How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[PRmerger]

Sorry. Neither one is even remotely acceptable, much less compelling. That is why I ask. I am familiar with most (if not all) attempts to establish God’s existence, and so far all of them either had some fallacies, or unsubstantiated metaphysical or physical assumptions.

So let’s just cut to the chase, 'kay?

You just tell me the one you’ve examined and found most compelling, and then give the reason why it fails.

 

[PRmerger]

There is nothing scientific about past events. As soon as a time machine will be constructed, the questions about past events can be decided. Until then they do not matter. Some might be better established, others might not. But when it comes to the existence of God, it does not matter. Stick to the present… after all God is assumed to exist today.

LOL!

You simply cannot have some fickle standard for examining evidence, Sol.

“If I really care about something, it has to have this standard. If I don’t care about it, it can have that standard”.

You would get laughed out of every reputable university if you were going to try to set that up as your standard for scrutiny.

“If my girlfriend has Chlamydia, I want to have a standard that’s really, really high for examining if azithromycin or ceftriaxone is better. But if it’s for a poor slob on the street, heck, let’s just go with trial and error!”

 

[Solmyr]

So let’s just cut to the chase, 'kay?

Why not just cut the cheese? Preferably a well aged Limburger? It would be more productive than this hide and seek.

You just tell me the one you’ve examined and found most compelling, and then give the reason why it fails.

Looks like you shy away from presenting your case. As I said, all of them fail, there is not one which is MORE compelling than the rest. But since you insist, I already presented the argument why the Kalaam argument fails. To recap:

Quoting your own words:

Another one is from Craig, echoing the ancient Kalaam argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore it has a cause

And my reply:

1. is an unsubstantiated metaphysical assumption.
2. is an unsubstantiated physical assumption.
   therefore 3) does not follow. Besides, even if it DID follow, it would not establish the existence of the Christian God.

Can’t be more accommodating than that. The ball is in your court.

 

[Solmyr]

LOL!

You simply cannot have some fickle standard for examining evidence, Sol.

“If I really care about something, it has to have this standard. If I don’t care about it, it can have that standard”.

You would get laughed out of every reputable university if you were going to try to set that up as your standard for scrutiny.

“If my girlfriend has Chlamydia, I want to have a standard that’s really, really high for examining if azithromycin or ceftriaxone is better. But if it’s for a poor slob on the street, heck, let’s just go with trial and error!”

You know, PR, you are getting really irrational here. Nowhere an never did I argue that the standard for examining the evidence should be contingent upon my relationship to the patient. Talk about an “otiose” and really, really insulting remark. Stick to your rational evidence for God’s existence HERE and NOW.

 

[PRmerger]

Is there anything to “get”? How would Bach’s music point to the existence of God? Would Snoop Doggy Dogg’s rap music be another “evidence” for God? Remember, no double standards are permitted. .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Let me restate the argument:

There is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God.

It even can be articulated as:

There is beauty, therefore there is a God.

The argument is NOT, as you seem to believe:

There is music performed by non-Asian men therefore there is a God…

But, clearly, you not only do you not comprehend what the actual argument was (and, I think, it is a metaphor for your understanding, in general, of ALL the arguments for God’s existence), you don’t get it anyway, as I stated earlier.

No matter.

We can discuss the best argument you’ve seen for God’s existence and why it fails.

Still waiting for this.

 

[Solmyr]

Let me restate the argument:
There is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God.
It even can be articulated as:
There is beauty, therefore there is a God.

Is that an argument? Really? Why don’t you contemplate these hundreds of tongue-in-cheek arguments for God’s existence godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm They are just as good as yours.

Here are a few:

7.ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn’t that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

277.ARGUMENT FROM IMPLIED BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (XI)
(1) If you evolved, you’d be pretty ugly.
(2) Look how beautiful you are, and the world that is around you.
(3) Only God could have made you so beautiful.
(4) I don’t care that beauty is totally subjective, you are beautiful in God’s eyes!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

There are altogether 666 such arguments. Is that a coincidence?

We can discuss the best argument you’ve seen for God’s existence and why it fails.

Still waiting for this.

I already quoted the Kalaam argument (expressed in your words) and showed why it fails. There is nothing to wait for. Unfortunately there is nothing to wait for for me either. If someone’s idea of proof for God’s existence is the existence of something that some people might find “beautiful”, then it would be futile to wait for something better.

