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

[R_Daneel]

Fair enough, then take fatima which had approximately 100,000 witnesses, plus independent sources from up to 30 miles away. The event was predicted by 3 children and involved the mother of the person whom people are skeptical of walking on water and rising from the dead. These people witnessed the sun dancing in the sky and appearing to move close to the earth which subsequently instantaneously dried the muddy ground and sopping wet clothes.

That is only a story. Besides there were other witnesses who did not report the same phenomena. Presumably you will discard their testimony.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes, that is true.

Agreed. It is reasonable to say a car collision happened.

But one does not need any witnesses in that particular scenario, the physical evidence tells the story itself.

That additional evidence is not necessary for the belief to be warranted. We’ve already established that the belief that a car collision happened is warranted based on the independent corroboration of eyewitnesses.

Here we deal with a completely different set of circumstances. You only have a few witnesses, and no independent corroboration. No physical evidence.

Why are you now changing the criteria and demanding physical evidence when it wasn’t necessary in the car collision? You’ve made an unwarranted subjective change in criteria.

However, the problem goes much deeper than that. God is supposed to be alive and well - today. God is supposed to active - today. Yet, no one has any evidence of God’s existence, or activity - today (excpet maybe a few subjective experiences, which can be explained without the God hypothesis.) There is no evidence that God “loves” us - today.

The testimonial evidence - with all its deceptive and dubious nature only applies to events in the past. Where is the beef, now?

How do appeals to scientism bolster your argument?

 

[R_Daneel]

That additional evidence is not necessary for the belief to be warranted. We’ve already established that the belief that a car collision happened is warranted based on the independent corroboration of eyewitnesses.

Yes, but think a bit further. Many times testimonial evidence (just the basic fact, without the details) have been shown to be erroneous. The claimed event did not happen, despite the testimony given by witnesses. A car collision is a very common, everyday event. Suppose that the car collision is reported. The police come to investigate, and there are no skid marks, no debris, no evidence at all that the collision happened. What do you think the police will do? Alien abductions (also claimed many times) are not. The physical evidence is always preferred to the testimonies alone. How many people have reported (independently) that they actually saw the Loch Ness monster? Many did, yet their testimony is not accepted - and righfully so. It is a well-known fact that sometimes witnesses deliberately lie to perpetrate a hoax. Or they are simply mistaken.

Why are you now changing the criteria and demanding physical evidence when it wasn’t necessary in the car collision? You’ve made an unwarranted subjective change in criteria.

It is necessary to make sure that the claim is correct. Little green men have been reported to have abducted humans. Do you believe those testimonies? Nessie has been reported, and what is result? Correct skepicism. It is the job of the investigators to eliminate as much uncertainty as possible. And nothing beats direct physical evidence.

How do appeals to scientism bolster your argument?

Where did this “scientism” come from? I merely pointed out that testimonial evidence is** only **acceptable in the cases where direct observation is impossible - like the events in the past. If something is in the present, just having testimonial evidence is insufficient. Even if many people would report a murder, the police would remain skeptical without a corpse. Let’s use the same standard for all claims.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes, but think a bit further. Many times testimonial evidence (just the basic fact, without the details) have been shown to be erroneous. The claimed event did not happen, despite the testimony given by witnesses. A car collision is a very common, everyday event. Suppose that the car collision is reported. The police come to investigate, and there are no skid marks, no debris, no evidence at all that the collision happened. What do you think the police will do? Alien abductions (also claimed many times) are not. The physical evidence is always preferred to the testimonies alone. How many people have reported (independently) that they actually saw the Loch Ness monster? Many did, yet their testimony is not accepted - and righfully so. It is a well-known fact that sometimes witnesses deliberately lie to perpetrate a hoax. Or they are simply mistaken.

Being involved in a car collision is an extraordinary event, not an everyday event.

You’re backpedaling. You’ve already assented to the fact that the independent testimony of ten eyewitnesses claiming a collision warrants the belief that a collision occurred.

It is necessary to make sure that the claim is correct. Little green men have been reported to have abducted humans. Do you believe those testimonies? Nessie has been reported, and what is result? Correct skepicism. It is the job of the investigators to eliminate as much uncertainty as possible. And nothing beats direct physical evidence.

