Question from an athiest: How would you respond?

[Niz]

Crumpy

*The existence of God is a matter of faith. Faith is a gift of God, and not everyone has it.
*
Everyone has been given the gift. Some have refused it.

and don’t forget the church does teach that one can come to the rational conclusion that God does exist, by reason alone.

 

[Niz]

If a god did create the universe, there is no thing that says otherwise. Like vz71 said, this force that created everything does not necessarily fit your idea of “God.” There is no reason otherwise for us to think that we were created, and whatever created us left the picture. The only “evidense” could be a miracle but there is no good account of such a thing.

God is All Powerful
God is All Present
Therefore His power is equally present at every moment in time

 

[ribozyme]

Allow me to chime in again…

You want miracles?

• There is the resurrection of Christ.
• I know it sounds weak, but I have often considered it more an act of faith to believe chance brought my DNA together as well as built my personality and my life experience to make me who I am then to believe that there is a devine creator in control of it all.

Hmm… the resurrection? What evidence do you have for the fact that it happened?

Next, I do not understand about your point about DNA. Are you saying that the genetic information in humans arose de novo? Nope, no scientist believes in that.

 

[buffalo]

If I create a robot, I am its creator. There are things I design into it for functional reasons. When the robot goes and picks soemthing up on its own did I do it? Yes, in the way I designed it, no in actually doing it. In any case I am the creator and am responsible. Can that particular obot exist without me? No.

 

[vz71]

Hmm… the resurrection? What evidence do you have for the fact that it happened?

We have the written accounts of the eyewitnesses to the fact.

Next, I do not understand about your point about DNA. Are you saying that the genetic information in humans arose de novo? Nope, no scientist believes in that.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that the chances of everything occurring in precisely the correct manner to yield you are too remote to be considered chance.
You have DNA, then you have personality, then you have personnel history, etc. All of which is dependent upon history, which had to happen in the exact right manner.

It is easier to believe God to be in control then to believe all of this is mere chance.

 

[ribozyme]

We have the written accounts of the eyewitnesses to the fact.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that the chances of everything occurring in precisely the correct manner to yield you are too remote to be considered chance.
You have DNA, then you have personality, then you have personnel history, etc. All of which is dependent upon history, which had to happen in the exact right manner.

It is easier to believe God to be in control then to believe all of this is mere chance.

Hmm… the resurrection. Any reliable accounts from secular sources. Could you show me how the resurrection is more plausible than Tupac Shakur being alive now?

So, you show evidence that everything is in the correct order. Well, if everything isn’t in the correct order, we wouldn’t be hear to think about it. So we can only exist if everything is in the “correct order.” Contingency also explains why we live in a world where everything is in the correct order. It might be improbable that everything is in the correct order, but it cannot be impossible. For example, we live in a universe amenable for the evolution of life. If we do not, we would not be in this universe to think about it as our evolution would be impossible. But we cannot live in other universes that are unable to generate life. I will concede that generating a universe amendable to life is extremely improbable, but not impossible. It should not be surprising that we live in a universe amiable to the developement of life, which exists in the really small subset of all possible universes capable of generating life, while a vast majority of them are barren. In other words, for every universe able to generate life, 1 x 10^(insert some three digit number here) are possible that are unable to support life.

Don’t understand me? Look up “anthropic principle” on wikipedia.
I am talking about the “weak anthropic principle” as there are possibly other types of universes able to support the developement of life. The “strong anthropic principle”, presumably what you are arguing for (Hugh Ross is a major propenent of this), supposes that there is only one way to generate a universe that is able to support life, and this universe has exactly the same qualities as ours.

Maybe for some fun, our universe is part of Darwinian selection process. Look up cosmological natural selection on wiki too.

 

[mlchance]

Hmm… the resurrection. Any reliable accounts from secular sources.

Because artifically constraining the terms of the debate with weasel words is the first sign of an intellectually indefensible position.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[buffalo]

Hmm… the resurrection. Any reliable accounts from secular sources. Could you show me how the resurrection is more plausible than Tupac Shakur being alive now?

