Originally posted by bbarr
You still haven't answered my question, Feivel.
And until you answer the ones I asked first, you will not get an answer. You see that you can't answer my questions without totally obliterating yout argument. It is entertaining how easily you call my statements obscurant dogmatism. I wonder if you would have said the same to your philosophy idols who ...[text shortened]... to draw your own conclusions based on that Bennett.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Originally posted by OmnislashYes, there is a God. This is a fact, yet as I have read many of the posts within this thread it becomes obvious that many do not believe in Him. Unfortunately, I can’t change people’s view of God, but only point them to the Truth in that He does exist and to His Word (The Bible) that reveals the Truth.
Is there a God? Why?
From God’s Word we read the following verses: Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Psalm 19:1 “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Of course it is difficult for an individual who is not a Christian to fully understand God and who He is. I Corinthians 2:14 “ But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” God reveals enough of Himself in that if one truly wishes to know Him, He will enable that individual to become a part of His family by putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. John 3:16, 17 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
It is obvious that this world and all that is in it was created by design by God and He has revealed Himself in every aspect of it. The choice is ours as to whether to accept or reject Him. Thirty-six years ago I made the choice to accept Christ as my Savior. I’ll never regret that decision. Romans 1:16 “ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
Many often try to understand God from a human perspective. I choose to understand God from the pages of His Word. Though He has revealed Himself through “nature”, He uses His word to give us a clear picture of who He is. When I read the Scriptures, I let them speak to me and do not use them to justify my actions.
I’m simply trying to answer the question given in the first post of this thread and am not trying to cover all the questions that have been brought up so far. It has been difficult reading through all the comments and I appreciate all those who have been unafraid to stand with God. As I said earlier, I will never be able to change one’s view of God, but only point individuals to Him.
Thank you for your time,
Doug
Originally posted by rwingettNone of that constitutes evidence that God either exists or doesn't exist. The problem of evil, as discussed by Bennett, goes to showing that an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot also be omnibenevolent. It doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of a God per se (i take it that any being responsible for the creation of the universe would count as God).
There is sufficient evidence to cast a reasonable doubt upon the validity of the theistic claims about the existence of a god.
There is the "problem of evil", that Bbarr has talked about at length in this thread. There are geological and paleontological data which contradict various parts of the biblical legends. There are numerous other contradiction ...[text shortened]... y, I think it would accomplish little and require much effort, so I will leave it as it stands.
as for the arch/paelo data, sure it is evidence that things didn't happen like it says in the Bible, but again, they don't say anything about the existence/non existence of God.
my point is, there is nothing that could even in principle constitute such evidence, so it is misleading to say there is little probability that God exists - this over-reaches just as much as the strong claims 'god exists' or 'god doesn't exist'. we are justified in saying we don't know if god exists. it is conceivable that we can say 'god explains nothing we can't explain within our existing explanatory framework (of physics) - some physicists claim that the universe is a quantum fluctuation that spontaneously happened, for example (but a fluctuation in what, we might ask...)
Originally posted by dfm65I disagree. I contend that the items I listed are evidence to be used in the case against god. They do not constitute conclusive evidence, but they do suffice to cast a reasonable doubt on theistic claims. The problem of evil attempts to show that the christian concept of god is illogical. This is a powerful piece of evidence that the christian must try to explain away. The archaeological and paleontological evidence of course does not prove the nonexistence of god, but it does suffice to undermine the credibility of the bible, and the concept of god by extension. The contradictions and errors within the bible serve the same purpose of undermining the credibility of the biblical sources and casting doubt on the existence of god. All of these things, and others, combine to make a powerful case against theistic claims.
None of that constitutes evidence that God either exists or doesn't exist. The problem of evil, as discussed by Bennett, goes to showing that an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot also be omnibenevolent. It doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of a God per se (i take it that any being responsible for the creation of the universe would cou ...[text shortened]... luctuation that spontaneously happened, for example (but a fluctuation in what, we might ask...)
