|
On March 25 2013 05:34 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:17 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ No, this is incorrect. Please do not spread misinformation. You are ignorant about what constitutes atheism, it has a clear definition and there is no real debate as to the meaning of the word. When you ask me not to be picky you are asking me to simply accept your erronous assertion about atheism. Sorry, no can do. Again, the abscence of proof argument is void, since atheism doesn't say what you think it says. i wasn't trying to start an argument on atheism, so let's say you are right. Please do not call people ignorants unless you have some severe credibility proof of your own expertise (so unless you are some university teacher or got a phd in letters, don't call anyone an ignorant please, and even then don't, just because it's rude). I must admit I picked up the definition from dictionnary and after a fast lookup on internet. In my dictio. it says "one who doesn't believe in or denies the existence of an absolute being" so i made my sentence based on that, if i didn't go deep enough in my understanding of what atheism means i apologise. When i ask you not to be picky, i just want not to start a debate on atheism because i didn't use it with a profound thinking on it. So to correct myself i'll reformulate: i don't understand people that just choose to believe god doesn't exist, without proof of his inexistence, just as much as i don't understand believers for the same reason
Well, people typically believe God exists because they are Christian, people are typically Christian because their family is Christian. Christianity is based around the teachings of an ancient people in a tribal society, and the teachings of a divine individual of which we only have second hand accounts hundreds of years after the fact. I'm not trying to be condescending, I merely want to demonstrate that not choosing to believe in this is not that absurd.
|
On March 25 2013 05:39 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
|
On March 25 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:38 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity. Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies. Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
|
On March 25 2013 05:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:39 Roe wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Everything exists by that standard. You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil?
And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious???
|
|
|
On March 25 2013 05:34 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:17 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ No, this is incorrect. Please do not spread misinformation. You are ignorant about what constitutes atheism, it has a clear definition and there is no real debate as to the meaning of the word. When you ask me not to be picky you are asking me to simply accept your erronous assertion about atheism. Sorry, no can do. Again, the abscence of proof argument is void, since atheism doesn't say what you think it says. i wasn't trying to start an argument on atheism, so let's say you are right. Please do not call people ignorants unless you have some severe credibility proof of your own expertise (so unless you are some university teacher or got a phd in letters, don't call anyone an ignorant please, and even then don't, just because it's rude). I must admit I picked up the definition from dictionnary and after a fast lookup on internet. In my dictio. it says "one who doesn't believe in or denies the existence of an absolute being" so i made my sentence based on that, if i didn't go deep enough in my understanding of what atheism means i apologise. When i ask you not to be picky, i just want not to start a debate on atheism because i didn't use it with a profound thinking on it. So to correct myself i'll reformulate: i don't understand people that just choose to believe god doesn't exist, without proof of his inexistence, just as much as i don't understand believers for the same reason
Ignorance is not an insult. It simply means lack of knowledge. I am ignorant about many things, it does not mean I am stupid. I am not really sure what credentials I could offer, I don't think a position like "professional atheist" exists.
|
On March 25 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:38 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity. Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies. Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
A large majority of people who live today, and who have lived in the past, have not believed in the christian god. It seems the witness evidence, would lead us to believe the christian god does not exist.
|
On March 25 2013 05:46 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:38 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
[quote]
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity. Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies. Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances. I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
|
On March 25 2013 04:36 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:16 MiraMax wrote:On March 25 2013 03:18 soon.Cloak wrote:On March 25 2013 03:13 mcc wrote:On March 25 2013 02:50 Shiori wrote:On March 25 2013 02:44 mcc wrote:On March 25 2013 01:28 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On March 25 2013 00:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:
this thread is gonna turn to shit so quick, no matter how hard we try to be civil about this.
