Are ANY of the arguments convincing?

[PolyHedral]

Pota-to, po-tato.

What do you mean by "used to prove my argument?" If you mean that "unicorns exist" becomes your conclusion rather than your premise, then you are assuming proof, not unicorns.

*is getting increasingly confused*

Isn't the whole point of a deductive proof that you're only assuming things that are demonstratively true?

 

[Futile Crush]

I know what you mean... but then I met him one day reading my bible. Everything changed! keep reading you will find him too.

Personally, I find the Bible to be long and boring with little substance or anything of note. Myself, I prefer the Qur'an. It's shorter and that bit easier to understand.

Pota-to, po-tato.

What do you mean by "used to prove my argument?" If you mean that "unicorns exist" becomes your conclusion rather than your premise, then you are assuming proof, not unicorns.

You said "You have to assume "god exists" into your argument, else you have nothing to prove." I was illustrating by example by substituting god with a unicorn that assuming God exists into your argument will produce a circular argument. You are assuming proof - if by that you mean assuming that proof exists - by assuming God because you say that he exists to begin with. God is not the default state, and therefore you cannot merely assume that he does exist, nor could you even if God was the default state.

I suppose you could assume "god doesn't exist" into your arguments proving god, but if you proceeded from there it would be a miracle to prove that god does exist"

No, you couldn't do that either. If you say "god doesn't exist", you have to justify that, even if just to say "There is no proof" or "The arguments for are not cogent". You can't assume "God doesn't exist" and say "Therefore, God doesn't exist."

 

[Willamena]

Isn't the whole point of a deductive proof that you're only assuming things that are demonstratively true?

Isn't the whole point of assuming something undemonstratable to take something as supposed in order to treat it with some level of seriousness?

Edit: You could assume "God doesn't exist," but in an argument contrived to prove the existence of "God," why would you? And if you did, why would you even bother making the argument?

 

[Futile Crush]

Isn't the whole point of assuming something undemonstratable to take something as supposed in order to treat it with some level of seriousness?

No, that's not the point at all. You can take something seriously without assuming it exists.

Edit: You could assume "God doesn't exist," but in an argument contrived to prove the existence of "God," why would you?

If you were trying to prove the existence of God, of course you wouldn't make the argument that God doesn't exist because that's not what you believe in. That's simple logic. But if you were in a debate with someone then the person with the opposing viewpoint would make that argument because that's precisely the point of debate. Hopefully they would never assume "God doesn't exist" and leave it there for they would be a terrible debater! If someone put forward the view that God doesn't exist, they would have to justify it, just like someone putting forward the view that God does exist would have to justify it, otherwise the debate goes nowhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You either didn't read my post or didn't grasp what I was saying. Faith is the evidence of things not beheld.

How is faith "evidence"?

So is it your argument that Jesus never existed? What a miracle that would be, a man who changed the world more than any other man, never even existed. The gospel writers, Tacitus, Josephus, and many others engaged in a giant conspiracy to create a fictional account of a man who taught about peace and truth, who always did good, who thousands followed as a man, and millions follow today.

The Testimonium Flavianum is a later insertion. The other mention in Josephus is generally underwhelming.

Tacitus' writings are evidence of early Christians and what they believed, not of the literal existence of Christ.

 

[PolyHedral]

It's entirely valid to assume that "God doesn't exist", and then deduce something silly, i.e. something known not to be true. If you did that sucessfully, then you've proven that God (for whatever version of God you've used) has to exist.

 

[Willamena]

No, that's not the point at all. You can take something seriously without assuming it exists.

I dare ya.

If you were trying to prove the existence of God, of course you wouldn't make the argument that God doesn't exist because that's not what you believe in. That's simple logic. But if you were in a debate with someone then the person with the opposing viewpoint would make that argument because that's precisely the point of debate. Hopefully they would never assume "God doesn't exist" and leave it there for they would be a terrible debater! If someone put forward the view that God doesn't exist, they would have to justify it, just like someone putting forward the view that God does exist would have to justify it, otherwise the debate goes nowhere.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the topic wasn't about a debate, but a proof that God exists.

 

[Willamena]

It's entirely valid to assume that "God doesn't exist", and then deduce something silly, i.e. something known not to be true. If you did that sucessfully, then you've proven that God (for whatever version of God you've used) has to exist.

I don't follow.

Look: as far as I'm concerned, people can take the assumption of God to be proof that God exists. I don't care anymore. (That would be stupid, though.)

 

[Futile Crush]

It's entirely valid to assume that "God doesn't exist", and then deduce something silly, i.e. something known not to be true. If you did that sucessfully, then you've proven that God (for whatever version of God you've used) has to exist.

I don't find that valid at all. Even if you did deduce with the highest accuracy something completely ridiculous from the premise "God doesn't exist", disproving that deduction wouldn't prove that God therefore exists. It could suggest an infinite number of things. It could say that an unnamed apathetic creator exists. It could suggest that Allah is the driving force behind the universe. It could even pose that the telos of the universe was driven by a bowl of petunias. Even allowing for other versions of God doesn't work.

It just doesn't prove anything.

 

[Futile Crush]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the topic wasn't about a debate, but a proof that God exists.

