Are ANY of the arguments convincing?

[Galileo]

Depends on who is making the positive claim... if you were to start a debate with "God does not exist", the burden of proof would be on you.

That is not a positive claim. A positive claim is when one claims that something exists. If you believe that God exists than you are the one making the positive claim ergo the burden of proof is on you. I could start a conversation with "Big Foot doesn't exist," but that doesn't mean I have to provide evidence to support that argument, the burden of proof falls on anyone who does believe Big Foot exists. You can't prove a negative, meaning you can't ever prove that something does not exist, however you can prove something does exist. If an object or being in question does in fact exist than there has to be evidence out there that will prove its existence. If something doesn't exist you can look all you want but you're not going to find any evidence to prove that fact. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."(The Demon Haunted World.)

The argument is not that everything is caused, but that everything that begins to exist is caused.

So wouldn't that mean that God has a cause? He had to have begun somewhere or at some time.

 

[rusra02]

Simple: evidence. A high degree of irrefutable evidence.

I'm neither an empiricist nor a rationalist. I believe that absolute knowledge derives from BOTH reason and sense. While reason on its own, and sense on its own can both give us a fairly good picture of something, it's only when we combine the two that we can have 99% certainty about something.

There are arguments from reason that God exists, and these are inadequate. Then there are arguments from experience that God exists, and so are these. And then there are the empirical arguments like the design argument, and so too are these insufficient to me.

A divine manifestation of God himself before me, with absolutely no way that I could be hallucinating; i.e. there were a number of independent, unbiased and equally unhallucinating witnesses there to record the manifestation, THAT would convince me.

And because we don't know that that's ever happened, I remain unconvinced.

The Bible explains what true faith is: "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) The Greek term rendered assured expectations appeared in business documents and carried the idea of a written guarantee. The term evident demonstration carries the idea of producing evidence to convince.

It should also be said that faith is not a possession of all persons. Many who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus put faith in Jesus (John 11:45) Others, who saw a man dead for four days resurrected, did not, and even wanted to kill Lazarus to cover up the evidence. (John 12:9,10)

The Bible contains God's side, explaining why we exist, why suffering exists, and what the future holds. Creation reveals much about God, certainly testifies to his wisdom and power, his appreciation for beauty and cleanliness, and much more. But to really know God, we must take in knowledge about him through his word, the Bible.

The evidence is there, but men love the darkness rather than the light, the lie rather than the truth. (John 3:19) Building a true faith begins with preparing our own treacherous hearts to accept the truth when it smacks us in the face. (Jeremiah 17:9,10)

 

[waitasec]

The Bible explains what true faith is: "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) The Greek term rendered assured expectations appeared in business documents and carried the idea of a written guarantee. The term evident demonstration carries the idea of producing evidence to convince.

It should also be said that faith is not a possession of all persons. Many who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus put faith in Jesus (John 11:45) Others, who saw a man dead for four days resurrected, did not, and even wanted to kill Lazarus to cover up the evidence. (John 12:9,10)

The Bible contains God's side, explaining why we exist, why suffering exists, and what the future holds. Creation reveals much about God, certainly testifies to his wisdom and power, his appreciation for beauty and cleanliness, and much more. But to really know God, we must take in knowledge about him through his word, the Bible.

The evidence is there, but men love the darkness rather than the light, the lie rather than the truth. (John 3:19) Building a true faith begins with preparing our own treacherous hearts to accept the truth when it smacks us in the face. (Jeremiah 17:9,10)

so god wants you to make uninformed decisions? and one is considered to be virtuous by being satisfied with not understanding?
john 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[Willamena]

That is not a positive claim. A positive claim is when one claims that something exists.

"God does not exist" is a positive claim. "Not existent" can be posited as much as "existent" because negation exists. If it helps you see "positive" better, it's the same as to say that "God is not a thing."

So wouldn't that mean that God has a cause? He had to have begun somewhere or at some time.

If "God" had a beginning, that is what's implied. Usually, though, "God" is posited as something like "that which can have no beginning and no ending."

 

[Galileo]

"God does not exist" is a positive claim. "Not existent" can be posited as much as "existent" because negation exists. If it helps you see "positive" better, it's the same as to say that "God is not a thing."

No it cannot. If you can prove a "non-existent" then tell me how because not even the top scientists in the world have figured out how to do that. I go back to the "Big Foot" analogy, we can deduce that Big Foot does not exist through reason and logic but yet there are still people out there that believe in it simply for the fact that biologists have no way to prove Big Foot does not exist. Hence you cannot prove a "non-existent."

If "God" had a beginning, that is what's implied. Usually, though, "God" is posited as something like "that which can have no beginning and no ending."

