What are the common, modern-day objections to the existence of God?

[AlbertBall]

why not?

again, why not?

Because one can empathize with the victims of such horrific barbarity. I agree that even if i knew such a being existed, i would never be able to worship such a thing, i just could not worship such evil.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t see anything irrational about withholding believe when there is zero verifiable evidence, but hey maybe that is just me.

thats because there is lots of evidence. thats why its irrational.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

ok, lets examine the two claims.

1. We used known existing technology to put man on the moon.
2. That technology was created by 100s of companies, all of which have it fully documented.
3. We have 100000 of eye witnesses that are still ALIVE TODAY that saw the event. Including those that WERE ON THE MOON.
4. We have VIDEO EVIDENCE of the event.
5. We have has multiple landings of man on the moon, ALL equally witnessed and documented.
6. We have brought pieces of the moon to earth.
7. We have all the equipment to return to the moon on earth.
8. There are satellites in space (which is proven every time you use your phone)
9. We have the space station in space (which i can SEE WITH MY OWN EYES)
   10.There are NO claims me about the moon landings which we cannot observe on a daily basis. (i.e burning bushes chatting, and dead people coming back to life).
10. Every single detail of the process is entirely documented, understood and natural.

Now thats not even scratching the surface.

it was all shot on a sound stage in houston, all the equipment is fake anthe technology doesnt actually exist., and models were boosted to orbit with other satellites, the moon rocks are ejecta from one of the moons many impacts found in antartica. and the physical witnesses were all victims of mass delusion. this was done so that the companies and administration of the military-industrial complex could gather money and power for themselves

see how easy that was to deny? you dont have any better evidence for the moonlanding than you have for Scripture. because you didnt witness it. like every historical event that you didnt witness, you must trust others.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Because one can empathize with the victims of such horrific barbarity.

why are you calling it horrific barbarity? is that your personal opinion? or maybe you would like to mak an argument ad populum? like its alot of peoples opinion?

 

[AlbertBall]

it was all shot on a sound stage in Houston, all the equipment is fake anthe technology doesn’t actually exist., and models were boosted to orbit with other satellites, the moon rocks are ejecta from one of the moons many impacts found in antartica. and the physical witnesses were all victims of mass delusion. this was done so that the companies and administration of the military-industrial complex could gather money and power for themselves

see how easy that was to deny? you don’t have any better evidence for the moonlanding than you have for Scripture. because you didnt witness it. like every historical event that you didnt witness, you must trust others.

Heres the thing though, its does actually exist i have seen it with my own eyes and ANYONE else that feels the urge can to the same. You have just admitted it exists “and models were** boosted to orbit with other satellites**”. However the point is, if you wanted to you COULD VERIFY that evidence. One could go to see the equipment, one could go see the shuttle taking off. Heck is of one was good enough and selected they could go into space.

I see what you are trying to do here, your position is that by denying the moon landing that are 100% undeniable you some how add weight to your unfounded god claims. This is extremely illogical and makes you look, for want of a better word, stupid.

Both claims must stand on there own merits! Now i have presented you with evidence for the moon landing, and denying when it is VERIFIABLE does not add weight to your god claim. Please present similar VERIFIABLE evidence for you god.

The fact that you can actually claim “you don’t have any better evidence for the moonlanding than you have for Scripture” because “you weren’t there” is laughable. It shows a completely warped understanding of how claims are verified. I think you have been watch to much Dr Dino and Kent Ham mate . Thats there favorite

“Were you there?”
No?
“Then you must be accepting this on faith”
Err, No.
“Yes, yes you are, so that is proof you just don’t want to believe in god!”
http://craigswinejourney.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/facepalm.jpg

 

[AlbertBall]

why are you calling it horrific barbarity? is that your personal opinion? or maybe you would like to mak an argument ad populum? like its alot of peoples opinion?

I told you in the last post, Empathy. Go look it up, it is self explanatory.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Heres the thing though, its does actually exist i have seen it with my own eyes and ANYONE else that feels the urge can to the same. You have just admitted it exists “and models were** boosted to orbit with other satellites**”. However the point is, if you wanted to you COULD VERIFY that evidence. One could go to see the equipment, one could go see the shuttle taking off. Heck is of one was good enough and selected they could go into space.