And where would you introduce proof that God exists? To the shop assistant at Marks and Spencers? You can publish it in a book, introduce it in a seminar/speech or talk to it with friends, but the entire point of proof is that it is used in debate, whether directly or indirectly.

 

[Futile Crush]

I don't follow.

Look: as far as I'm concerned, people can take the assumption of God to be proof that God exists. I don't care anymore. (That would be stupid, though.)

What he's saying, I believe, is that if you deduce something from the premise "God doesn't exist" that is obviously wrong, and your deduction is correct, then the premise "God doesn't exist" is wrong. He is presumably then inferring from this that if it's incorrect to say "God doesn't exist" then "God does exist".

The argument is invalid, however, assuming that I've read it correctly, because even if the deduction is 100% correct, that only disproves that there is no God, it doesn't say anything with even a remote degree of certainty about what there is.

 

[PolyHedral]

I don't find that valid at all. Even if you did deduce with the highest accuracy something completely ridiculous from the premise "God doesn't exist", disproving that deduction wouldn't prove that God therefore exists. It could suggest an infinite number of things. It could say that an unnamed apathetic creator exists. It could suggest that Allah is the driving force behind the universe. It could even pose that the telos of the universe was driven by a bowl of petunias. Even allowing for other versions of God doesn't work.

It just doesn't prove anything.

The style of reasoning is borrowed from formal logic, where it's quite valid. However, I see your point in that it breaks down when the thing you're trying to prove is as vague as the term "God." It's more reasonable with well-defined statements, like "This is the best of all possible worlds."

The argument is invalid, however, assuming that I've read it correctly, because even if the deduction is 100% correct, that only disproves that there is no God, it doesn't say anything with even a remote degree of certainty about what there is.

Surely if God does not not-exist, he must therefore exist? I think you're jumping the gun a little. If I somehow managed to prove that the statement "There is no God" is not true, I've only proven that a god exists. I haven't described this god, and so we don't have any idea of its properties, which is what you seem to be arguing.

 

[Futile Crush]

Surely if God does not not-exist, he must therefore exist? I think you're jumping the gun a little. If I somehow managed to prove that the statement "There is no God" is not true, I've only proven that a god exists. I haven't described this god, and so we don't have any idea of its properties, which is what you seem to be arguing.

It's not an either-or situation, i.e. it's not "God exists" or "God doesn't exist". For all we know, Allah is the divine creator of the universe. Or Brahman and all his various incarnations. Perhaps Waheguru. Or the Greco-Roman Pantheon (Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, Hades/Pluto), else the Slavic/Nordic Gods... there are thousands if not millions of different possibilities. So no, I think it's fairly safe to say that even if you disprove the statement "God/s doesn't/don't exist", that doesn't prove anything.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

You are free to believe or not believe. The evidence for the Bible's truthfulness and historicity is abundantly available, and so are the views of the Bible's detractors.(Romans 14:5)

Many times I have heard this, and every time I have asked for this "evidence", nothing has ever come of it. Maybe you can break the chain. Provide this evidence here, even if it is just a few snippets. No one I have encountered has been able to provide a single one.

 

[Futile Crush]

Many times I have heard this, and every time I have asked for this "evidence", nothing has ever come of it. Maybe you can break the chain. Provide this evidence here, even if it is just a few snippets. No one I have encountered has been able to provide a single one.

Don't get your hopes up. I've similarly asked for evidence, and all I get is "I have faith that the scriptures are correct" or something to that effect. And I'm not even being derogatory, I've asked countless questions on Yahoo! Answers and have never once been given any more evidence than "I have faith"/"The Bible is true, just because."

Occasionally they throw around names like Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, and then closer research fails to find anything in their favour, particularly as they never cite specific evidence.

So yes, I second Ritalin's challenge. Is there actually anyone here who can give evidence for the authenticity of the Bible that doesn't involve...?

• Saying that you have faith.
• Saying that you have to trust/believe the Bible.
• Listing various locations found in the Bible (Herod and Pilate may well have existed, that's not evidence of the Bible's authenticity.)
• Admitting that there is no evidence (I've actually seen people say that there isn't enough evidence to try and support their argument.)
• Appeals to the majority or an authority.
• Arguments from incredulity.
• Slander.

I would be amazed.

 

[edx500]

This is my first post on this forum (maybe my last!). I've been reading various posts off and on this morning and for the most part it just makes my eyes glaze over.

Honestly this one is no different. Proof of God is fairly sparse except internally. For the past eight years I have attended a Unity church with three different husband/wife minister couples. At first I was feeling like I was committing some sort of sinful act being there. Eight years later our current minister starts the service saying "all faiths, all beliefs are welcome. That's where I've gone myself. There is no one way or denomination. I believe there is One Power, but if you don't...well that's okay if we're polite about it.

I don't believe God condemns anyone so why should I?

The thing is that my personal beliefs have changed immensly the past few years-hopefully inspired by God, but I can't be sure they won't change some more, but I don't think God is interested in just one type of religion or one type of faith. I've tried to educate myself a little on what others believe, but I shy away from the ones who are sending us to Hell or who seem inspired to anger and violence. That's seems like a perversion of God to me..or a least a perversion of Life.