Where did this “scientism” come from? I merely pointed out that testimonial evidence is** only **acceptable in the cases where direct observation is impossible - like the events in the past. If something is in the present, just having testimonial evidence is insufficient. Even if many people would report a murder, the police would remain skeptical without a corpse. Let’s use the same standard for all claims.

The scientism comes from your demand for physical evidence for the existence of God.

 

[R_Daneel]

Being involved in a car collision is an extraordinary event, not an everyday event.

For the person involved, but not statistically. It happens every day, doesn’t it?

You’re backpedaling. You’ve already assented to the fact that the independent testimony of ten eyewitnesses claiming a collision warrants the belief that a collision occurred.

Sure, as a first approximation. But the process never stops here. What if the subsequent investigation shows nothing? What about the little green men? What about the reported alien abductions? What about the Loch Ness monster? What about the Yeti sightings? What about the alleged paranormal spoon-bendings? Do you use the **same **criteria (witness reporting) for these events? Do you consider it a rational basis to believe in them, just because some people report them to be true? If not, why not? That is a serious question. I would like an answer. And don’t try to say that these are different from your God-claims. They are more probable than your claims. At the very least, they are not impossible - scientifically speaking.

The scientism comes from your demand for physical evidence for the existence of God.

God is supposed to be able to take a physical form. God is supposed to be able to interact with the physical universe. These allow a physical investigation, if they are true. I am again using the **same **method in all the claims. No extraordinary methods are required from you. You seem to be asking for a “special pleading” in your case. Why is that? The **same **type of evidence is too much to ask for?

 

[AlbertBall]

Being involved in a car collision is an extraordinary event, not an everyday event.

You’re backpedaling. You’ve already assented to the fact that the independent testimony of ten eyewitnesses claiming a collision warrants the belief that a collision occurred.

The scientism comes from your demand for physical evidence for the existence of God.

One cannot compare the claim that a car crashed, something that happens 1000’s of time a day. To the claim that someone rose from the dead, something that had NEVER been recorded by modern means.

 

[AlbertBall]

. God is supposed to be able to interact with the physical universe. These allow a physical investigation, if they are true. I am again using the **same **method in all the claims. No extraordinary methods are required from you. You seem to be asking for a “special pleading” in your case. Why is that? The **same **type of evidence is too much to ask for?

Exactly. If god interacts he universe, then we should be able to test for these interactions.

Heres a simple test for god. Christians claim to speak directly to god. In fact i have seen Christians claim that their personal relationship with god is equal to that of their personal relationship with their spouse.

So i am thinking of a number, ask god what number i am thinking of. If any Christian can post the number on this thread i have got yourself a believer. Come on, save my soul!

 

[1holycatholic]

For the person involved, but not statistically. It happens every day, doesn’t it?

I agree, they are extraordinary events.

Sure, as a first approximation. But the process never stops here. What if the subsequent investigation shows nothing? What about the little green men? What about the reported alien abductions? What about the Loch Ness monster? What about the Yeti sightings? What about the alleged paranormal spoon-bendings? Do you use the **same **criteria (witness reporting) for these events? Do you consider it a rational basis to believe in them, just because some people report them to be true? If not, why not? That is a serious question. I would like an answer. And don’t try to say that these are different from your God-claims. They are more probable than your claims. At the very least, they are not impossible - scientifically speaking.

What about them?

God is supposed to be able to take a physical form. God is supposed to be able to interact with the physical universe. These allow a physical investigation, if they are true. I am again using the **same **method in all the claims. No extraordinary methods are required from you. You seem to be asking for a “special pleading” in your case. Why is that? The **same **type of evidence is too much to ask for?

God is incorporeal.

Someone else mentioned Fatima, is that what you mean?

 

[R_Daneel]

What about them?

What about them? Do you accept those claims which I enumerated? They are all “supported” by testimonials, and nothing else. Is that enough evidence for you? If you consider any claim as worthy to be taken seriously, even if they are only supported by testimonials, then you should believe in little green men, alien abductions, the Loch Ness monster, the Yeti, etc… etc… If you do not believe these claims, because they are only supported by testimonials, then you should have some reason to reject them. That is what I am asking. Do you reject these claims, and if so, on what grounds?