You deny your own ability to be fooled, yet so easily accept that so many others have been fooled. Con men don’t exist in modern times?? How can you be a good con man if you can’t present some convincing hardware, videos, and testimonials?

There is nothing that you have ever seen that could not have been faked. With technology, it is even EASIER.

 

[AlbertBall]

. like every historical event that you didn’t witness, you must trust others.

Oh and it is NOTHING like every other historical event because it make exceptional claims, claims that go against EVERYTHING we know about the cosmos.

If the claim was jesus was a normal man that walked about the earth preaching, an it was in more than one book which was written based on hearsay evidence years after the so called events, then yeah i would have no problem believing it.

But given the book is full of what can only be described as outlandish claims that are not recorded ANYWHERE else, then i require more evidence, and more importantly it CLEARLY sets them apart from OTHER HISTORICAL CLAIMS.

 

[AlbertBall]

You deny your own ability to be fooled, yet so easily accept that so many others have been fooled. Con men don’t exist in modern times?? How can you be a good con man if you can’t present some convincing hardware, videos, and testimonials?

There is nothing that you have ever seen that could not have been faked. With technology, it is even EASIER.

What i mean is i have seen the space shuttle, in space, in person. I have seen the ISS, in space, in person. I have seen the Apollo capsules in person. Not only that but so have millions of others, include those that have been on the thing.

Further more, all the witness claims i have even seen regarding the man traveling to space are IDENTICAL, christians can’t even decide on christianity let alone all the 1000’s of other religions. Consistency is also a major factor.

Someone claims to go to space, it is on TV, it is witness by million, i can the the thing with my own eye etc etc etc.

CONSISTENT, NATURAL, VERIFIABLE CLAIMS

Someone claims to chat to god, i ask for evidence… the end.

INCONSISTENCE, SUPERNATURAL, UNVERIFIABLE CLAIMS

What is it about the difference in these claims that you fail to understand?? The two claims are nothing like the same, and you know that fine well. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Sair]

then surely you know why we make that claim? the mathematical precision of Messianic Prophecy. dozens of writeres, separated by centuries, language, distance, culture, and religion. then they are fulfilled in Christ. math doesnt lie.

Except that before you can even begin to engage with mathematical probability concerning messianic prophecy, you have to engage with history.

In order to verify that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels fulfilled messianic prophecies, you would first have to verify the following:

• that the documents that have come down to us as the Synoptic Gospels were actually eyewitness accounts, or at the very least based upon the same.
• that the lapse of time between the events that supposedly took place and the actual writing of the Gospel accounts - let alone the selection of ‘gospel’ accounts by later Church Fathers, from amongst many possible texts (the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary being amongst those left on the cutting-room floor) - did not allow the writers and their subsequent editors to fake the accounts in order to harmonise with the earlier Jewish texts
• that the extraordinary similarity of early Christian storytelling about Jesus to pagan
  heroes and gods such as Hercules and Mithras (virgin birth, dying and rising, various wonder-workings) was purely coincidental, and that Jesus was the ‘real deal’ whilst the others were just mythical.

Until you can prove the above to the satisfaction of serious historians and anthropologists - ie: to the standard of reasonable conclusion (not even to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt) you have no business citing mathematical probabilities of prophecy fulfilment as the basis of your belief (unless you just want to look ignorant).

Nor one that would prompt a couple of she-bears to tear apart children because they dared to tease a prophet by calling him “baldie”.

again, why not?

Because this violates the golden rule, and every standard of common human decency. Ignorance needs to be educated, not punished.

 

[1holycatholic]

A Catholic apologetics group at my parish is going to be discussing the existence of God this week, and I’m wondering what the most prevalent reasons are for not believing in God.

That’s easy: rampant materialist reductionism and scientism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Heres the thing though, its does actually exist i have seen it with my own eyes and ANYONE else that feels the urge can to the same.

you have not seen it with your own eyes. unless you can fly, and breathe vacuum, you have to trust the video. if your refering to things at a space museum, you have no idea if they are anything more than props.

nor does anyone else who did not personally take part in the events. but funny enough, im sure the Apostles said something similar almost every day.

You have just admitted it exists “and models were** boosted to orbit with other satellites**”.

im just making a fictional account of the launch people might have seen.

