that interested in boasting about how much better they are than others in the world? That's the reason why I don't care about what Tim says about Christians being stupid. Other than it being demonstrably false, he doesn't seem to realise that we're for the most part here and posting because we long for him and for many others to be saved. To repent and believe in Jesus as Lord, and to commit their lives to living and speaking for Him, and for the sake of the Gospel.

There's more at stake than a superiority complex, or a bit of pseudo-intellectualism. There's the God of the universe at stake, and He longs for all to know Him.

Have you read the testimony to those others Gods ? How do you know yours is the correct one ?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I see. So compassion, justice, beauty etc are not truth?

No more than colour Yellow, jam on toast is or doing 6 months charity work is.

And the fact you immediately jump to something as prosaic as tax collection demonstrates the limitations of your 'logic' much better than I ever could.

Thank God that Marin Luther King and Mother Theresa were illogical enough not to think like accountants.

I don't think you understand what the word logic means. Here is a good start: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192893203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347918571&sr=8-1

muppeteer

lmaopml wrote: »

At the root Muppeteer would you say that Atheists believe in chance ultimately? Or at the very least don't see why they shouldn't? Scientists (not particularly Atheists) have been on the road of discovery because it's a wise thing to do so, and now some think 'chance' is the best theory for the creation of the universe.

I'm not sure what you mean by chance? We don't really have a good theory for the creation of the universe yet.

J C

marienbad wrote: »

Have you read the testimony to those others Gods ? How do you know yours is the correct one ?

That's a fundamentally different question to the issue of whether God(s) exists ... you are now questioning the type of god(s) and not whether they exist in the first place ...
... so before we go there, are you now accepting that God/Gods exist?

philologos

muppeteer wrote: »

Have you thought about why such a notion is alien to you? How can you know that the feeling of weirdness isn't just your natural propensity to believe in god like explanations carried forward into adulthood?

I have extensively. It's why I rejected agnosticism about 5 years ago and decided to accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour and follow Him. Simply put, I find the atheistic naturalism that you guys put across as deeply lacking, on a logical level as well as on any other level. Christianity provides a much better explanation for why we are the way we are as human beings than atheism does. Christianity explains the fallen state of man, much much better than atheism does. It gives a robust explanation as to why this world is as screwed up as it is, and indeed it provides a solution to it - namely that Jesus stood in my place (and yours if you're willing to accept it) and by His blood He paid the price for sin. Atheism - offers nothing. Moreover, the Biblical accounts hold up under the tightest scrutiny. There's no other text as historically authentic as the New Testament in the world today. You might as well give up on any classical history if you're going to reject the manuscript evidence that shows that the New Testament hasn't been significantly changed.

muppeteer wrote: »

Each of your other points in support of your god have been dealt with before so I won't bother typing it all again. All I'll say is that the standard of your testimony is nowhere near the standard of evidence needed to jump to such wild conclusions. Can I ask why you find testimony good enough for God but I assume you would find testimony insufficient for me making a claim that I can fly?

Except, they haven't been dealt with before. Take a look back at this thread, and look at the paltry responses given to the Resurrection, look at the responses given in respect to moral subjectivism. They are weak at best. You claim that the Christian Gospel has been destroyed, and there's no case for it. But this is far from the truth.

I find the testimony sufficient, because the testimony is demonstrably reliable. I find the testimony sufficient because I see that it is evident in the world around me. I find the testimony sufficient because I can see living evidence of the Gospel in my life and in the lives of others.

Can I ask you what do you find so objectionable about Jesus Christ as He's presented in the Gospels? Why do you run from Him? That's the core of the issue.