User was temp banned for this post. lollol did i cause this? hahaha On March 25 2013 01:09 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, on to Ontological Arguments! + Show Spoiler +This proof is from David Johnson's "Truth Without Paradox". It is not perfectly straightforward, so I'm interested in the opinion of others on it. It is based off of Godel's Ontological Argument. First, some definitions: 1) A being is a God if and only if it has all the properties of the regularly understood Judea-Christian Deity; that is, it is immortal, morally perfect, omnipotent, etc...For now, let's not assume that this being necessarily would have to have the property of necessary existence (as in, a being can be God even without necessary existence). 2) A being is an "Anselmian God" if and only if it necessarily exists, and it could only exist as a God. 3) The notation L(p) is read as "It is necessarily the case that p". "Necessarily" is commonly defined as having to hold true in any possible world; that is, L(2+2=4), but ~L(I had cereal for breakfast). 4) The notation M(p) is read as "It is possibly the case that p". Note that I am referring to a Subjunctive Possibility, not a Epistemic Possibility. 5) (PϽQ) is read as "If P, then Q" 6) ~p is read as "Not p" The proof: (I) L(If there is an Anselmian God, then L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +Based off the definition of an Anselmian God (II) M(There is a God) If (I) and (II), then (III) M(L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +From Modal Logic. It's in the form of L(PϽQ), M(p), therefore, M(q). It's true because the first statement says in every world, PϽQ, and the second means in some there is p, so in that one, there's also q. That then means that in every world, M(q) (IV) If M(L(There is a God)), then L(There is a God) + Show Spoiler +This one gets a little complicated. It is part of the modal logic systems of S5 and S3.5, but can also be defended logically. Let's start with
(i) If M(p), then L(M(p)). That's true because M(p) means that in some world, p, and since every possible world is aware of that world, then in every world, M(p). That means L(M(p))
(ii) If M(~p), then L(M(~p))- From replacing p with ~p
(iii) ~(L(M(~p)), then ~M(~p)
(iv) ~~M~(M(~p)), then L(p)- From replacing ~L~ with M, and ~M~ with L, by definition
(v) M~(M(~p), then L(p)- From ~~M being M, by definition
(vi) M(L(p)), then L(p) If (III) and (IV), then (V) L(There is a God) which leads to (VI) There is a God Complicated, but I appreciate anyone's response. Also I have to study for midterms, so I may not be around to respond for a bit- I'm not just dodging question  . This is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this. It is actually just simple playing with symbols based on relatively simple rules. And it has no bearing on the discussion. Do you reject logic as possessing explanatory power? If so, then empiricism doesn't make any sense because it is founded on simple logical rules. If you accept logic as possessing explanatory power, then if the ontological argument is sound, it's true. What you need to show is that there is a flaw in the argument. You can't just say "it's playing with symbols" because all logical arguments are just playing with symbols, including the argument that, say, gravity exists because we observe objects being affected by a force which varies proportionately with mass. You can't get from p and q to if p then q without logic (even with logic it's debatable whether you can). In fact, p and q don't even make sense without logic. "all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ? Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world. So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning. S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument. At the root of this and any other ontological argument lies the commitment that possibility and necessity are meaningful concepts when employed in a formal system. Consider the following counter: i) It is possible that god does not exist ii) By i) god does not exist in some possible world iii) A necessary being exists in every possible world iv) god is a necessary being v) By ii), iii) and iv) god does not exist TL;DR: If you try to simply define god into existence, the argument will simply be shifted to whether it is even possible that such a god exists. Ontological arguments fail. Premises 1/2 and Premise 4 contradict each other directly. It is not possible for them to both be true at the same time, ergo the argument is unsound. Consider: 1)Blue is green 2)Blue is not green C1) Therefore Red is the prettiest colour. This is actually a valid argument, but it's still false. Your argument appears to be constructed in reverse, or something. It should be: 1) Being is necessary iff it exists in every possible world 2) God is not a necessary being C1) Therefore God does not exist in every possible world You can't say "God could possibly not exist" and "God is necessary" as two premises. That's the same as saying "P" and "not P" and then deducing "the moon is made of cheese." It might work better if you had said "If God exists, then God is necessary."
While you are right that my argument is written sloppily, your objection is besides the point. You could simply change iv) to god is defined as a necessary being and conclude that a god defined in such a way is internally inconsistent and thus a logical impossibility. But notice that ontological arguments exactly use this relationship in order to bring god into existence. Sure if it is only possible that god necessarily exists then given some ontological commitment to modal realism or possible world semantics it follows that god necessarily exists. But if it were possible that god did not exist then be argument can be turned on its head.
So the interlocutor needs to assume that while it is possible that god exists it is not possible that god does not exist, which reveals the whole silliness of the endeavor.
|
On March 25 2013 05:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:39 Roe wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
[quote]
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Everything exists by that standard. You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist. What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil? And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious???
I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately.
And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them.
|
On March 25 2013 05:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:46 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:38 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity. Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies. Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances. I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter. Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
|
On March 25 2013 05:49 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:38 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
[quote]
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity. Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies. Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances. A large majority of people who live today, and who have lived in the past, have not believed in the christian god. It seems the witness evidence, would lead us to believe the christian god does not exist.
With over 2 billion believers, I wouldn't say a large majority. Sure, a majority, but not exactly vast.
