|
On March 25 2013 05:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:49 Crushinator 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. 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.
Now you're just being dishonest with statistics. There are over 7 billion people on Earth, meaning right now about 2/7 of the world believes in some form of Christianity. That's less than 30%, which means over 70% of the world are not Christian. That's a pretty vast majority (the differential being ~40%).
And even if it wasn't, by your own standards (eyewitness testimony, largely considered the least accurate level of evidence), there is still over twice as much "evidence" that the Christian god doesn't exist (as what non-Christians see every day defends their lack of a belief in Christianity, and so that eyewitness testimony is just as relevant as Christians').
|
On March 25 2013 06:00 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Come now, lets not be obstinate, of course the reports of god in some form far outnumber those of bigfoot. The question is not quantity, but quality. I do not consider these testimonies to be worth very all that much, as I see it they are irrevocably tainted by wishful thinking and selective interpretation.
|
On March 25 2013 05:59 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Let us pretend for a moment that you suspect a friend of stealing something from you. You ask the other two people who were present at the time of the disappearance. One hates your friend with a passion and is a known liar. The other is extremely trustworthy, and knows absolutely nothing about your friend, and to your knowledge, has never lied once. The liar says he did it, and the trustworthy one says he didn't. Are the testimonies equal? Does one not carry more weight than another? Or let us say that fifty people all say they saw him steal it, and only one says he didn't. Does the number not come into play?
The argument is solid, it's just a matter of how much you trust eye-witness testimony.
|
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 see no reason to limit the discussion, however science is essentially a process of determining validity of a statement, so if you want to be convincing you should use the standards set by the scientific method, as they are probably the highest standards for judging evidence. By accusing me of trying to limit the discussion you are essentially admitting that the evidence for God isn't of high enough quality to be subject to scientific scrutiny. Of course, you aren't obligated to provide evidence subject to scientific scrutiny, but your argument becomes weaker when you basically have to say your evidence wouldn't be taken seriously in a profession that is dedicated to finding the truth in things.
|
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.
1. Do you think more people have heard about a god, or heard about Big Foot? Do you think more people care about finding god, or care about finding Big Foot?
2. Either way, a bunch of people believing something isn't intrinsic evidence for that belief ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ). What matters is the actual arguments and evidence they bring to the table.
|
On March 25 2013 06:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:57 DoubleReed wrote: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:
[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. 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.
Decades isn't "long after"??? Humans don't live that long, man...
It doesn't matter if you define your way out for either question. That still lowers the probability of it being true.
Consider the two statements:
"An all-powerful, all-seeing, creator of the universe exists."
"An all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent, creator of the universe exists."
It is necessarily true that the probability of the first statement is higher than the probability of the second statement. Getting rid of specific definitions of God lowers the probability by definition. Adding more details always lowers the probability by definition.
Therefore it is evidence against you. Trying to weasel your way out of this is called the Conjunction Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy
|
On March 25 2013 06:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:49 Crushinator 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. 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. Now you're just being dishonest with statistics. There are over 7 billion people on Earth, meaning right now about 2/7 of the world believes in some form of Christianity. That's less than 30%, which means over 70% of the world are not Christian. That's a pretty vast majority (the differential being ~40%). And even if it wasn't, by your own standards (eyewitness testimony, largely considered the least accurate level of evidence), there is still over twice as much "evidence" that the Christian god doesn't exist (as what non-Christians see every day defends their lack of a belief in Christianity, and so that eyewitness testimony is just as relevant as Christians').
As I said earlier though, the lack of testimony from someone doesn't equal testimony of the lack of something. You don't use testimony from people who weren't there as evidence against the people who were there.
(And I wouldn't call 5/7 a "vast majority" in the context of the God debate, but that's pretty much just semantics. It's not really important to the argument at hand.)
|
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.
On March 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
[*]Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. No exceptions, no conditions. 3. cite legitimate and authoritative sources.
Basically, yes, we are.
Not to mention that your sources of your argument are all based on rehashings of second hand accounts from thousands of years ago.
Let me approach as such: if I were to report a "miracle" to you, and I had never been taught anything about Christianity, would I report it as a Christian miracle? Most likely not. Considering this, a large majority of your "evidence" is subject to bias; therefore, it is not admissible to be considered empirical or scientific.
|
Whether or not there is a god, religion and faith-based beliefs cause people to do a lot of horrible things in this world. I'm better off without religion, and I think everyone will be someday (long after we're all dead). I understand many people are still religious and that might sound inflammatory, and I'm sorry.