So if God is allowed to have no beginning and no end then why can't the universe be the same. Maybe the universe has no beginning and no end and just simply is. It's simply an infinite chain of events that happen over and over. There's a big bang which causes the universe to expand outward. Eventually it gets to the point that it slows down and no longer expands and as a result the gravity of all the matter of the universe begins to take effect causing the universe to begin collapsing back on itself. Eventually it will implode and all the matter in the universe will collide and create another big bang and start the process all over again.

 

[Willamena]

No it cannot. If you can prove a "non-existent" then tell me how because not even the top scientists in the world have figured out how to do that. I go back to the "Big Foot" analogy, we can deduce that Big Foot does not exist through reason and logic but yet there are still people out there that believe in it simply for the fact that biologists have no way to prove Big Foot does not exist. Hence you cannot prove a "non-existent."

Proving comes later, after assuming the burden of proof. But assuming the burden of proof is all about the positing, not the proving. A positive statement is simply a statement about "the way the world is." If you state that "God does not exist," then you "gotta put your money where you mouth is."

You're right that no one can "prove a non-existent," but that's beside the point --if they claim the impossible, that's their problem.

So if God is allowed to have no beginning and no end then why can't the universe be the same. Maybe the universe has no beginning and no end and just simply is. It's simply an infinite chain of events that happen over and over. There's a big bang which causes the universe to expand outward. Eventually it gets to the point that it slows down and no longer expands and as a result the gravity of all the matter of the universe begins to take effect causing the universe to begin collapsing back on itself. Eventually it will implode and all the matter in the universe will collide and create another big bang and start the process all over again.

Sounds like a fine theory.

 

[Galileo]

Proving comes later, after assuming the burden of proof. But assuming the burden of proof is all about the positing, not the proving. A positive statement is simply a statement about "the way the world is." If you state that "God does not exist," then you "gotta put your money where you mouth is."

You're right that no one can "prove a non-existent," but that's beside the point --if they claim the impossible, that's their problem.

One can't assume the burden of proof if it's known that it's impossible to provide evidence. If we know you can't prove a "non-existent" than it's up to those who believe in the object in question to provide evidence to support their claims.

Who's to say the person making the claim that "God does not exist" is the one claiming the impossible, perhaps it's the other way around and it's those who believe in "God" who are the ones making the impossible claim. I think it's far more presumptuous to say "there is a God" without any evidence than to say "there is no God" without any evidence.

The point I'm driving at is that I don't think anyone would deny the existence of "God" or anything else if only someone would provide proof to substantiate that claim. That's the main reason I consider myself more of an agnostic than an atheist because so far no one has provided evidence to prove one way or the other. Skeptics, like myself, are simply reserving judgment until there's more information to go on. Though for the time being things seem to be in the non-believer's favor seeing as the believers have presented few convincing arguments or proofs for their beliefs. That being said for the time being we can operate and live our lives as if there is no superior intelligence watching over us or judging us.

Now before anyone starts in with the whole morality issue let me nip that in the butt right now. Let's say, for hypothetical purposes, that there is no God or higher power judging us. That does not mean we should just do whatever we want. We should still live moral lives regardless of whether we're being judged or not. I look at it as a child who needs a parent to discipline them to keep them from misbehaving versus a grown adult who behaves like a moral and responsible citizen because they know it's the right thing to do without anyone telling them. As a society we should be like the mature adult rather than the child. We shouldn't need a higher power to scold us and threaten us with punishment to keep us in line. We should be mature enough to treat our fellow man with dignity and respect because we all know that it's beneficial for society as a whole when we treat each other in this manner regardless of whether or not there's some omnipotent being passing judgment on all of us.

 

[Rakhel]

I am a personal fan of phenomenalism, but find the "ya'uh/na'uh" argument is quite fun to watch.

 

[Futile Crush]

You missed an argument, the personal relationship argument:
If you had a friend and they came over one day, spent the day with you, you cooked dinner for them, watched a movie, etc... Then they left and an atheist came over say a year later and said, "Prove to me that you aren't delusional that your really have this friend.”

What would you do? You would want to introduce the atheist to your friend. That is what the Christian wants to do, yet the atheist scoffs and jeers and doesn’t want to meet this imaginary friend. “do you know the tooth fairy also” he says. They will never meet the friend because of their attitude. Now they will never know your wonderful friend.

This argument makes several unsupported assumptions: namely that you have actually met God. Given that people from countless religions have reported similar experiences, we must take yours and everybody else's story with a pinch of salt.

It also assumes that every atheist is as closed-minded as your hypothetical atheist. This isn't the case. If someone thought that they had empirical and rational proof of God's existence then I'd want to see it and would be as open-minded as I can. Just because none of the evidence has convinced me so far that doesn't mean nothing ever will.