In the case of a murder that occurred in Georgia, one should not say that because no person in Alaska witnessed the murder occur that this constitutes evidence that it didn't. The lack of testimony from parties not present or not involved doesn't really come into the equation.
|
Last time I checked, true atheism is the absolute rejection of a deity.
The "in between" stance that states: maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't, I cannot decide without proof is called agnosticism.
Then there is a myriad of many other stances in the spectrum. But I think those 2 are the common terms used to distinguish between someone that says "maybe" and someone that says a definitive "no".
|
On March 25 2013 05:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:46 DoubleReed wrote:On March 25 2013 05:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:39 Roe wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Everything exists by that standard. You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist. What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil? And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious??? I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately. And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them.
How much of the New Testament is written way after the death of supposed Jesus of Nazareth???
It doesn't matter if you were argue about the failure of science to produce results. It still is evidence against you. Any restriction and detail is evidence against you, because every restriction and detail lowers the probability of it being true. As is the Problem of Evil, which is far more incredible evidence against than you are giving it credit, when considering the lack of medicine in the bible and other abnormalities. If you are going to talk about the evidence for God's existence, then obviously you cannot throw out the evidence against God's existence. Otherwise it is blatant confirmation bias.
|
On March 25 2013 05:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:46 DoubleReed wrote:On March 25 2013 05:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:39 Roe wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Everything exists by that standard. You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist. What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil? And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious??? I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately. And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them.
When I hear someone talk about relationships with jesus and miracles I judge their testimony to be exactly as rational as testimony of alien abductions
|
On March 25 2013 05:53 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:46 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:38 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
[quote]
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity. Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies. Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances. I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter. Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though. All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
|
On March 25 2013 05:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:53 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:46 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:38 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:
[quote]
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity. Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies. Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances. I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter. Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though. All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile. Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific? And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
Why not just abandon your ad populum arguments? They aren't valid.
|
On March 25 2013 05:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:39 Roe wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Everything exists by that standard. You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
You're correct.
If I start talking about how I'm seeing giant cockroaches walking in and out of my apartment on a daily basis that is clear evidence and eye-witness testimony that they exist. Now, if someone asks "Has anyone else seen them?" to find out if they really exist people might even find more eye-witnesses testimonies aka more evidence. No one on this planet can 100% disprove that giant cockroaches walk in and out of my apartment on a daily basis. It is impossible to disproof something like that.
However, if they indeed do exist it should be possible to find reliable, trustworthy proof for them. Videos, photos or even experiments giving proof of their existance.
So, yes, you are right. It is impossible to disprove the existence of anything that someone claims that exists. It doesn't matter if it's about giant cockroaches, UFOs or, to come back to the topic: God.
As soon as someone says that what he believes in exists but he can't provide proof for it it's pretty damn hard to take it seriously, no matter if it's something that's around for a week or thousands of years. Millions of people believing in something without any proof for its existence doesn't make them more right.
-"God exists."
-"Show me proof."
-"If you don't believe in him you will never see any proof of his existance."
-"???"
The only way to win that argument is to not engage in it because there isn't a common logical ground in it.
|
On March 25 2013 05:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:53 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:46 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:38 Tewks44 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:
[quote]
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity. Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies. Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances. I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter. Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though. All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile. Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific? And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
I would love for you to find those numbers. I am almost certain you will not be able to find numbers on either, and I would be truly amazed if anyone has taken the time to count all the reported miracles in the records.
|
On March 25 2013 05:57 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:46 DoubleReed wrote:On March 25 2013 05:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:39 Roe wrote:On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
[quote]
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Everything exists by that standard. You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist. What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil? And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious??? I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately. And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them. How much of the New Testament is written way after the death of supposed Jesus of Nazareth??? It doesn't matter if you were argue about the failure of science to produce results. It still is evidence against you. As is the Problem of Evil, which is far more incredible evidence against than you are giving it credit, when considering the lack of medicine in the bible and other abnormalities. If you are going to talk about the evidence for God's existence, then obviously you cannot throw out the evidence against God's existence. Otherwise it is blatant confirmation bias.
All of the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus. Much of it not "long" after, but definitely after, usually by a couple of decades.
I don't see how the failure of science equals a failure on the part of believers... enlighten me as to why this is so. And the Problem of Evil isn't evidence, it's an argument against a specific definition of God. In my opinion, this specific definition of God and of evil used in the argument is inaccurate, and therefore it's like saying that evidence against the existence of unicorns is evidence against the existence of black holes. To me, the Problem of Evil is a strawman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