It was you who boasted of having a fully rational argument for God. Instead of providing one, you keep on trying to entice me for presenting which argument I find the most convincing. That is called an attempt to derail the thread. No surprise there.

Just one more question. Do you consider yourself to be one of those “knowledgeable” believers from whom I can actually “learn” something new?

 

[PRmerger]

There are altogether 666 such arguments. Is that a coincidence?

Not sure what this means?

Is this a reference to the atheist Nero?

I already quoted the Kalaam argument (expressed in your words) and showed why it fails.

Ah. So you see this as the best argument. I do, too.

What about your answer to the question: why is there something rather than nothing?

That seems to be a pretty good argument for God’s existence.

“Nothing being just a concept”–so what? If you can think in the abstract, you can have epistemological understanding of what “nothing” is. And that means it’s a perfectly valid concept.

 

[PRmerger]

Regarding “something coming from nothing”:

1. is an unsubstantiated metaphysical assumption.
2. is an unsubstantiated physical assumption.
   therefore 3) does not follow. Besides, even if it DID follow, it would not establish the existence of the Christian God.

Unsubstantiated?

Is there anything–anything at all–that you can show that has simply popped up out of nothing?

Isn’t the fact that atheists often ask why God doesn’t heal amputees because of the fact that they all understand, implicitly, that something can NEVER, EVER, EVER come from nothing, without a cause.

You put yourself in a very, very small minority of atheists if you assert that something has come from nothing.

And, of course, that would put you in the position of having to offer, er, evidence of this occurring.

Perhaps a Bible appearing, floating on the wings of a dove from the heavens?

A baby appearing in thin air in your very arms?

Turnips, mashed and buttered–,<poof!> on your plate?

 

[PRmerger]

And none of them corroborated the story of “walking on water”, the miraculous healing of people, the resurrection of Lazarus, etc… none of the alleged “miracles”.

Well, if they corroborated the stories, that would make them…Christians, right?

I mean, what thinking man would actually, say, “Yes, this guy walked on water, miraculously healed people, resurrected people, died and rose from the dead as he said he would–it’s all true. But I’m not a Christian.”



You can’t set up a criteria that fails by your own standards.

 

[tp3192000]

Is that an argument? Really? Why don’t you contemplate these hundreds of tongue-in-cheek arguments for God’s existence godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
There are altogether 666 such arguments. Is that a coincidence?

Here is #667. We live in 2016 A.D., the Year of the Lord. It has been the Year of the Lord since the end of 1 B.C., before Christ. Hence God lives.

I noticed that there is no reference in 666 arguments to the Shroud of Turin which is a photographic negative of a tortured and crucified man who wore a crown of thorns and had his side pierced. Miraculously appearing on a burial shroud that was described in the gospels.

Jesus walked this same Earth as you and me. At the end of his mission, he was crucified and he died. And then he resurrected from the dead. You can see his suffering on the cross on the miraculous Shroud of Turin and it offers a glimpse of the power of the resurrection. Jesus is still present on the Earth in the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood we eat and drink.

 

[Solmyr]

Ah. So you see this as the best argument. I do, too.

No, I say that they are all EQUALLY invalid.

What about your answer to the question: why is there something rather than nothing?

That seems to be a pretty good argument for God’s existence.

Seems to be? Just like the argument that a fingernail scratching the chalkboard (or Bach’s “Toccata and fugue in D-minor”) seems to be a “pretty good argument” of God’s existence??

“Nothing being just a concept”–so what? If you can think in the abstract, you can have epistemological understanding of what “nothing” is. And that means it’s a perfectly valid concept.

Of course it is a perfectly valid CONCEPT. Just like a “married bachelor” is a perfectly valid concept. But not all “perfectly valid concepts” have an ontologically existing referent in reality. If you still don’t understand that “nothing” does not and cannot exist as reality, then there is no reason to continue. I am willing to educate you, but only if you are willing to learn.

Is there anything–anything at all–that you can show that has simply popped up out of nothing?

I did not say that “something popped out of nothing”. So why do you demand evidence for something I did not say… what I actually DENY? Don’t you get bored by repeating the same straw man arguments?