However the point is, if you wanted to you COULD VERIFY that evidence. One could go to see the equipment, one could go see the shuttle taking off. Heck is of one was good enough and selected they could go into space.

you cannot verify the evidence, unless your a participant. you dont have any way to prove that it isnt fake.

an the shuttle doesnt go to the moon.

I see what you are trying to do here, your position is that by denying the moon landing that are 100% undeniable you some how add weight to your unfounded god claims. This is extremely illogical and makes you look, for want of a better word, stupid.

your asserting they are undeniable, yet here is the evidence that this assertion is incorrect. there are a great many people (admittedly silly) do indeed deny it.

search.yahoo.com/search?fr=fp-yie8-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF8&rd=r2&p=moon%20landing%20hoax

what im doing is exposing the usual epistemic double standard that disbelievers have. you arent the first atheist to call me stupid in frustration. its hard to admit something so obvious is missed. i was an atheist, and it embarassed me. it will be alright, just try to be civil. when you become one of us you wont feel so have to feel so bad. i know from experience.

Both claims must stand on there own merits! Now i have presented you with evidence for the moon landing, and denying when it is VERIFIABLE does not add weight to your god claim. Please present similar VERIFIABLE evidence for you god.

not a problem, lets settle on what standard of evidence you wish to use.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I told you in the last post, Empathy. Go look it up, it is self explanatory.

i know what it means. can you answer the question as to why you think it is ‘horrific barbarity?’ not your emotions, your rational justification for the descroptive term you used.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh and it is NOTHING like every other historical event because it make exceptional claims, claims that go against EVERYTHING we know about the cosmos.

If the claim was jesus was a normal man that walked about the earth preaching, an it was in more than one book which was written based on hearsay evidence years after the so called events, then yeah i would have no problem believing it.

But given the book is full of what can only be described as outlandish claims that are not recorded ANYWHERE else, then i require more evidence, and more importantly it CLEARLY sets them apart from OTHER HISTORICAL CLAIMS.

this is the logical fallacy called ‘argument from incredulity’.

the implication being that if you dont know how something was done, then that event couldnt have occured. we know from the progress of science that the area of what we dont understand continually shrinks as we gain more knowledge. you should know this.

that said, Jesus is mentioned in more than one book. the Bible is compilation of dozens of separate books, Jesus is the cause of all those books being written.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Except that before you can even begin to engage with mathematical probability concerning messianic prophecy, you have to engage with history.

In order to verify that the Jesus …

we as a Church witnessed thes events. we know what happened. thats why there is a Church. why would we need further verification?

Because this violates the golden rule, and every standard of common human decency. Ignorance needs to be educated, not punished.

why is it wrong to violate the golden rule? are you saying there is an objective morality that we should abide by?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s easy: rampant materialist reductionism and scientism.

yup yup!

 

[AlbertBall]

you have not seen it with your own eyes. unless you can fly, and breathe vacuum, you have to trust the video.

REALLY??? How much would you like to bet? I will bet $5000 dollars on it, fancy it? I bet you don’t lol

Dude, the rest of your argument boils down to this… I am silly so every i think everyone else is!!!

 

[AlbertBall]

this is the logical fallacy called ‘argument from incredulity’.

the implication being that if you dont know how something was done, then that event couldnt have occured. we know from the progress of science that the area of what we dont understand continually shrinks as we gain more knowledge. you should know this.

that said, Jesus is mentioned in more than one book. the Bible is compilation of dozens of separate books, Jesus is the cause of all those books being written.

Some times i wonder why i bother, however is it clear to see why you and your peers have no standing within academia

 

[warpspeedpetey]

REALLY??? How much would you like to bet? I will bet $5000 dollars on it, fancy it? I bet you don’t lol

then please tell me how you saw it? i dont believe you were an astronaut that was involved (wouldnt that be wierd)

Dude, the rest of your argument boils down to this… I am silly so every i think everyone else is!!!

so your refutation of an epistemological argument is “im silly” .

let me answer your refutation.

nuh-huh!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Some times i wonder why i bother, however is it clear to see why you and your peers have no standing within academia

this isnt a refutation either. do you have a refutation?

though i wonder what you mean by standing in academia? im not a professor. so what?