God is incorporeal.

Sometimes, sometimes not - according to Christians.

But the point is still the same: I propose to use the same standard for evaluating all different claims. There is no special consideration for God, which is not applicable for other claims. Isn’t that what you were looking for? No “extraordinary evidence”, only the same kind of evidence.

 

[1holycatholic]

What about them? Do you accept those claims which I enumerated? They are all “supported” by testimonials, and nothing else. Is that enough evidence for you? If you consider any claim as worthy to be taken seriously, even if they are only supported by testimonials, then you should believe in little green men, alien abductions, the Loch Ness monster, the Yeti, etc… etc… If you do not believe these claims, because they are only supported by testimonials, then you should have some reason to reject them. That is what I am asking. Do you reject these claims, and if so, on what grounds?

Hundreds of thousands of people have seen Uri Gellar bend a spoon.

Uri Gellar can bend a spoon.

Sometimes, sometimes not - according to Christians.

That’s never been Christian teaching.

But the point is still the same: I propose to use the same standard for evaluating all different claims. There is no special consideration for God, which is not applicable for other claims. Isn’t that what you were looking for? No “extraordinary evidence”, only the same kind of evidence.

So you are now claiming the car collision independently corroborated by ten eyewitnesses never happened?

 

[R_Daneel]

Hundreds of thousands of people have seen Uri Gellar bend a spoon.

Uri Gellar can bend a spoon.

Buddy, you are pathetic. You do not want to answer my question, and you don’t even have the courage to admit it.

That’s never been Christian teaching.

Really? I heard that Jesus aka God took a human form. You should really investigate your belief system.

So you are now claiming the car collision independently corroborated by ten eyewitnesses never happened?

Obviously you don’t understand what I said.

 

[The_Exodus]

Obviously you are not a mathematician. I am. So better not try to speak of mathematical concepts. You only reveal your ignorance.

You don’t have to be a mathematician to understand that things that happen, happen for a reason. “Probability” is only a colloquial term for something happening that is uncommon. Strictly speaking, however, there is a determinate reason for everything that happens. Would you like to dispute this point?

You use circular reasoning. It cannot be assumed that Christ was a “divine” being, and therefore its is “reasonable” to assume that he performed what he supposedly did. It is a logical error to have your hypothesis and use it also as a corroborating evidence.

I didn’t assume via my argument that Christ was divine. I am merely showing you that, in order to give a good answer to the question concerning if he did miracles, is to at first discuss whether he could be God, and ultimately, whether God exists. You’re the one who is claiming miracles can’t happen a priori.

 

[cranster]

Alien abductions, the loch ness monster, etc. don’t have centuries of miracles to support those claims. Something powerful enough… convincing enough happened 2,000 years ago that the 12 closest associates of Christ laid down their lives for the conviction they saw him risen from the dead. 500 people witnessed him float up into the clouds and disappear. There were several centuries directly following this event that people were willingly brutally tortured and murdered because of the recent accounts of Christ’s resurrection and the transforming effect that belief had in there lives. It has grown from a handful of followers to over a billion followers today.

It is not possible to have physical evidence of a resurrection when the resurrected floated away and disappeared. That was a one time act, and it aint gonna happen again so the skeptics can satisfy their empirical curiosity. For us today there are centuries of miracles supporting the resurrection of Christ. The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. The incorrupt bodies of the saints, some going all the way back to the 4th century such as Saint Sylvan. These people were not embalmed. There are the appearances of the Blessed mother in Lourdes and the many, many miraculous healings from the spring that arose when Bernadette dug in the dirt. There’s Fatima which was much more than just a story it was a recent event witnessed by 100,000 people including atheists and sceptics. There is Juan Diego’s tilma with the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, that science cannot explain. There’s the well documented 50 year stigmata of Saint Pio. Gemma DiGiorgio’s gaining of sight without pupil’s after Saint Pio prayed for her. There is the proofs of God’s existence through reason according to Aquinas 5 ways.

There is Christ’s love present in the world through His followers such as Blessed Theresa of Calcutta missionaries of charity, and many, many others who are present in the most destitute area’s of earth sharing God’s love and giving care to those in need. God actively loves through His followers.