So, you show evidence that everything is in the correct order. Well, if everything isn’t in the correct order, we wouldn’t be hear to think about it. So we can only exist if everything is in the “correct order.” Contingency also explains why we live in a world where everything is in the correct order. It might be improbable that everything is in the correct order, but it cannot be impossible. For example, we live in a universe amenable for the evolution of life. If we do not, we would not be in this universe to think about it as our evolution would be impossible. But we cannot live in other universes that are unable to generate life. I will concede that generating a universe amendable to life is extremely improbable, but not impossible. It should not be surprising that we live in a universe amiable to the developement of life, which exists in the really small subset of universes capable of generating life, while a vast majority of them are barren.

Don’t understand me? Look up “anthropic principle” on wikipedia.
I am talking about the “weak anthropic principle” as there are possibly other types of universes able to support the developement of life. The “strong anthropic principle”, presumably what you are arguing for (Hugh Ross is a major propenent of this), supposes that there is only one way to generate a universe that is able to support life, and this universe has exactly the same qualities as ours.

Maybe for some fun, our universe is part of Darwinian selection process. Look up cosmological natural selection on wiki too.

Over 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus appearing after his death.

Secular sources?

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Arabic translation)
NCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCESA

 

[ribozyme]

Over 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus appearing after his death.

Secular sources?

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Arabic translation)
ANCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Your source said that the disciples not Josephus stated that they saw Jesus alive. So I think there “appearances” to the disciples is best characterized as a mass delusion. I used Tupac as an example in my last post because so many people really believe he is alive, and they are sincere about this. It is parsimonious to say that the disciples underwent a grief delusion, so they are able to cope with the fact that their master died by denying it.

Jesus did exist so I am not an advocate of Doherty’s work (Earl Doherty reminds me of Peter Duesberg).

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Look at a snowflake. It’s uniform shape probably tells you that it’s not formed from water molecules coming together randomly. Do you think there is a god who created it, and every single snowflake that ever existed?

Absolutely.

 

[buffalo]

Your source said that the disciples not Josephus stated that they saw Jesus alive. So I think there “appearances” to the disciples is best characterized as a mass delusion. I used Tupac as an example in my last post because so many people really believe he is alive, and they are sincere about this. It is parsimonious to say that the disciples underwent a grief delusion, so they are able to cope with the fact that their master died by denying it.

Jesus did exist so I am not an advocate of Doherty’s work (Earl Doherty reminds me of Peter Duesberg).

Evidence for the Resurrection

REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES’ LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ? Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts–prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits–we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this “risen Christ .”
As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.
Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.

more…

 

[mlchance]

It is parsimonious to say that the disciples underwent a grief delusion, so they are able to cope with the fact that their master died by denying it.

Present evidence to substantiate this claim as the accurate psychoanalysis of men and women dead for nearly 2000 years.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ribozyme]

Present evidence to substantiate this claim as the accurate psychoanalysis of men and women dead for nearly 2000 years.

– Mark L. Chance.

I am not in any way knowledgable in psychology, but I will say that it is parsimonious to say that the disciples were deluded than to say the resurrection happened. My hypothesis requires one to accept less assumptions than your hypothesis. Regarding superstition, do you think people back then are capable of analyzing the world rationally? Since paganism thrived under the Roman empire, it appears that the inhabitants of the Roman empire believed in untestable hypotheses that have no evidence whatsoever (such as offering food to Ceres guaranteed one would have a productive crop).

My assumption is that people back then as suspectable to delusion as contemporary people today. This is a reasonable assumption compared to yours. Thus, you have the burden of proof for supporting an extraordinary claim. So how is my claim extraordinary??

Well, it all comes down to the reliability to the account of the disciples though.

 

[mlchance]

I am not in any way knowledgable in psychology, but I will say that it is parsimonious to say that the disciples were deluded than to say the resurrection happened.

So, IOW, you don’t have any evidence to support the statement. Just as I suspected. As the cops in the movies say, “Move along, folks. There’s nothing to see here.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Writer]

I am not in any way knowledgable in psychology, but I will say that it is parsimonious to say that the disciples were deluded than to say the resurrection happened. My hypothesis requires one to accept less assumptions than your hypothesis. Regarding superstition, do you think people back then are capable of analyzing the world rationally? Since paganism thrived under the Roman empire, it appears that the inhabitants of the Roman empire believed in untestable hypotheses that have no evidence whatsoever (such as offering food to Ceres guaranteed one would have a productive crop).

My assumption is that people back then as suspectable to delusion as contemporary people today. This is a reasonable assumption compared to yours. Thus, you have the burden of proof for supporting an extraordinary claim. So how is my claim extraordinary??