 

[Futile Crush]

Well, Mr. Futile Crush, the reason you have problems is because no Christian is trying to convince YOU of believing anything, just trying to explain why he or she believes. That is about all any of we Christians can do. (At least, that is true for me).
By the way, welcome to the forum.

On the contrary, quite a few Christians do set out to convince; such is the point of debate. Not all obviously, but a fair few.

And thank you!

 

[Futile Crush]

Depends on who is making the positive claim... if you were to start a debate with "God does not exist", the burden of proof would be on you.

Correct. We're assuming, however, that the theist made the positive claim. HOWEVER, if the atheist started the debate and said "Prove that God DOES exist", then it wouldn't be reasonable for the other person to say "No, you prove it!"

And anyway, if the atheist is starting off by explaining why God doesn't exist, he or she is probably going to end up saying that there isn't any proof which will achieve the same result; the theist explains why God does exist.

The argument is not that everything is caused, but that everything that begins to exist is caused.

That still doesn't make the argument work, it just means that it's no longer self-contradicting. It then does allow for a creator without a beginning, but how do you suppose the existence of such a creator anyway? It's not a necessary part of the universe.

 

[Futile Crush]

The Bible explains what true faith is: "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) The Greek term rendered assured expectations appeared in business documents and carried the idea of a written guarantee. The term evident demonstration carries the idea of producing evidence to convince.

It should also be said that faith is not a possession of all persons. Many who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus put faith in Jesus (John 11:45) Others, who saw a man dead for four days resurrected, did not, and even wanted to kill Lazarus to cover up the evidence. (John 12:9,10)

The Bible contains God's side, explaining why we exist, why suffering exists, and what the future holds. Creation reveals much about God, certainly testifies to his wisdom and power, his appreciation for beauty and cleanliness, and much more. But to really know God, we must take in knowledge about him through his word, the Bible.

The evidence is there, but men love the darkness rather than the light, the lie rather than the truth. (John 3:19) Building a true faith begins with preparing our own treacherous hearts to accept the truth when it smacks us in the face. (Jeremiah 17:9,10)

The thing is, I don't accept the Bible for truth. It's too self-contradictory, with too many absurdities and too little corroboration. The famed historian Josephus, who apparently recorded Jesus' history? Was born after Jesus died.

And the fact remains that empirical/rational thought can offer us far more than faith.

 

[rusra02]

so god wants you to make uninformed decisions? and one is considered to be virtuous by being satisfied with not understanding?
john 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

No, I did not say God wants you to make uninformed decisions. I said, or rather the Bible says exactly the opposite. God has provided abundant evidence for his existence and purposes. (Hebrews 11:1, 1 Thessalonians 5:21) Both the created universe and God's word, the Bible, provide this evidence. It is up to us as created works of God to examine the evidence for ourselves. Many are unwilling to do this. That is not God's fault, but theirs who choose to ignore the evidence.

 

[rusra02]

The thing is, I don't accept the Bible for truth. It's too self-contradictory, with too many absurdities and too little corroboration. The famed historian Josephus, who apparently recorded Jesus' history? Was born after Jesus died.

And the fact remains that empirical/rational thought can offer us far more than faith.

Many claim the Bible contradicts itself, but a closer examination reveals those claims are untrue. What absurdities are you referring to? What sort of corroboration are you seeking? There were over 500 eyewitnesses that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. Many of these were willing to give up life and treasure rather than deny what they had been eyewitnesses to.
Bible critics have attacked the Bible record relentlessly, claiming persons mentioned in the Scriptures never existed. Time and again, archeologists have uncovered evidence substantiating the Bible as historical fact, and it's critics wrong.
As might be expected, the further back in history one goes, the less reliable and more fragmented the physical evidence becomes for historical events. And like today, the historians of the past often allowed personal or nationistic pressure dictate what they recorded. In other words, they lied about events or omitted them entirely if these events were not favorable. For example, how many ancient monarchs recorded their defeats in battle?
For a single example taken from it-1 p. 155 Archaeology As an illustration, the Bible record states that King Sennacherib of Assyria was killed by his two sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, and was succeeded to the throne by another son, Esar-haddon. (2Ki 19:36, 37) Yet, a Babylonian chronicle stated that, on the 20th of Tebeth, Sennacherib was killed by his son in a revolt. Both Berossus, Babylonian priest of the third century B.C.E., and Nabonidus, Babylonian king of the sixth century B.C.E., gave the same account, to the effect that Sennacherib was assassinated by only one of his sons. However, in a more recently discovered fragment of the Prism of Esar-haddon, the son who succeeded Sennacherib, Esar-haddon clearly states that his brothers (plural) revolted and killed their father and then took flight. Commenting on this, Philip Biberfeld, in Universal Jewish History (1948, Vol. I, p. 27), says: “The Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonid, and Berossus were mistaken; only the Biblical account proved to be correct. It was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esarhaddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this event of Babylonian-Assyrian history than the Babylonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition.”

