Well, why?

[AntiTheist]

I didn’t say it didn’t make sense “to us”, I say it’s logically impossible. Can’t exist.

Well, since all things have a beginning, it’s equally logically impossible for something to have always existed. And since something can’t come from nothing, it’s equally logically impossible for particles to spontaneously generate from nothing.

But since those are the only options – and they’re all impossible – I submit that there’s something going on that we haven’t discovered yet, something that doesn’t (yet?) compute to our minds.

If you want, you can play the special pleading game of, “Everything needs a beginning…except claim X, which I’m just going to declare doesn’t need a beginning because I say so!” but once you’ve asserted that something can exist without a beginning, then there’s nothing to say that the universe itself didn’t always exist, without a beginning, in some form or another before the Big Bang.

We don’t have enough information to say much more than a shrug at this point.

Additionally, to only allow empirical evidence denies the possibility of absolute truth.

If, by “absolute truth,” you mean the world outside of my head (which appears to exist independently of my thoughts about it), then I would say that evidence is your only means of coming to know truth.

If, however, by “absolute truth,” you mean some fanciful imagination that you have, then I question the use of the word “truth” to label it.

davidv:

My being and the immense wonder in the world around me and trust in the people who taught me about God.

So your evidence for the existence of an incorporeal intelligence is that you exist, that you experience wonder at the world, and that you trust the opinions of people who did not have access to any better evidence than you?

Would that also be sufficient evidence for the claim that Krishna exists?

 

[AntiTheist]

This seems to be what your whole anti-faith hinges on, that there is absolutely zero evidence for God. I disagree, of course, and believe that the authors of the Bible were not making stuff up in their accounts of the Hebrews’ encounters with God and the life of Christ. I also know that in my own life by following the morality of Jesus and his Church I have experienced what Jesus said I would, and what other believers have said they have.

But we’re right back to square one. You’re saying that you believe a claim about the world around you because you read it in an ancient book and because you’ve had certain inner experiences (which, amazingly enough, match the descriptions you read about in the book…how totally unexpected, eh?).

That’s not sufficient evidence for a claim about the world. What evidence leads you to conclude that the stories – and in particular, the supernatural part of the stories – are true? [And if you seriously intend to say, “We can’t be sure about anything in history,” I am going to fall over laughing]

The rest of your post, I’m sorry to say, is just you trying to weasel your way out of providing sufficient evidence by pointing out that I don’t use scientific evidence to evaluate every claim and that my thinking is based on axioms not demonstrable by evidence…and if you had read this thread, you would notice that I have said exactly that many times.

For example, you tease me by saying that my system of logic wasn’t constructed with hypotheses and control groups and tests, thinking that you’ve stumbled onto some brilliant point that I’ve never considered before. But you have failed to consider that our system of logic has been found to work when applied to reality – and that it is in fact the only thing that is a consistently reliable arbiter of the truth of claims.

We developed logic on the back of a number of logical absolutes (such as the law of identity) that are expressions of our experience of reality and a number of rational assumptions (such as “my senses reveal a world outside of me”) – and these absolutes and assumptions confirm themselves through our experience. And the system of logic we have developed – to evaluate claims about the world outside of our heads by using evidence and reason – has demonstrated itself to work: witness, for example, the computer that you are reading this message on, a product of a thought process that involves reason and evidence.

It would seem that there’s something to this whole “evidence and reason” business when it comes to evaluating claims about the world. And in fact, that is where we employ logic: in evaluating claims about the world outside of our heads.

I fully admit that logic is powerless to analyze the pleasant feeling we have running through the grass on a summer day; logic is powerless to tell us what we want to eat for dinner; but it is consistently reliable when applied to claims that fall within its domain: and fact claims about the world around us fall right into that domain.

“A disembodied intelligence exists that created the world, cares for all people, and intervenes in nature” is a claim about the world, and as such, it should be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other claim about the world.

For someone to come along and say, “Oh, but you believe in logic without evidence! Therefore, nothing needs evidence! Not even my wild and extraordinary claims about the world!” is just to make a massive and total confusion of the issue at hands. Followed to its logical end, this “argument” makes it possible to justify believing in absolutely anything because it has the gall to assert that evidence is not necessary.