One thing I do support is the open, honest discussion of religions, and I would hate to see this thread closed. You guys are doing an amazing job of keeping this discussion civil and I think that shows how far we've come as a community in the past 5 years.
|
On March 25 2013 06:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 06:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:49 Crushinator 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. 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. Now you're just being dishonest with statistics. There are over 7 billion people on Earth, meaning right now about 2/7 of the world believes in some form of Christianity. That's less than 30%, which means over 70% of the world are not Christian. That's a pretty vast majority (the differential being ~40%). And even if it wasn't, by your own standards (eyewitness testimony, largely considered the least accurate level of evidence), there is still over twice as much "evidence" that the Christian god doesn't exist (as what non-Christians see every day defends their lack of a belief in Christianity, and so that eyewitness testimony is just as relevant as Christians'). As I said earlier though, the lack of testimony from someone doesn't equal testimony of the lack of something. You don't use testimony from people who weren't there as evidence against the people who were there. (And I wouldn't call 5/7 a "vast majority" in the context of the God debate, but that's pretty much just semantics. It's not really important to the argument at hand.)
What miracle, for which there is eyewitness testimony, do you think is the most convincing evidence that, specifically, the Christian god exists?
|
On March 25 2013 06:07 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 06:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:57 DoubleReed wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Decades isn't "long after"??? Humans don't live that long, man... It doesn't matter if you define your way out for either question. That still lowers the probability of it being true. Consider the two statements: "An all-powerful, all-seeing, creator of the universe exists." "An all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent, creator of the universe exists." It is necessarily true that the probability of the first statement is higher than the probability of the second statement. Getting rid of specific definitions of God lowers the probability by definition. Adding more details always lowers the probability by definition. Therefore it is evidence against you. Trying to weasel your way out of this is called the Conjunction Fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy
well actually:
"An all-powerful, all-seeing, being; who is not all-benevolent, exists."
"An all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent, being exists."
There are the same number of attributes, you just neglected to add the first one.
And no, historically speaking, decades isn't too long. Again though, this is semantics.
|
On March 25 2013 05:39 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:14 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 05:08 Crushinator wrote:
Atheists reject the existence of gods for a reason. An infinite number of gods are imaginable. Do you reject none of them, based on that you can't prove their inexistence? I don't reject or believe in gods; i just say that if i saw one, it could as well be some very advanced being. Hence, even with god under my eyes it couldn't possibly be an absolute proof because of the doubt. In the end it's still just a choice between believing or not. My position is "I don't know, and if I knew I'd doubt what I know" Oo I find this to be a dishonest position. I don't think it's what you actually believe. If I asked you what color the Statue of Liberty was, you would say "green." I would follow up with "Do you KNOW it is green?" and you would say "Yes, I have seen pictures" or "I have seen it myself." However, can you be absolutely certain that you aren't hallucinating? Perhaps it has been painted in the meantime and no one has reported on it? It is possible, from your perspective, that the Statue of Liberty is not green, however unlikely. The idea of absolute certainty is not just impossible to meet (for any claim ever, positive or negative), but it is also completely and utterly pointless. When somebody says they know something, they are not referring to absolute certainty, because nobody is EVER referring to absolute certainty. The only time people ever refer to absolute certainty is discussion of religion, for painfully obvious reasons. So I will certainly assert that I know god does not exist (based on Bayesian Probability). And I think if you talked honestly you would say the same thing.
Well i was being quite honest about how I see things; but maybe i didn't convey what i wanted to say properly. Your exemple with the statue of liberty seems confusing to me. What i meant is about entities you can't possibly recognize. Like if someone never knew anything about the look of lions and tigers except that they are big cats; if that guy was presented to a lion, he wouldn't be able to say if it's a lion or a tiger.
Same goes for God and advanced beings, if you had someone with godlike abilities under your eyes, you couldn't tell if he is a god or an incredibly advanced being.