 

[PRmerger]

No, I say that they are all EQUALLY invalid.

Ah. I see, then.

I am going to give you one chance to retract this, because I don’t dialogue with extremists.

The above is a statement of such fundamentalist close-mindedness that I fear that it limns the mentality of a man who cannot think logically he is so blinded by his opinions.

If you have examined ALL the arguments for God and find them “EQUALLY invalid”, and you stand by that statement, I will have to bow out of discussions with you.

No right thinking person would make such a statement of radical fundamentalism.

I dialogue IRL and virtually with a wide variety of atheists–and I continue to dialogue with intellectuals who are willing to examine arguments.

But not with those whose mindset is intoxicated with zealotry.

NB: the fact that you cannot articulate even the most basic “There is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God”–reformulating it to “There is music performed by men, therefore there is a God” tells me that you haven’t really digested a single argument.

You only reject a comic-strip version of the arguments for God.

So, what say you, Sol?

Do you wish to rescind?

I promise I will continue to dialogue with you and will never mention that you made such a close-minded statement ever again.

We can continue to discuss the arguments for God’s existence.

As long as I know I’m not dealing with fundamentalist extremism.

 

[humble_catholic]

I think many Atheists would respond…:

What scientific results of “the first eucharist miracle”?

Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory…but I don’t recall him producing any scientific results that proved a god existed. Did he? If he did, please post.

There isn’t any definitive evidence for NDEs that supports the existence of a god or gods that many of us aware of. If you know of any, please post.

Stoner’s '58 book and his calculations…fall apart at the very first prophecy he lists–Jesus being born in Bethlehem. Many biblical scholars would debate that point heartily since the evidence is unreliable…and the census that took Joseph and Mary there doesn’t seem to have existed.
Other examples on his list of mathematical odds don’t fare well either, because he is basing them on information that has not been proven.

In other words, I don’t think your list would do an iota of convincing with Atheists, so I wouldn’t suggest the OP use them in his/her argument.

The limiting of one’s freedom…that’s something completely different. First of all, I don’t see how believing in a god limits one’s freedom. Perhaps attempting to follow a specific religion seemingly does to some…but a Theist doesn’t have to follow a religion to be a Theist. And if the person believes in the god, they wouldn’t perceive the religion as being “limiting” but the opposite, non?

That part of your question doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t know any Atheists who don’t believe in a god because it “limits their freedom”.
It just…doesn’t…make…sense.
An Atheist has actually said this to you?

.

I’m sorry daddy girl, but if ndes are real then they do provide evidence for God .
And for this I would look at doctor Jeffrey longs extensive nde research. Dr long researched many ndes from people across the globe in many different cultures as well as beliefs including atheists and found 9 commonalities amongst a majority of them .

1 of them was the life review .

2 is many saw either a being of life or an orb of light and described the light as brighter then a thousand suns yet it does don’t hurt them to look into it . They describe a love coming from that light as a love beyond any love on earth . They also recognized the light as the creator of all reality .

I will post a link to doctor longs research in my next post .

Ndes are starting to become a nightmare to atheists and materialists alike . They’ve even convinced famed atheist physicist sir Roger penrose to believe in the soul and afterlife .

The evidence is compelling

 

[humble_catholic]

youtu.be/KkBBfZIVrx8

Patient in the aware study has conscious awareness and veridical nde for 3 minutes without a functioning brain

telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study.html

First hint of ‘life after death’ in biggest ever scientific study

One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.

Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.

We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.

“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.

“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

 

[humble_catholic]

Here is #667. We live in 2016 A.D., the Year of the Lord. It has been the Year of the Lord since the end of 1 B.C., before Christ. Hence God lives.

I noticed that there is no reference in 666 arguments to the Shroud of Turin which is a photographic negative of a tortured and crucified man who wore a crown of thorns and had his side pierced. Miraculously appearing on a burial shroud that was described in the gospels.

Jesus walked this same Earth as you and me. At the end of his mission, he was crucified and he died. And then he resurrected from the dead. You can see his suffering on the cross on the miraculous Shroud of Turin and it offers a glimpse of the power of the resurrection. Jesus is still present on the Earth in the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood we eat and drink.