Well, it all comes down to the reliability to the account of the disciples though.

It’s quite easy for a smugly satisfied young person to assert that Christianity is based upon a lie, but much harder for one to actually make a compelling argument. If we discount the eyewitness accounts of the Gospels themselves (different in some points which more clearly asserts their overall accuracy) and we discount the historical accounts of secular (and Jewish) writers, we are still left with the beautiful truth of the Bible. It’s obviously not from the minds of men, so where then did it originate? The truths themselves point to the Savior. The truths lead to faith. You either have it, or not. But, someday, everyone will believe. The question is…when.

 

[ribozyme]

So, IOW, you don’t have any evidence to support the statement. Just as I suspected. As the cops in the movies say, “Move along, folks. There’s nothing to see here.”

– Mark L. Chance.

No, you are the one making an extraordinary claim, not me. You have to assume the resurrection of Jesus, while I have to assume that the disciples were deluded. My last post was the substantiate that this is a reasonable assumption:

My hypothesis requires one to accept less assumptions than your hypothesis. Regarding superstition, do you think people back then are capable of analyzing the world rationally? Since paganism thrived under the Roman empire, it appears that the inhabitants of the Roman empire believed in untestable hypotheses that have no evidence whatsoever (such as offering food to Ceres guaranteed one would have a productive crop).

My assumption is that people back then as suspectable to delusion as contemporary people today. This is a reasonable assumption compared to yours. Thus, you have the burden of proof for supporting an extraordinary claim. So how is my claim extraordinary??

Contemporary examples of delusion in society include people believing in Unificationism, young-Earth creationism, astrology, Scientology, etc.

Here’s a cliche: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It’s obviously not from the minds of men, so where then did it originate?

So how is Christianity not merely a product of a mental construct, but rather divine truth?

 

[buffalo]

No, you are the one making an extraordinary claim, not me. You have to assume the resurrection of Jesus, while I have to assume that the disciples were deluded. My last post was the substantiate that this is a reasonable assumption:

Contemporary examples of delusion in society include people believing in Unificationism, young-Earth creationism, astrology, Scientology, etc.

Here’s a cliche: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So how is Christianity not merely a product of a mental construct, but rather divine truth?

If our faith did not instruct us to “Go and teach all nations” I wouldn’t bother responding to atheistic or agnostic posters.

In a way it doesn’t matter if you believe. Jesus does not ask of us to believe because we have irrefutable proof. He does ask us to believe in Him in faith. And we do. We Catholics do not have to prove our belief.

The gift of faith does not come from us but from God himself. It is like receiveing a present. You either open it or not. That is up to you.

 

[mlchance]

No, you are the one making an extraordinary claim, not me.

I’ve made no claim at all, and contrary to your implication, it isn’t just extraordinary claims that require evidence. All claims require evidence. You claimed that it is more reasonable to believe that all of Jesus’ followers suffered a shared, grief-induced hallucination. You’ve provided no evidence for this claim beyond merely repeating it. IOW, you’ve provided no evidence at all.

In a court of law, you’d lose the case.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vz71]

So, you show evidence that everything is in the correct order. Well, if everything isn’t in the correct order, we wouldn’t be hear to think about it. So we can only exist if everything is in the “correct order.” Contingency also explains why we live in a world where everything is in the correct order. It might be improbable that everything is in the correct order, but it cannot be impossible.

I welcome you to compute the odds.

In any case, it is not possible to present a reasonable argument that there is no God. The argument inevitably relies upon chance, and as I am sure you can see (having attempted to compute the aforementioned odds) the chance falls into the realm of the ridiculous.

Besides that, there is the old standby of “Where did everything come from” argument that is always a crowd favorite.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

What ribozyme and also Hume have said is true, to a degree. The existence of God, from the standpoint of design, cannot be established through direct efficient causes, through material causes, or through formal causes (though the last would stand the best chance).

The power of the argument from design is that it uses the fourth cause, purpose (something rejected by modern philosophy even before Hume, for the most part).

Snowflakes did not come about by accident. They came about through ordered natural processes. The snowflake is made of water, placed into the form of snow by semi-chaotic interactions with water, and for the purpose of assisting to support the ecosystem, for the purpose of being beautiful, for the purpose of glorifying God.

So God made all snowflakes. He did so through natural processes, through an attractive method by which the snowflake becomes what it is, what it is supposed to be.

What a wonderful world God has given us!