The fact is that you don’t have any good evidence for your claim, and you’re trying to use a bunch of hand-waving to pretend that we don’t need to use evidence to evaluate claims about the world. A good sign that you’re full of it is that I’ll bet that in every area of your life other than theology you use evidence when it comes to evaluating claims about the world outside of yourself.

All I really personally know is that Catholic theology makes the most comprehensive sense to me of the religions I’ve read about, and that my personal, subjective experiences support it.

Lots of ideas that have internal consistency and consistency with our observations aren’t true.

But at least we really come to it here, don’t we? You believe because you want to believe.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Additionally, to only allow empirical evidence denies the possibility of absolute truth. That is my greatest issue with Atheism, is that I have always believed in the existence of absolute truth, while the Atheist rejects the notion in favor of overwhelming evidence.

Don’t forget, And is willing to change their view based on new evidence.

 

[allenirvan]

Don’t forget, And is willing to change their view based on new evidence.

Catholics have no problem with this updating their views, as I said before, we are simply believing something additional to the empirical evidence, all scientific views by nature do not effect the deposit of faith… A Catholic priest came up with the idea of the Big Bang, if that isnt’ radical change I don’t know what is…

 

[inocente]

So right from the beginning, we’re up against it with a big, fat “I don’t know.”

Things get worse when we realize that the laws of physics – that is, our descriptions of the way that matter behaves – only apply to the universe that exists after the Big Bang. We don’t know enough about what came before the Big Bang (or even if before the Big Bang makes any sense) to say anything conclusively. How do we know that causality even functioned then the way that it does now? How can you have causality when it’s possible that time didn’t exist yet?

And even if you could demonstrate that there had to be a “first cause,” there’s nothing that indicates that this “first cause” was intelligent, was a god (what if the first cause is nothing more than some property of potentiality, a law of the pre-universe?), or even still exists.

My vote is still for “I don’t know.”

Well brother, we seem to agree on virtually everything.

But I fear you misread the intent of my post #76. I went into baby steps mode, to remove as much baggage as possible. So I’m not arguing the latest scientific speculation or the Bible says so, miracles, value judgments, life after death, it makes me feel good or any other possible benefits whatsoever.

I’m saying that at that level no position has enough evidence to make a case that would stand up in court. Specifically, we all have an inner conviction that we fortify by various means. We don’t even know that the Ultimate Answer would make any more sense to us than “42”. I’m then saying that none of the baggage would stand up in court either.

In this position we are both stripped naked, and you cannot judge me unless I also judge you. If you have a bang-up argument that reality denies God then please post it, and if I agree I’ll enter you for the Nobel Prize For Most Dazzling Argument Ever (I’ll need a photo of you in a swimsuit).

PS: I am an ex-atheist at a large IT center, where most people are graduates. After overhearing one extraordinary conversation (long before renouncing my atheistic faith ), I sat with different groups at coffee-breaks and turned the conversation to the subject of belief. The results of my little project were that most believed in God for no apparent reason, and most who didn’t had a wide variety of other beliefs, including heaven. Very few believed there was nothing supernatural. Many in both groups entertained New Age pick’n’mix, including “UFO abductions, psychic powers, ghosts, goblins, etc.” (your post #84). These were graduates, remember. Go tell it to the mountains.

 

[CWBetts]

Don’t forget, And is willing to change their view based on new evidence.

Catholics have no problems with changing views based on empirical evidence when the subject matter is in the natural, material world. Science has nothing to say about God. If one were to be truly honest, if they actually relied solely on empirical evidence, they could not claim to be an atheist. At worst, they can only claim agnosticism. Since God cannot be empirically observed, all that could be claimed by a truly unbiased individual is that they cannot know whether or not God exists. In short, an atheist, claiming that God does not exist, is not relying on evidence, but is actually making a statement of faith.

 

[AntiTheist]

If you have a bang-up argument that reality denies God then please post it …] atheistic faith

CWBetts:

In short, an atheist, claiming that God does not exist, is not relying on evidence, but is actually making a statement of faith.

At this relatively late point in the thread, participants can now appreciate the mistake in saying that atheists 1) have a “faith” of any kind and 2) have a burden of proof comparable to that possessed by theists.