It's just that "magic" can't be dissociated from super advanced technology.
|
On March 25 2013 06:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 06:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:49 Crushinator 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. 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. Now you're just being dishonest with statistics. There are over 7 billion people on Earth, meaning right now about 2/7 of the world believes in some form of Christianity. That's less than 30%, which means over 70% of the world are not Christian. That's a pretty vast majority (the differential being ~40%). And even if it wasn't, by your own standards (eyewitness testimony, largely considered the least accurate level of evidence), there is still over twice as much "evidence" that the Christian god doesn't exist (as what non-Christians see every day defends their lack of a belief in Christianity, and so that eyewitness testimony is just as relevant as Christians'). As I said earlier though, the lack of testimony from someone doesn't equal testimony of the lack of something. You don't use testimony from people who weren't there as evidence against the people who were there.
What does this have to do with the number of non-Christians vs. the number of Christians? Either you witness Christianity at hand, or you don't. People convert from one religion to another (or no religion), all the time. Do you really think it's appropriate to discount the 5 billion lives that don't agree with one worldview and have the lifelong experiences to argue against it, when you're focusing only on the lives that do agree with you? Christianity's reach is everywhere, and God's reach is everywhere as well. Every person on Earth counts in this testimony for or against the religion.
|
On March 25 2013 06:11 Meta wrote:
Whether or not there is a god, religion and faith-based beliefs cause people to do a lot of horrible things in this world. I'm better off without religion, and I think everyone will be someday (long after we're all dead). I understand many people are still religious and that might sound inflammatory, and I'm sorry.
One thing I do support is the open, honest discussion of religions, and I would hate to see this thread closed. You guys are doing an amazing job of keeping this discussion civil and I think that shows how far we've come as a community in the past 5 years.
Even if I agree with some of what you say and I'm a non-believer, there are some merits to spirituality. Let's not shove it all up down the drain due to extremists and intolerance.
|
On March 25 2013 06:09 Holytornados wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show nested quote +On March 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
[*]Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. No exceptions, no conditions. 3. cite legitimate and authoritative sources.
Basically, yes, we are. Not to mention that your sources of your argument are all based on rehashings of second hand accounts from thousands of years ago. Let me approach as such: if I were to report a "miracle" to you, and I had never been taught anything about Christianity, would I report it as a Christian miracle? Most likely not. Considering this, a large majority of your "evidence" is subject to bias; therefore, it is not admissible to be considered empirical or scientific.
And the Problem of Evil is scientific how?
Not all miracles are said to have occurred thousands of years ago. Fatima, for instance, occurred less than a century ago.
If a person gives testimony of a miracle, but not as a Christian miracle specifically, that isn't necessarily evidence against Christianity. It could be that they misunderstood the nature of the miracle they witnessed. Or it could be that they understood it perfectly and it is evidence against Christianity. It could be either.
|
On March 25 2013 05:52 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 04:36 Shiori wrote: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.
Still doesn't work, I think (not guarunteed, I'm definitely not an expert in this). Once you define God as a necessary being, then it is not possible that God doesn't exist (premise i). Similarly, if I define "2+2=4" as a necessary truth, it is not possible that that 2+2 isn't 4.
Notice in the argument presented, the necessity of the existence of God was left out; I think its omission is meant to simplify things.
Also, if you change "iv" to "If God exists, then He must exist", I will just disagree with that.
Again, I appreciate the discussion.
Edit: Typo
|
On March 25 2013 06:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 06:09 Holytornados wrote:On March 25 2013 05:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
[*]Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. No exceptions, no conditions. 3. cite legitimate and authoritative sources.
Basically, yes, we are. Not to mention that your sources of your argument are all based on rehashings of second hand accounts from thousands of years ago. Let me approach as such: if I were to report a "miracle" to you, and I had never been taught anything about Christianity, would I report it as a Christian miracle? Most likely not. Considering this, a large majority of your "evidence" is subject to bias; therefore, it is not admissible to be considered empirical or scientific. And the Problem of Evil is scientific how? Not all miracles are said to have occurred thousands of years ago. Fatima, for instance, occurred less than a century ago. If a person gives testimony of a miracle, but not as a Christian miracle specifically, that isn't necessarily evidence against Christianity. It could be that they misunderstood the nature of the miracle they witnessed. Or it could be that they understood it perfectly and it is evidence against Christianity. It could be either.
According to christian doctrine, there would be no such thing as a christian miracle. Their god is the god of all the universe and everyone on this planet, whether they believe in it or not. It would simply be a miracle that occured in a place were there few or no christians.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Locking this until we've discussed this internally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
