I
itinerant1
Guest
It’s time to play offense, and shut down the Dawkins’ delusion.
- Status
A
AlbertBall
Guest
This sums up your post and is utter nonsense. I mean come on do we really need to go here?
I
itinerant1
Guest
My statement is not reducible to your one-liner.
Since your post is primarily an emotive response which contains no facts, it does not constitute a counter-argument. Hence, your response remains irrelevant to the issue at hand.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Ok please point me to 5 detailed accounts of Jesus smashing up the market, by CONTEMPORARIES!
I mean come on you can not be serious. You think that one book written 100’s of years later based on hearsay accounts, claiming in invisible creature magically impregnated a virgin with himself. Is the same as accepting the 1000’s of contempary accounts and archaeological evidence for say, the battle of waterloo? If you believe those are equally as valid i don’t know what more to say to you.
I
itinerant1
Guest
There are a number of problems with your response.Ok please point me to 5 detailed accounts of Jesus smashing up the market, by CONTEMPORARIES!
I mean come on you can not be serious. You think that one book written 100’s of years later based on hearsay accounts, claiming in invisible creature magically impregnated a virgin with himself. Is the same as accepting the 1000’s of contempary accounts and archaeological evidence for say, the battle of waterloo? If you believe those are equally as valid i don’t know what more to say to you.
First, this thread pertains to skepticism about God’s existence. A common logical error committed by the skeptic is to think an argument against Christianity is the same as an argument against the existence of God. The fallacy is clear when one realizes that even if Christianity is false, there may exist a God different from the Christian God.
Second, your statements constitute a straw man fallacy. If things were as you characterized them, I would have doubts myself about Christianity. As it is, you have profoundly mischaracterized the situation and presented false alternatives.
Presumably, the “one book” you refer to is the Bible. This is a crass mischaracterization. The Bible is not “one book”. It is a collection of writings by various authors. The Bible is more akin to a small library.
Third, it is false to claim that all is hearsay in the Bible. The Apostle Paul, for instance, is a direct witness to the risen Christ. I can give many more examples, but it will suffice to say that you are unfamiliar with the Bible, though you criticize it. Hence, your criticisms are not in the least based on an informed position. And that is a very unscientific attitude. Hence, you cannot truthfully claim to making an objective evaluation.
Fourth, no one is “claiming in invisible creature magically impregnated a virgin with himself.” This is a blatant straw man fallacy. You have replaced “Creator” with “creature” and “miraculous intervention” with "magic.
In sum, your argument is totally without merit.
C
Churchwilprevai
Guest
there is an atheist who insists I tell her the empirical evidence of God. I know the answers, but need someone who knows more about the “empirical” evidence to shut her up…thanks.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Evidence for the existence of God is not strictly empirical. Generally, the evidence begins with the empirical or common experience and deductive inference follows.
You might be interested in studying Peter Kreeft’s page, Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I afraid you will have along wait, there is not a single shred of empirical evidence for god.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
So you are trying to claim that the the two examples, of god getting a virgin pregnant and the battle of waterloo, have equal evidence?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Your post gives clear evidence for my earlier statement that the atheist is indeed a dogmatist.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I must say the evidence in these two situations is incomparably unequal. For the Battle of Waterloo, there is evidence that originates with humans. For the Incarnation, there is evidence that originates with both humans and God.
Everyone accepts the fact of Waterloo on mere human authority. Christians accept the reality of the Incarnation primarily on Divine authority. Hence, I am more certain of the Incarnation as an historical event than I am of the Battle of Waterloo since Divine authority cannot error.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Shut her up?
And you actually even got a reply from a christian who did not whatsoever mind your statement there. Amazing.
I
itinerant1
Guest
You presume too much. I see so much rudeness on CAF from Catholics and non-Catholics (and atheists) that I get tired of making remarks about it.