The burden of proof in any claim always rests with those making the claim. If there is insufficient evidence to support the claim, the rational option is to not accept the claim. This act of not accepting the claim is in no way, shape, or form “faith.”

If you claim to have in your garage an invisible, incorporeal dragon for which there is no empirical evidence, my disbelief in your dragon doesn’t require “faith.” Disbelief is simply the rational position until you can produce evidence [NOTE: I’m hoping that everyone reading this thread at this point understands that I’m not comparing your god to a dragon…I’m comparing standards of evidence in each case and what’s justifiable to believe in each case]

This particular thread is about the claim “A disembodied intelligence exists that created the universe, cares for the creatures in it, and intervenes in nature.” We’re discussing whether it has sufficient evidence for us to accept it.

A lot of you want to ignore that issue by jumping to a different claim: “No disembodied intelligences exist anywhere,” which is a different claim that will require its own discussion.

Here’s an important point: not accepting the first claim doesn’t mean that a person automatically accepts the second claim. If you flip a coin and hide it, I’m capable of saying, “I don’t believe it’s heads” without accepting that it’s tails.

On this thread, I have been defending the atheist, the non-theist (“I don’t believe it’s heads”) position – that is, I have been defending the position that the claim in question does not have sufficient evidence for us to accept it. If you want to have a discussion about the other claim (that no disembodied intelligences exist), then that will have to be its own separate thread.

But back to this thread. It’s utterly ridiculous to say that until someone comes along and proves a universal negative that you’re justified in accepting a claim that has no evidence. Our topic is what empirical evidence is there to support the claim.

People have been trying to skate around this issue – and some have even been trying to do a dance to pretend that you don’t need evidence to believe a claim about the world around us. So let’s hear some more answers.

Incidentally, I’m probably not going to be able to get back to this website for a few days, so don’t get excited – I’ll be back.

 

[CWBetts]

CWBetts: At this relatively late point in the thread, participants can now appreciate the mistake in saying that atheists 1) have a “faith” of any kind and 2) have a burden of proof comparable to that possessed by theists.

The burden of proof in any claim always rests with those making the claim. If there is insufficient evidence to support the claim, the rational option is to not accept the claim. This act of not accepting the claim is in no way, shape, or form “faith.”

If you claim to have in your garage an invisible, incorporeal dragon for which there is no empirical evidence, my disbelief in your dragon doesn’t require “faith.” Disbelief is simply the rational position until you can produce evidence [NOTE: I’m hoping that everyone reading this thread at this point understands that I’m not comparing your god to a dragon…I’m comparing standards of evidence in each case and what’s justifiable to believe in each case]

This particular thread is about the claim “A disembodied intelligence exists that created the universe, cares for the creatures in it, and intervenes in nature.” We’re discussing whether it has sufficient evidence for us to accept it.

A lot of you want to ignore that issue by jumping to a different claim: “No disembodied intelligences exist anywhere,” which is a different claim that will require its own discussion.

Here’s an important point: not accepting the first claim doesn’t mean that a person automatically accepts the second claim. If you flip a coin and hide it, I’m capable of saying, “I don’t believe it’s heads” without accepting that it’s tails.

On this thread, I have been defending the atheist, the non-theist (“I don’t believe it’s heads”) position – that is, I have been defending the position that the claim in question does not have sufficient evidence for us to accept it. If you want to have a discussion about the other claim (that no disembodied intelligences exist), then that will have to be its own separate thread.

But back to this thread. It’s utterly ridiculous to say that until someone comes along and proves a universal negative that you’re justified in accepting a claim that has no evidence. Our topic is what empirical evidence is there to support the claim.

People have been trying to skate around this issue – and some have even been trying to do a dance to pretend that you don’t need evidence to believe a claim about the world around us. So let’s hear some more answers.

Incidentally, I’m probably not going to be able to get back to this website for a few days, so don’t get excited – I’ll be back.

The point is that all you can say is “I don’t know” based on empirical evidence alone. Your argument about an “invisible dragon in the garage” is altogether different (as is the invisible pink unicorn, Russell’s teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or just about any other attempt to disprove God). The “invisible dragon” is a material creature that cannot be seen. God is a Spiritual being without material form. Thus, bu definition, science can say nothing about Him. The only two rational positions are “I believe that God exists” or “I cannot tell definitively if God exists or not.” One may not say “God does not exist” without it becoming a dogmatic statement.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, since all things have a beginning, it’s equally logically impossible for something to have always existed. And since something can’t come from nothing, it’s equally logically impossible for particles to spontaneously generate from nothing.