There is the awesome peace and sense of God’s presence in the Holy Eucharist that can’t be found anywhere else on earth.

It’s the whole body of evidence when taken together is enough for belief for millions, and millions of us. It’s not that the evidence isn’t there, it’s there but has been rejected.

While we sit and treat the most serious question of our lives so cavalierly eternity presses in on each of us, and this life and what we do with it… this life that’s gone as quick as a puff of smoke determines our eternity. Our Lady of Fatima said she watches souls fall into hell like snowflakes. Life without God is too empty, and the consequences too dire to risk the gamble.

 

[R_Daneel]

You don’t have to be a mathematician to understand that things that happen, happen for a reason. “Probability” is only a colloquial term for something happening that is uncommon. Strictly speaking, however, there is a determinate reason for everything that happens. Would you like to dispute this point?

Yes.

I didn’t assume via my argument that Christ was divine. I am merely showing you that, in order to give a good answer to the question concerning if he did miracles, is to at first discuss whether he could be God, and ultimately, whether God exists. You’re the one who is claiming miracles can’t happen a priori.

I am not saying a-priori that “miracles” cannot happen. The word “miracle” is used ambiguously. before it can be reasonably discussed, the word must be defined in a rigorous manner.

Your question: “could there be a God”? Yes, there could be. Is there credible evidence, except speculations and hearsay testimony? No, there is not. Is there any evidence that a “god” has those attributes the Christianity teaches he has? None at all. Especially, since those attributes are ill-defined, nonsensical, self-contradictory and contradicted by the observed, actual world, we can say with absolute certainty that the Chrisitian God does not and cannot exist.

 

[R_Daneel]

Alien abductions, the loch ness monster, etc. don’t have centuries of miracles to support those claims.

They have one thing in common. Neither has any concrete, physical evidence to support them. The whole point is: “is it reasonable to accept a claim, if there is only hearsay, testimonial evidence to support it?”.

Something powerful enough… convincing enough happened 2,000 years ago that the 12 closest associates of Christ laid down their lives for the conviction they saw him risen from the dead. 500 people witnessed him float up into the clouds and disappear.

Unsupported legend.

There were several centuries directly following this event that people were willingly brutally tortured and murdered because of the recent accounts of Christ’s resurrection and the transforming effect that belief had in there lives. It has grown from a handful of followers to over a billion followers today.

Argument from numbers?

It is not possible to have physical evidence of a resurrection when the resurrected floated away and disappeared. That was a one time act, and it aint gonna happen again so the skeptics can satisfy their empirical curiosity. For us today there are centuries of miracles supporting the resurrection of Christ. The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. The incorrupt bodies of the saints, some going all the way back to the 4th century such as Saint Sylvan. These people were not embalmed. There are the appearances of the Blessed mother in Lourdes and the many, many miraculous healings from the spring that arose when Bernadette dug in the dirt. There’s Fatima which was much more than just a story it was a recent event witnessed by 100,000 people including atheists and sceptics. There is Juan Diego’s tilma with the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, that science cannot explain. There’s the well documented 50 year stigmata of Saint Pio. Gemma DiGiorgio’s gaining of sight without pupil’s after Saint Pio prayed for her.

Unsupported, anecdotal stories.

There is Christ’s love present in the world through His followers such as Blessed Theresa of Calcutta missionaries of charity, and many, many others who are present in the most destitute area’s of earth sharing God’s love and giving care to those in need. God actively loves through His followers.

No evidence that those actions are attributable to God’s love. Fact is: God does not hurry to help out in billions of cases every year.

There is the awesome peace and sense of God’s presence in the Holy Eucharist that can’t be found anywhere else on earth.

Not even worth to look at.

It’s the whole body of evidence when taken together is enough for belief for millions, and millions of us. It’s not that the evidence isn’t there, it’s there but has been rejected.

Yes, and rightfully so. It is all hearsay, anecdotal evidence.

While we sit and treat the most serious question of our lives so cavalierly eternity presses in on each of us, and this life and what we do with it… this life that’s gone as quick as a puff of smoke determines our eternity. Our Lady of Fatima said she watches souls fall into hell like snowflakes. Life without God is too empty, and the consequences too dire to risk the gamble.