Don’t forget tp that in the 100 years in the 20-21st century that science had taken a keen interest in the shroud that not one scientist had been able to replicate that image , and the person who came closest was doctor August accetta , former head of the Southern California shroud center .

Dr accetta was born into the catholic faith but soon left it in early adult hood as he believed that belief in God was s crutch that old people used to make themselves feel comfortable about dying.

He ingested himself with radioactive material and passed gamma rays through his body .
The result was he replicated many of the unique attributes of the shroud image but couldn’t replicate the detail of the head image . He knew at that moment that no ancient science could have replicated that image .

Today he is no longer an agnostic but very much a practicing catholic .

 

[Bradski]

Patient in the aware study has conscious awareness and veridical nde for 3 minutes without a functioning brain.

"We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,”

Oh, come on…

The guy is in a roomful of doctors. He’s undoubtedly plugged into a heart monitor and everyone would have known the instant his heart stopped of its own accord.

Now what honestly do you think they all would have done? Declare him dead straight away? Shrug their shoulders and carry on with what they were doing? They IMMEDIATELY would have started CPR while making a very fast decision as to the best action (shot of adrenalin, defibrillation etc).

So his heart had stopped beating but it had not stopped pumping. The guy confirms this himself:

"My next recollection was looking up at a doctor doing chest compressions.” planetzion.wordpress.com/tag/dr-sam-parnia/

His brain wasn’t starved of oxygen. He wasn’t dead. He had a vivid dream, almost certainly exacerbated by the drugs he had been given.

Try to be a little bit more skeptical, Humble. It will serve you well.

 

[Solmyr]

The above is a statement of such fundamentalist close-mindedness that I fear that it limns the mentality of a man who cannot think logically he is so blinded by his opinions.

Aha. So the chemist who has examined the different “methods” offered by the alchemist for converting iron to gold, and finds all of them inadequate is a “closed minded extremist”? Or the astronomer who studied astrology, and finds it incorrect is another “closed minded extremist”? After all, there MIGHT be a hitherto unexplored method of converting iron to gold, or a new method to interpret the stars which give proper prediction for the person’s attributes or his future.

Now, I am aware that I just presented you with the opportunity to utter a scream of “self-righteous” indignation: “how dare you to compare us to alchemists and astrologers”? Resist the temptation. These are analogies, not equivalences.

If you have examined ALL the arguments for God and find them “EQUALLY invalid”, and you stand by that statement, I will have to bow out of discussions with you.

That is your privilege. By the word “all” I meant Aquinas’s five, Kreeft’s twenty, Anselm’s “greatest conceivable being”, Lee Strobel’s “Case for…” series, and even “Bach’s music proves God’s existence”, (plus quite a few more) and found ALL of them wanting - not necessarily for the SAME reason. Not to mention the 666 ones, which - albeit playfully - but correctly represent the different arguments for God. A satirical exaggeration may be called a “comic strip version”, but a good comic strip or a caricature enhances the pertinent features of the problem presented.

As I mentioned before, MAYBE there is something that I have not encountered yet. The chances are infinitesimal, but STILL, it is possible. If you have access to something NEW, present it. If you don’t, then there is no reason to continue.

I dialogue IRL and virtually with a wide variety of atheists–and I continue to dialogue with intellectuals who are willing to examine arguments.

I already examined all those, which were presented to me. And their number goes into the hundreds.

No right thinking person would make such a statement of radical fundamentalism.
But not with those whose mindset is intoxicated with zealotry.

If I would utter such derogatory statements, I would be rightfully slapped down for violating the RULE (not guideline!) for charitable behavior.

NB: the fact that you cannot articulate even the most basic “There is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God”–reformulating it to “There is music performed by men, therefore there is a God” tells me that you haven’t really digested a single argument.

Nonsense. I was aware of the “correct” version, and my “metaphorical twisting” (Snoop Dogg’s rap music) was designed to show how ridiculous it is. After all there is no objective “beauty”, rather “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. And of course the assertion that “beauty is evidence for God’s existence” is so dumb that it does not merit a serious response.

You only reject a comic-strip version of the arguments for God.

A caricature is an intentional distortion to enhance the pertinent features of the subject. No wonder that people will recognize a caricature of a person more easily than a portrait.

Do you wish to rescind?