But since those are the only options – and they’re all impossible – I submit that there’s something going on that we haven’t discovered yet, something that doesn’t (yet?) compute to our minds.

If you want, you can play the special pleading game of, “Everything needs a beginning…except claim X, which I’m just going to declare doesn’t need a beginning because I say so!” but once you’ve asserted that something can exist without a beginning, then there’s nothing to say that the universe itself didn’t always exist, without a beginning, in some form or another before the Big Bang.

We don’t have enough information to say much more than a shrug at this point.

I claim a metaphysical beginning, which is entirely possible since it’s outside of physics. I submit this as the only logical answer.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Ta material creature that cannot be seen. God is a Spiritual being without material form. Thus, bu definition, science can say nothing about Him. The only two rational positions are “I believe that God exists” or “I cannot tell definitively if God exists or not.” One may not say “God does not exist” without it becoming a dogmatic statement.

Right, but do we have an reasons for taling the former position? That’s what I’m asking. Why should I believe that God exists?

I’m quite happy with how this thread has turned out. Excellent.

 

[Luke_K]

That’s not sufficient evidence for a claim about the world. What evidence leads you to conclude that the stories – and in particular, the supernatural part of the stories – are true? [And if you seriously intend to say, “We can’t be sure about anything in history,” I am going to fall over laughing]

I can’t give you a rigorous answer because I am not a student of history, but I’ll say that one thing which differentiates Judaism and Christianity from other religions I’ve heard about is that the supernatural events occurred before a whole nation of people. God’s giving of the ten commandments at Sinai was heard by the entire Hebrew people, and Jesus’ whole ministry and miracles were public, for example. We learn from St. Paul’s letters that Christian churches were formed before any books on Jesus’ life were written, and that dogmas like the resurrection of Christ and the Eucharist were already being passed along to believers.

Being Catholic, my belief in the truth of the Old Testament miracles comes mostly from my belief in Jesus’ words and deeds, who said that he founded a Church on St. Peter and granted the charism of infallibility to his office when it comes to Divine Revelation.

Islam’s origin just comes from a guy who went to a cave and said that God revealed the stuff to him that he wrote down, just like Joseph Smith when he founded the Latter Day Saints. The reasons for being Catholic versus other Christian denominations are all here on this site. Hinduism is philosophically unsound from what I know of it (thousands of gods), as well as Buddhism (no absolute truth or soul). It’s vitally important though for you to understand that the spiritual life is accessible to all religious followers who seek humility and a truth greater than their senses, even though it attains its full realization in Jesus Christ.

The rest of your post, I’m sorry to say, is just you trying to weasel your way out of providing sufficient evidence by pointing out that I don’t use scientific evidence to evaluate every claim and that my thinking is based on axioms not demonstrable by evidence…and if you had read this thread, you would notice that I have said exactly that many times.

No, I’m not trying to weasel my way out of anything. I’m pointing out what seem to be flaws in your philosophical system. I left this thread for a while and just came back to add a little snippet until you challenged me, so I haven’t deciphered your whole argument.

But you have failed to consider that our system of logic has been found to work when applied to reality – and that it is in fact the only thing that is a consistently reliable arbiter of the truth of claims.

Isn’t this circular logic, though? “The system of relying on past events to predict future ones has worked in the past, so it should work in the future.”

And the system of logic we have developed – to evaluate claims about the world outside of our heads by using evidence and reason – has demonstrated itself to work: witness, for example, the computer that you are reading this message on, a product of a thought process that involves reason and evidence.

It has not been consistently reliable. Think about all the engineering blunders of history and how defective our technology tends to be. Think about how hard it is to perform an experiment and get the right numbers and results, which then have to be statistically analyzed anyways to find a general trend. I think it seems so reliable because it never makes any truth claims at all. It just says, “This is our best guess for now, but we’re leaving it open to revision or discarding it entirely in the future.”

Christianity has demonstrated itself to work as well. Ask its many adherents on this site.