Pascal’s wager at its worst. Why don’t you just quote the Cathecism, which tells us that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and everyone else is going to burn in hell forever? If you go for scare tactics, use the whole power of the Church…

 

[The_Exodus]

Especially, since those attributes are ill-defined, nonsensical, self-contradictory and contradicted by the observed, actual world, we can say with absolute certainty that the Chrisitian God does not and cannot exist.

And yet you are here, posting away about something that “certainly does not and cannot exist.” You are as dogmatic as those you criticize.

Why are you wasting your time conversing with religious people if you know with “absolute certainty” there is no God? Are you not wasting your time?

 

[1holycatholic]

Buddy, you are pathetic. You do not want to answer my question, and you don’t even have the courage to admit it.

So you deny that Uri Gellar bent a spoon?

You use testimony and hearsay interchangeably as it suits you.

Really? I heard that Jesus aka God took a human form. You should really investigate your belief system.

Maybe you should really investigate it. Start with hypostatic union.

Obviously you don’t understand what I said.

I understand that you’re backing away from your initial assertion.

 

[The_Exodus]

Unsupported legend.

Unsupported, anecdotal stories.

Not even worth to look at.

Yes, and rightfully so. It is all hearsay, anecdotal evidence.

The fact is, it is almost universally accepted that the person Jesus Christ, as man, existed. The question comes in regarding if you believe he is in some way divine.

The evidence that must be dealt with – which you conclude is inconclusive – amounts to the fact that those closest to this man claimed to have seen him rise from the dead, experience certain revelations, witnessed healings, and saw him ascend into heaven. These people believed this so much many of them were killed as a result. One man – Paul – went from killing these very Christians to being one of the religions most influential men.

What is your explanation of these events? Were these men “hallucinating”? Were they lying?

Also, there are multiple claims in many different writings of the early Jewish religion which seem to foreshadow the coming of this man, and the effect he would thereafter have upon “the whole world.”

Pascal’s wager at its worst. Why don’t you just quote the Cathecism, which tells us that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and everyone else is going to burn in hell forever? If you go for scare tactics, use the whole power of the Church…

I doubt you have read the Catechism, or you would know—

The Church claims that there is no salvation outside herself, yet this does not limit those who, in various ways, are not Catholics. It merely means, positively put, that all salvation comes from the Church, through God’s grace.

The Church makes no claims of any person in Hell – although she does claim some to be in heaven. She entrusts all souls to the mercy of God, and hopefully prays that all men can and will find salvation. Nevertheless, Hell remains a real possibility for those who continually reject God’s grace.

 

[R_Daneel]

And yet you are here, posting away about something that “certainly does not and cannot exist.” You are as dogmatic as those you criticize.

At the very least you should read what I actually said. I did say that a “god” (someone who is extemely knowledgable and powerful, who might have played an instrumental part in forming our knowable universe) might exist. I don’t think such a hypothesis is worth contemplating, but there is noting logically impossible about it. However such a “god” is a far cry from the “God of Christianity”. The picture of “God” you guys paint about such a being is worse than a caricature.

Why are you wasting your time conversing with religious people if you know with “absolute certainty” there is no God? Are you not wasting your time?

Compassion. I feel very sorry for those who are spending their one and only life on a mirage. (If I only had a dollar for every time this was asked…)

 

[R_Daneel]

So you deny that Uri Gellar bent a spoon?

You are persistent, aren’t you? If not in answering, but at least in asking. Yes Uri Geller (not Gellar) can bend a spoon. So can I, and so can you, and so can anyone with a bit of strength. The question is can he bend one using “paranormal” means. But since you have seen fit to ask it, I will ask you one more time: are the** testimonial evidences sufficient to believe in the existence of the Loch Ness monster, in the existence of little green man, in the existence of alien abductions and the like**… if you wish to answer these, I will consider your answer. If you wiggle out one more time, I will not respond to you any more.

You use testimony and hearsay interchangeably as it suits you.

Hearsay is second hand testimonial. All the “evidences” for your claims are of this kind.

I understand that you’re backing away from your initial assertion.

As I said, you don’t understand anything.