 

[jmvizanko]

That is what the Christian wants to do, yet the atheist scoffs and jeers and doesn’t want to meet this imaginary friend. “do you know the tooth fairy also” he says. They will never meet the friend because of their attitude. Now they will never know your wonderful friend.

Except, if you had an actual friend, you could easily introduce us to him. What you are describing is a friend you can have no interaction with, so how do you go about introducing anyone to him? "I'd like to introduce you to Jesus, the invisible thing I like to talk to and I think talks back to me through my psyche and the good things that happen to me." Real convincing.

We aren't scoffing and jeering because we are unwilling to meet you friend, and we just feel like belittling you. You just have no way to introduce your friend, by definition.

 

[jmvizanko]

The argument is not that everything is caused, but that everything that begins to exist is caused.

I don't see how throwing the possibility of something eternal into the mix changes anything. You now have 4 options:

1. God has always existed without cause, and then created the universe.
2. God popped into existence without cause, and then created the universe.
3. The universe has always existed without cause.
4. The universe popped into existence without cause.

No matter what, you have something that self-exists. So what is it exactly about number 1 that makes it more logically probable than 2-4?

 

[Willamena]

I don't see how throwing the possibility of something eternal into the mix changes anything. You now have 4 options:

1. God has always existed without cause, and then created the universe.
2. God popped into existence without cause, and then created the universe.
3. The universe has always existed without cause.
4. The universe popped into existence without cause.

No matter what, you have something that self-exists. So what is it exactly about number 1 that makes it more logically probable than 2-4?

Actually, there are many more options. I favour that "God" is always-existent and creates the universe.

 

[waitasec]

No, I did not say God wants you to make uninformed decisions. I said, or rather the Bible says exactly the opposite. God has provided abundant evidence for his existence and purposes. (Hebrews 11:1, 1 Thessalonians 5:21) Both the created universe and God's word, the Bible, provide this evidence. It is up to us as created works of God to examine the evidence for ourselves. Many are unwilling to do this. That is not God's fault, but theirs who choose to ignore the evidence.

with all due respect, thats a lazy non-answer
you realize you said god is ignorance...right?

what do you call faith, an informed decision...

besides it's not what you say that matters, it's what jesus said, "blessed are those who do not see and yet believe..."

 

[TJ73]

Just a thought...
Perhaps some people have an ability to sense God or may be some people are more sensitive to God's presence. so if we all live in "Flatland", none of us can successfully bring forth evidence from dimensions outside of our perspective.

But some of us can either practice or are naturally inclined to sense the presence outside of our confine.

And perhaps this sensitivity is necessary to acquire before moving on, into another plaine of existence. So as to let this sensitivity grow naturally, we are given a means to develop it, to develop faith. If we were just given the whole thing, completely acceptable, indisputable evidence then the step of living within this paradigm would no longer be necessary, just skip to step 2.

So then why are any steps needed at all. My personal take is that God has designed a creation that can be in His presence willingly and by choice. I know of no other kind of love or affection that is as desirable as that which come from a willing partner. I don't want you to love me because I showed you unequivocal evidence and you did so because the other options are now absurd. I want you to love me because you chose to, you sought to learn about me and came to trust me and want to know me even more.

If that was your sincere desire, i would gladly grant it to you. If you stood in the way of others trying to achieve this because you are stubborn and arrogant I would be very upset with you. I wouldn't mind helping you if you sincerely wish to try and enhance your sense of me, but i would not stand for you trying to hold the door shut for someone else, pushing them away, dulling their instinctive sense of me.

So I would say you have 1.the choice to attempt to develop your sense God and sincerely look for His guidance, or 2. deny it because you aren't satisfied with the fact that He will not give it to you on the terms you dictate.

Option 1.You accept the possibility that there is more to the story and try to get the sense. You may be assisted by God and begin to sense something you did not expect you could feel. It would not be completely describable, because that would interfere with the personal development of others. It could be too much evidence

Option 2. You remain firm that because we have the ability to recognize the laws of the Universe, there is no possibility (or it is very unlikely) that someone could sense something outside of what we can prove and reasonably theorize. You are of the position IF God existed, He would have the burden of proof that fits you criteria and since non such proof has ever been proven to be available, there is nothing to compel you to even try. And there is no reason not to try to convince anyone of the contrary.

 

[waitasec]

Just a thought...
Perhaps some people have an ability to sense God or may be some people are more sensitive to God's presence. so if we all live in "Flatland", none of us can successfully bring forth evidence from dimensions outside of our perspective.

why do you think there is sectarian violence within the religion of islam?
it is because each of those people believe they are more sensitive to gods presence....
no one should think that way because it will only lead to unjustified moral superiority which leads to strife and ultimately hate... wouldn't you say?