A good sign that you’re full of it is that I’ll bet that in every area of your life other than theology you use evidence when it comes to evaluating claims about the world outside of yourself.

Actually I don’t, and I bet you don’t either. The overwhelming majority of what I’ve learned in school and accept as fact I have not tested myself, and if I have it was probably only once in a physics or chemistry lab that barely worked for me and didn’t work for lots of other students (and don’t get me started on verifying history…) For example, have you personally recorded astronomical observations to see if they are consistent with Kepler’s laws and Newtonian gravity?

But at least we really come to it here, don’t we? You believe because you want to believe.

Well of course I do, because belief in anything is a free choice. However, the fact that you reduce my faith to simple desire as if I believe only because religion is like a security blanket to me, really makes me think that you have an extremely limited understanding of what the spiritual life in Christ is like. I also have many reasons and temptations for not believing too, you know. I know I’d enjoy looking at porn for instance. The spiritual journey to sainthood is like a battle between two wills in the soul. A proud one which seeks to keep on living the way it has in the past and struggle against Christ, and another one which seeks to conform the soul entirely to that of Christ.

I know that sounds like bogus hippy-talk to you. Regardless of the other arguments I’ve posted here, the most sincere one I can relate to you is to really just test Catholicism out for yourself, and at least try and experience what other believers say they experience. If you’re interested in it even a microscopic amount, just try praying the rosary for a start, perhaps even in front of the tabernacle in a Catholic Church if you’re bold enough.

 

[CWBetts]

Right, but do we have an reasons for taling the former position? That’s what I’m asking. Why should I believe that God exists?

I’m quite happy with how this thread has turned out. Excellent.

First is St. Anselm’s proof, which I find unsatisfying:

1. 
   *]God is that beig of which nothing greater gan be concieved
   *]I can conciee of such a being
   *]Therfore God exists.
   
   I am not really expecting anyone to buy this. Like I said, i find it unsatisfying. I prefer the fie proofs of St. Thomas Aquinas, which can be found here

 

[AntiTheist]

Well, it turns out I’m back early, and it’s a good thing that I am, too, because I turn my back for two seconds and this thread gets clogged up with bad arguments.

CWBetts:

The “invisible dragon” is a material creature that cannot be seen. God is a Spiritual being without material form.

In my example, I am claiming that the invisible, incorporeal dragon is a spiritual creature (who lives on a spiritual plane outside the universe) about whom science cannot say anything.

Obviously, not believing in this being is not an act of faith – disbelief is the rational position. This supposed dragon is indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist, and it’s the exact same case with your god.

One may not say “God does not exist” without it becoming a dogmatic statement.

Again – in case you missed it – this is a thread about whether the claim that “god exists” has sufficient evidence to justify it.

I don’t think that any fair reader of this thread will say that this claim has met its burden of proof.

Marc Anthony:

I claim a metaphysical beginning, which is entirely possible since it’s outside of physics. I submit this as the only logical answer.

Anything could be possible. It could be possible that the “stuff” that came before the Big Bang always existed. It could be possible that there’s some quantum principle that allows matter to emerge from nothing. It could be that your god exists and created the universe. It could be that Thor exists and created the universe. It could be that there’s some Buddhist cosmic principle that’s creating the illusion of a universe.

It could be anything. You, on this thread, are asking for evidence to support one particular claim among many. How could you possibly just blindly assert one of these choices as the “only logical answer” when we have no evidence to go on?

Oh, and incidentally, you did claim earlier in this thread that you have come across many “refutations of the refutations.” So – not to push you or anything, but you did make this claim – when exactly do you intend to get around to showing me where I’m wrong in my thinking? I’m still waiting for that.

CWBetts again:

First is St. Anselm’s proof, which I find unsatisfying:

1. God is that beig of which nothing greater gan be concieved
2. I can conciee of such a being
3. Therfore God exists.
   I am not really expecting anyone to buy this. Like I said, i find it unsatisfying.

Well, I’m glad you find it unsatisfying, because it’s utterly ridiculous. Watch this:

1. A gobbledygook is a yacht belonging to me of which no greater yacht belonging to me can be conceived.
2. I can conceive of such a yacht.
3. Therefore, I own a yacht.