However, none of these things prove anything, and everyone will interpret the available evidence in their own manner. You may claim that my arguments do not suffice to show a strong probability against the existence of god. I take the opposite view. I think the atheistic argument is by far the more coherent and logical of the two. I find the christian arguments to be extremely lacking. This does not prove the nonexistence of god. It does not prove a high probability against the existence of god. But it does allow me to infer a high probability against the existence of god. Then as more evidence comes to light, or our understanding of things advances, I am free to adjust that probability as necessary.
Originally posted by dfm65I'm just wondering where it says that god possesses any of these three traits. Does anyone know?
None of that constitutes evidence that God either exists or doesn't exist. The problem of evil, as discussed by Bennett, goes to showing that an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot also be omnibenevolent.
Originally posted by FlashA religious person believes there's a god.
Yes, there is a God. This is a fact, yet as I have read many of the posts within this thread it becomes obvious that many do not believe in Him.
An atheist believes that the evidence says otherwise, adopts 'there is no god' as a working theory, then continues to search for the truth.
I must say I find the latter the healthier attitude of the two, regardless of who turns out to be ultimately correct.
Originally posted by rwingettRob,
the christian concept of god is illogical.
Forgive me if I am wrong but didn't we come to an understanding that we are not even considering any revealed religion's concept of God? I trust even a child could debunk almost every revealed "holy book" in existance.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
2 edits
Originally posted by FeivelO.k, could you give me a list of the most pressing questions you'd like me to answer. I promise I'll do my best.
And my philosophical idols are such because of what they got right, or got wrong in an interesting way. I'm frankly ashamed that many of my philosophical idols displayed such sloppy thinking when it came to theology. Descartes, who is in many ways the philosopher closest to my heart, held a doctrine known as voluntarism, claiming that God could make a round square, or, more generally, make any proposition both true and not true simultaneously. If taken seriously, this point vitiates his whole philosophical program. And lest any theists get any ideas about holding this type of view, consider what it would do to their own position. If God could make it the case that both P and ~P were true simultaneously, then his nature truly would be beyond our ability to comprehend, as our ability to comprehend is bounded by rules of rationality. We literally could not think coherently about the nature of a being like Descartes' God. And since such a being would be beyond our ability to think about coherently, He would also be beyond our ability to talk about coherently. And if He was beyond our ability to talk about coherently, then we could never be justifiied in attributing any property at all to him, including the property of being able to make it the case that both P and ~P. Upon a bedrock of voluntarism, the whole theological edifice come crashing down, and nothing is left to the theist.
Originally posted by dylI am not a religious person! I am a Christian and one who has searched for the truth and found it. My beliefs and hopes are not wishes, but acceptance of what I know as the truth and anticipation of what God has promised me. Isaiah 55
A religious person believes there's a god.
An atheist believes that the evidence says otherwise, adopts 'there is no god' as a working theory, then continues to search for the truth.
I must say I find the latter the healthier attitude of the two, regardless of who turns out to be ultimately correct.
Thanks,
Doug
Originally posted by FeivelPerhaps we did. I confess to not paying attention to much of the exchange between you and Bbarr in this thread. I may have missed something along the way.
Rob,
Forgive me if I am wrong but didn't we come to an understanding that we are not even considering any revealed religion's concept of God? I trust even a child could debunk almost every revealed "holy book" in existance.
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
Originally posted by FlashHow can you be a Christian and not be religious? This would seem to be a contradiction. It would seem to follow deductively:
I am not a religious person! I am a Christian and one who has searched for the truth and found it. My beliefs and hopes are not wishes, but acceptance of what I know as the truth and anticipation of what God has promised me. Isaiah 55
Thanks,
Doug
Flash is a Christian.
Christianity is a religion.
Therefore, Flash is religious.
If both premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. You have stated that you are a Christian, so you must be taking exception to the premise that Christianity is a religion. If this is correct, then how do you exempt Christianity from its status as being a religion?