L
larkin31
Guest
Atheism requires this form of courage to confront a universe without purpose beyond existence.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I have to say i am a little surprised to read that. There is** far more evidence **for waterloo than word of mouth. You know you can go to the battle field, match the accounts to the land, dig up artifacts, trace the campaign, goto napoleon’s grave, heck we could dig him up if we wanted. Not only that but there are no contradictory accounts, and there are literally 1000’s of unrelated accounts from unrelated sources, from both sides. In short there is no dispute over the validity of waterloo.
I am baffled one could hold such a position.
You say something else that interests me…
“Christians accept the reality of the Incarnation primarily on Divine authority”
Do you mean you accept the world of men as being divine, or do you believe you are actually communicating with the divine. Thanks for the clarification.
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
Lol… well, if recent history is anything to go by, it’s about to get worse, very much worse
Hey, OTCA, you know the answers, but you need someone who has empirical evidence to give it to you
That just makes no sense - if you know the answers, give her them.
Or just tell her Rome has spoken, case closed.
Yeah, that should do it
I
itinerant1
Guest
You ought to be baffled because you have reality exactly upside down in the manner in which you weight the evidence.
First, it is the Divine that has communicated with man by various means, which includes Revelation. In Judaism, this began with God speaking to Abraham. Centuries followed in which Yahweh continued to reveal to the Jews that which He wanted them to know about Himself and His plan. The Bible includes accounts of Yahweh’s interaction with the Jews, i.e. speaking through various prophets. The Divine plan included the Incarnation of the Savior.
There are also extra-biblical accounts of the Savior, which were written by non-Christians, such as is contained in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. Those familiar with ancient history will know well of the independent Roman accounts.
In the ancient Greek world, philosophers, by means of reasoned arguments, demonstrated the existence of the immortal human soul, and the existence of God. For example, Aristotle demonstrates the existence of God as the Prime Mover or Un-caused Cause…
In sum, there are literally millenniums worth of evidence which you must summarily and dogmatically discount in order to justify atheism. And I have only touched lightly on a small part of the evidence. The Judeo-Christian tradition is built on a solid edifice of evidence that has not been dis-proven, only denied or ignored. So, I doubt that you will come up with any argument against it that is worth debating.
On the other hand, What argument(s) can you advance to disprove the traditional philosophical demonstrations for the existence of God?
Give it your best shot, ace!
A
AlbertBall
Guest
The bible was written by men, not god.
Josephus was not a contemporary, and to say the accounts were sparse would be an understatement.
I doubt any scientist would find his “proof” compelling
You have offered nothing? Evidence, lets see it please.Give it your best shot, ace!
L
larkin31
Guest
“solid edifice of evidence”???You ought to be baffled because you have reality exactly upside down in the manner in which you weight the evidence.
First, it is the Divine that has communicated with man by various means, which includes Revelation. In Judaism, this began with God speaking to Abraham. Centuries followed in which Yahweh continued to reveal to the Jews that which He wanted them to know about Himself and His plan. The Bible includes accounts of Yahweh’s interaction with the Jews, i.e. speaking through various prophets. The Divine plan included the Incarnation of the Savior.
There are also extra-biblical accounts of the Savior, which were written by non-Christians, such as is contained in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. Those familiar with ancient history will know well of the independent Roman accounts.
In the ancient Greek world, philosophers, by means of reasoned arguments, demonstrated the existence of the immortal human soul, and the existence of God. For example, Aristotle demonstrates the existence of God as the Prime Mover or Un-caused Cause…
In sum, there are literally millenniums worth of evidence which you must summarily and dogmatically discount in order to justify atheism. And I have only touched lightly on a small part of the evidence. The Judeo-Christian tradition is built on a solid edifice of evidence that has not been dis-proven, only denied or ignored. So, I doubt that you will come up with any argument against it that is worth debating.
On the other hand, What argument(s) can you advance to disprove the traditional philosophical demonstrations for the existence of God?
Give it your best shot, ace!
Do you mean, statements of believers? Or do you mean, physical evidence?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I’ll read it if you think this opens up some more insight on the topic. I’m still grappling with many things that seem to require suspension of critical thought to “understand”. I’m also not fond of the overwhelming mistrust of the scientific community in christian communities, so this will either help answer some questions, or cause me to have even more.
- Status