The lesson here is obvious: you can’t prove that things exist by defining them into existence.

 

[AntiTheist]

Luke K:

God’s giving of the ten commandments at Sinai was heard by the entire Hebrew people, and Jesus’ whole ministry and miracles were public, for example.

Yeah, according to the stories (i.e. legends) that were written down long after the supposed events. Where are the eye-witness reports from these supposed people? We don’t have any. All we have are a bunch of legends.

Being Catholic, my belief in the truth of the Old Testament miracles comes mostly from my belief in Jesus’ words and deeds, who said that he founded a Church on St. Peter and granted the charism of infallibility to his office when it comes to Divine Revelation.

And you seriously try to claim that I am advancing a circular argument? Seriously?

Isn’t this circular logic, though? “The system of relying on past events to predict future ones has worked in the past, so it should work in the future.”

I have no idea what you’re babbling about here, What I’m talking about is using evidence to determine whether or not claims are likely to be true – it’s yielded tremendous results for us in terms of allowing us to gain more and more control over the world, which implies that there’s something to it.

If you’re not bright enough to grasp why we use evidence and reason to evaluate claims, I’m afraid that this conversation is more than a little beyond you.

If, on the other hand, you are seriously intent on making an articulate argument for why evidence and reason are not the best, most consistently reliable methods for evaluating claims about the world, then the floor is all yours. Let’s hear an alternate method, and how you know that its conclusions are more reliable.

I think it seems so reliable because it never makes any truth claims at all. It just says, “This is our best guess for now, but we’re leaving it open to revision or discarding it entirely in the future.”

That’s precisely what makes it so reliable – it is tentative and open to revision upon evaluating new evidence, like all actual knowledge is.

“Consistently reliable” doesn’t mean “always and forever absolutely correct in every case” – it means (surprise, surprise) consistently reliable based on the best evidence we have at the time. We have never come up with a better method of knowing things about the world, and if you’ve got a better method, I’d like to hear it and how you know that its conclusions are better.

Christianity has demonstrated itself to work as well. Ask its many adherents on this site.

Egads. There’s a huge difference between “This belief makes me feel good and confident, and it’s given me the confidence to change my life” and “Here’s the empirical evidence that demonstrates the theory of gravity.”

See, one is evidence that a belief makes people feel good (not that it’s true) – the other is evidence that a theory (a well-supported explanation of a body of facts) is accurate, based on our current information.

For example, have you personally recorded astronomical observations to see if they are consistent with Kepler’s laws and Newtonian gravity?

I don’t need to. I have a great deal of evidence – there’s that word you don’t like – that tons of scientists have conducted these observations and not one of them has come to a different conclusion. I don’t need to personally measure every piece of information in the universe to have knowledge – that’s why humanity has established professional sciences, with bodies that peer-review work to weed out claims unsupported by…dun-dun-dun….evidence!

You know what I loathe about your Matrix-argument? It seeks to reduce everyone to an equal level of ignorance: “Gee, nobody’s got evidence of anything, and everybody takes everything on faith, so I can believe whatever outrageous claims I want because evidence isn’t necessary and nobody really knows anything.”

It’s the worship of ignorance, plain and simple. Some of us, luckily, have knowledge.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

We do not have evidence, per se, for the existence of God, a god or gods. Empirical evidence is lacking but it does seem odd that most cultures that have ever existed believed in something more other than what is seen and such. Our Lady of Guadalupe being in the EXACT center of the Americas to convert people who sacrificed thousands of people (namely infants and even tribes!) per week. Miracles? St. Bernadette’s body still in pristine condition 150 years after her death. If, according to the Big Bang theory, the beginning was a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule would not have developed. (Read about how important that molecule is to life.) No proof… but sure is convincing. We do have many arguments for God’s (or an Intelligent Being) existence that have yet to be refuted AND unanswered. (Argument from Design, from Conscience, from Desire, from religious experience for starters). Again, this amounts to no proof. A priori thought can do a lot of good. Socrates knew most of Christian doctrine through a priori reasoning. Christ is the Way of salvation but it does not have to be an empirical belief in Him. Seems odd huh? A possible pre-Christian Christian purely through a priori arguments. Plato and Aristotle were close also!