Maybe a clarification is in order. I will use an analogy of runners. Since none of them reach the finish line, as such all of them are losers. Now it is possible that some failed sooner and others failed later, but that is just a “cosmetic” difference. The same applies for the different attempts to “prove” God. Using the two ones we looked at, the Kalaam is “better”, and the “Bach” is ridiculous.

---

I will offer one more critique of your method.

The best apologetic method would simply present God for the skeptic. That could be achieved if the apologist asked God for such a presentation, and God would honor this humble request.

The second best apologetics would be to start from the existence of the physical universe, and then - using our current knowledge - present a line of arguments which will lead - both logically and rationally - to God’s existence. Aquinas tried this method, but his ignorance prevented him from constructing a valid argument. Before someone starts screaming that I “put down” Aquinas, I do not. It was not his fault that the general knowledge was so inadequate that his speculations carry no weight any more. Of course he also committed a few errors of fallacious argumentation.

Now the actually employed “apologetics” is really incorrect. You (not just personally you) present some questions about reality and assert that those questions can only be answered by stipulating God’s existence. The trouble is multifold. First, the questions are already wrong. “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” or “How did the universe pop into existence from the vast ocean of nothing?” and incorrect questions like that. And second, even if some question would be valid, and the answer WOULD point to some non-physical entity, it would not point to attribute-rich God of Christianity, at best it would point to some faceless, deistic “god”.

The major problem is not just the incorrect nature of these stipulated “problems”. It is much worse. It is the continued presentation of these non-problems even after it has been explained (many times!) WHY they are incorrect. You accuse me of “closed minded zealotry” and “the inability to think logically”. How would you characterize someone who is presented with a simple explanation, but keeps repeating the same errors?

 

[PRmerger]

That is your privilege. By the word “all” I meant Aquinas’s five, Kreeft’s twenty, Anselm’s “greatest conceivable being”, Lee Strobel’s “Case for…” series, and even “Bach’s music proves God’s existence”, (plus quite a few more) and found ALL of them wanting -

Just to clarify: I asked which of the arguments you found the most compelling.

It is understood that you find them all “wanting”.

Obviously.

That’s why you remain an atheist.

But I again am asking which you find to be the most compelling. The “best of the worst” as it were.

And if you are going to stick with your “NONE of them have even a scintilla of reason to them”, then, sadly, I am going to have to end our dialogue.

For, as I stated earlier, that type of statement belies an obduracy that is so contrary to facts and reason that it is extremist thinking.

And I don’t dialogue with extremists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And if you are going to stick with your “NONE of them have even a scintilla of reason to them”, then, sadly, I am going to have to end our dialogue.

For, as I stated earlier, that type of statement belies an obduracy that is so contrary to facts and reason that it is extremist thinking.

And I don’t dialogue with extremists.

I wonder if he can produce a number of alleged proofs for Nogod comparable to the number of alleged proofs for God.

If not, his atheism is considerably less credible than the incredibility he alleges for theism since the basis of atheism is pure assumption without proof.

 

[tp3192000]

Don’t forget tp that in the 100 years in the 20-21st century that science had taken a keen interest in the shroud that not one scientist had been able to replicate that image , and the person who came closest was doctor August accetta , former head of the Southern California shroud center .

Dr accetta was born into the catholic faith but soon left it in early adult hood as he believed that belief in God was s crutch that old people used to make themselves feel comfortable about dying.

He ingested himself with radioactive material and passed gamma rays through his body .
The result was he replicated many of the unique attributes of the shroud image but couldn’t replicate the detail of the head image . He knew at that moment that no ancient science could have replicated that image .

Today he is no longer an agnostic but very much a practicing catholic .

FYI, there are enough skeptics in the world, Humble. Thank you for the reference. I don’t need the Shroud to believe, but it is great to have as an affirmation anyway. No one has been able to explain or demonstrate how it was created. Of course, those medievals could have had a method that they used that they only used one time ever in creating the image.
Accetta did not achieve great results. From an article archived on Schwortz web site, from the British Society for the Turin Shroud, Issue No. 50, November 1999, Part 1: “Image quality-wise these seemed to need quite a lot of refining, one problem, acknowledged by Accetta, being the showing up of internal organs.”
The Shroud is not a very good argument apparently as I seem to have been put on ignore.