Past that though, Christianity is upon the Incarnation of God made human. It is the only religion where a God comes down to suffer for and with us. Once any rational human being believes he actually existed, Christians can make an argument for his divine nature also. He is no lie, myth, lunatic or guru. He is God. Seems odd that the disciples would joyously be exiled, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, beheaded, crucified upside down, boiled in oil, sawed in pieces, fed to lions, and sliced up by gladiators for anyone other than God.

This stuff is so kool! I can talk about this all day! I hope this helps answer your questions.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

AntiTheist: How much empirical evidence do you want? Are you going to believe they are miracles? Or at least consider it? Or just be stubborn? Prove that religion is irrational and why so many rational thinkers have accepted it. Prove why so many atheists (Camus, Sartre) have even considered the possibility of something transcendent. Send me a wall post. I can give you ALL the reasons and evidence you need.

Sorry that this post has zero to do with the Original Post. I have trouble biting my tongue (typing tongue I suppose).

 

[AntiTheist]

AntiTheist: How much empirical evidence do you want?

Any evidence at all would be fine.

That spread of ridiculous pieces of “evidence” in your preceding post certainly doesn’t count as evidence for any supernatural being. You admit as much yourself: “No proof… but sure is convincing.”

Either something is evidence or not (let’s forget about “proof”…just any evidence at all would be helpful). On some level, you recognize that the stuff you’re talking about isn’t sufficient as evidence, even though you have chosen to find it “convincing”…presumably because it’s so “kool,” dude.

I’m going to log off now, but before I go, I have a game for the other thread participants, particularly inocente, since he seems to be on my wave-length. Here’s the game: I want you, in the next 24-hours, to go through GreggAlvarez’s supposed “evidence” and respond to it in the manner that I would – that is, subject it to strictly rational scrutiny, and try your hand at playing AntiTheist for a day.

All thread participants are invited to try.

Go on, explain to him why that stuff doesn’t count as evidence. I’ll be back to correct your answers tomorrow night. Show all your work – partial credit for answers that come close.

 

[inocente]

On this thread, I have been defending the atheist, the non-theist (“I don’t believe it’s heads”) position – that is, I have been defending the position that the claim in question does not have sufficient evidence for us to accept it. If you want to have a discussion about the other claim (that no disembodied intelligences exist), then that will have to be its own separate thread.

It’s the worship of ignorance, plain and simple. Some of us, luckily, have knowledge.

AntiTheist - I was going to post a retort here but thought better of it and will send you a private message instead.

Everyone else - I would want approval from a moderator before posting the argument, as it mentions a banned subject but mainly due to Romans 14. It is intended against the argument that AntiTheist is making but is essentially on-topic. Maybe I’ll post it in a weaker form if I can think of a way.

 

[inocente]

I have a game for the other thread participants, particularly inocente, since he seems to be on my wave-length.

Well, I’ll go along with this blatant attempt to put me on my back foot again.

Empirical evidence is lacking but it does seem odd that most cultures that have ever existed believed in something more other than what is seen and such.

It’s not that odd. Atheism doesn’t work as well and so tends to die out naturally. Perhaps if we were all atheists, there would be a lot fewer of us.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7133214.ece

Our Lady of Guadalupe being in the EXACT center of the Americas to convert people who sacrificed thousands of people (namely infants and even tribes!) per week. Miracles? St. Bernadette’s body still in pristine condition 150 years after her death.

Can’t really comment, as I’m a Baptist and would have to make a snap judgment from Wikipedia.

If, according to the Big Bang theory, the beginning was a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule would not have developed.

The Anthropic principle states that we’re here because we’re here – if the universe wasn’t the way it is, and the particular age that it is, we would not be around to discuss it, and so we can’t use that type of fact (of which there are thousands) for very much at all. But cheer up, the fact you mentioned means we are all made of stardust.

We do have many arguments for God’s (or an Intelligent Being) existence that have yet to be refuted AND unanswered. (Argument from Design, from Conscience, from Desire, from religious experience for starters). Again, this amounts to no proof.

My first pastor tried to use these kinds of argument on me, but gave up when both of us kept grinning at each other. He was just testing where my faith was.

A priori thought can do a lot of good. Socrates knew most of Christian doctrine through a priori reasoning. Christ is the Way of salvation but it does not have to be an empirical belief in Him. Seems odd huh? A possible pre-Christian Christian purely through a priori arguments. Plato and Aristotle were close also!

Yes, it’s neat that Jesus was rational and consistent.

Past that though, Christianity is upon the Incarnation of God made human. It is the only religion where a God comes down to suffer for and with us. Once any rational human being believes he actually existed, Christians can make an argument for his divine nature also. He is no lie, myth, lunatic or guru. He is God.

I’m not sure whether we Baptists have a creed, but if we do it’s in the back of a filing cabinet somewhere. The Messiah is the greatest story ever told, it explains the human condition and raises us up. We here are privileged to be able to spend time debating, but put us in slum housing with a drug habit and a baby to support. Who’s going to redeem you, Christ or no-god?

(This is an exceptionally weak form of the argument I sent to AntiTheist. Nobody ever wants to pray with me here, as it’s not good debating practice and all, but the fact that we are redeemed daily is nothing to be ashamed of. There Is A Reason Alison Krauss and Union Station - for lyrics click here).

Seems odd that the disciples would joyously be exiled, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, beheaded, crucified upside down, boiled in oil, sawed in pieces, fed to lions, and sliced up by gladiators for anyone other than God.

Now excuse me, for I am off to worship a shopping mall.

 

[Luke_K]

And you seriously try to claim that I am advancing a circular argument? Seriously?

I didn’t explain it thoroughly, but it’s not a circular argument. It deals with the difference between the basis of Protestant belief in inspired scripture versus Catholic basis. I doubt you’re interested, but here’s catholic.com’s presentation of it. catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

You know what I loathe about your Matrix-argument? It seeks to reduce everyone to an equal level of ignorance: “Gee, nobody’s got evidence of anything, and everybody takes everything on faith, so I can believe whatever outrageous claims I want because evidence isn’t necessary and nobody really knows anything.”

It’s not a Matrix argument. I’m not out to disprove the scientific method. I love studying the natural world, and the scientific method is the best way we have for doing that right now. Yet I also recognize the limitation of human intelligence and professionalism which makes itself very obvious in the actual practice of science.

But you’re still missing the point of all that I’m saying. It’s partly my fault because I’m not making my intent and actual beliefs about the scientific method clear enough. I’m just pointing out that you have beliefs in claims without evidence. I’m not arguing that since you believe in claims without evidence that Christians can too and that this justifies our faith. It’s more like, you don’t seem to hold all of your beliefs to the same burden of evidence, and you hold Christian beliefs to the highest burden of evidence of all.

-You believe that other people have self-consciousness, but have no evidence for it (you can’t either, because it would require you to “be” that person).
-You believe that past success with the scientific method (as shown by our technological society) indicates future success with it, yet this is an unverifiable claim.
-You believe that subjective experiences are incapable of revealing truth about the outside world, yet all experience is ultimately subjective. I’m not promoting the Matrix here, only that you have no evidence that your subjective experience of reality reveals truth about the external world. Of course it seems absurd that it wouldn’t, and I believe it does, but I just admit that I believe it without evidence.

On another note, what’s your major or field of study? Have you taken an organic chemistry course? I don’t mean to advance that you have inexperience with studying living systems (because I don’t know if you do), but after taking one last semester (along with the rest of my education) it seems so obvious to me that there’s an intelligent design behind the workings of the universe, revealed most clearly in the differences between living and non-living systems. Think about it: a chemical computer code which exists solely on the basis of inter-atomic bonding forces and principles, organizing the matter and energy around itself in order to maintain homeostasis, perpetuate its own existence, and produce more of itself. It’s just like the intelligent human behavior of shaping the world around us to serve our purposes!

Think about how the countless atoms in your big toe are capable of working towards the same end of perpetuating the life of your body as the countless atoms in your bicep muscles, when there is no intelligent communication or organization between them; only atomic bonding, thermodynamic, kinetic, and mathematical principles that blindly apply the same to everywhere in the universe. You are just a collection of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other atoms that are flying about the universe doing whatever universal principles tell them to do. This is not an appeal to ignorance as to how it all happens. It’s an appeal to your intuition that somebody made the universe that way on purpose, so you would come to know that He Is.