Are ANY of the arguments convincing?

[Futile Crush]

I disagree. A proof must assume the thing it's trying to prove, or there's nothing to prove.

You're getting terms confused. A proof doesn't assume what it's trying to prove, the assumption is formed in the hypothesis. A hypothesis is a basic assumption. That's when you use the proof to ... well, prove your hypothesis. The prove cannot be self-assuming otherwise any number of arguments would be valid.

For instance: unicorns exist because unicorns exist.
Or ...
Elvis Presley is still alive because Elvis Presley is still alive.

You get the idea.

 

[Futile Crush]

For someone convinced you appear to be screaming for help.

Do you find any form or concept of God suitable? If not, then you are an atheist. If so, then you are as crazy as anyone else that believes in something they cannot irrefuteably and scientifically proove.

Does that help?

No, not really.

I can't see how I'm "screaming for help". All I'm asking for is justified opinions for once.

 

[BigRed]

You're getting terms confused. A proof doesn't assume what it's trying to prove, the assumption is formed in the hypothesis. A hypothesis is a basic assumption. That's when you use the proof to ... well, prove your hypothesis. The prove cannot be self-assuming otherwise any number of arguments would be valid.

For instance: unicorns exist because unicorns exist.
Or ...
Elvis Presley is still alive because Elvis Presley is still alive.

You get the idea.

According to the Bible, UNICORNS exist.
Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalm 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Psalm 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalm 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

We all know that unicorns don't exist.
Isn't the Bible the source that christians regard as authoritative.

BigRed

 

[ChristineES]

No, not really.

I can't see how I'm "screaming for help". All I'm asking for is justified opinions for once.

My own beliefs are justified: They are justified for me. I can understand if you want justified opinions if someone is trying to convince YOU that God is real, but if they are explaining why they believe, then the only person they need to justify is themselves.
It is my considered opinion that if anyone tries to convince a non-believer that there is a God, then they are weak in faith themselves. If they had strong belief, then they would have no reason to try and convince someone else.
I personally say I have a faith and leave it at that. Each person's experiences are there own and each person has their own mind and their own will.

 

[Futile Crush]

If you dont believe in God....then please explain the chicken and the egg.....No baby could possibly ever be able to rear itself.....thus a CReator....God

The chicken and the egg has been explained for a long time.

The egg came first because at some point another reptile must've laid a chicken egg.

The chicken and the egg conundrum does not indicate a creator, and a creator does not indicate God. Even if you apply CATE to the universe at large, it still doesn't necessitate a creator of any kind.

 

[Futile Crush]

can u athiests please explain to me what ur trying to gain by ur cause

Truth. What are you trying to gain by yours?

 

[Futile Crush]

See U have no answers....just arrogant fools...u all need to cling together...cant make an argument whatsoever

You asked an irrelevant question which has been asked countless times before all across the internet. Of course few people are going to take you seriously.

 

[Futile Crush]

Told you it was the chicken!!!!

It's perfectly obvious.

I'm going to go bask in my indelible awesomeness.

Maybe I was wrong then.

 

[Futile Crush]

Then why be an atheist?

Because that's where following the logic leads us: to conclude that there is no God. We don't need a cause or ulterior motive for that, save the basic pursuit of truth.

 

[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.

You either didn't read my post or didn't grasp what I was saying. Faith is the evidence of things not beheld. Millions who have never seen Jesus believe in him based on the historical accounts in the Bible. We do not need, as Thomas did, to feel his wounds to believe in his resurrection. You are saying one is considered to be virtuous by ignorance. The Bible says the opposite. (Proverbs 4:5, Romans 12:1,2 and many other scriptures.)

 

[rusra02]

Amen.

That applies to atheists too. Many trying to convince others there is no God are trying to convince themselves.

 

[rusra02]

There are countless examples listed in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, and you can find them as early on as Genesis:
The two contradictory creation accounts.
Other examples are listed here. It's a long list.
SAB Contradictions
I don't need the SAB here, most of the absurdities in the Bible are pretty famous; e.g. walking on water, parting of the red sea, talking snakes, 6-day creation, the Sun and the stars being created after light, resurrecting the dead... etc. Science tells us that these things are impossible.


Reliable, factual, verifiable corroboration. One of the most famous historians to write about Jesus, Josephus, lived after Jesus purportedly died. The other great name given to Jesus' historicity was Suetonius. His only "mention" of Jesus was in fact of "Chrestus", the true meaning of which is actually debated, and the word could mean "Useful" as opposed to "Christ".

And it's all very well saying that there were over 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection, but until you tell me who you are and give some factual evidence to supplement that, it's not really of any use to me.
(Rest of post deleted for space).

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.
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. I have made a personal investigation that convinced me the Bible is the truth. Disbelief is easy and comfortable for many. If I don't believe in God, then I don't have to be answerable to him. That is faulty reasoning, since God will hold us to account for whatever choices we make.(Romans 14:5)

 

[Willamena]

You're getting terms confused. A proof doesn't assume what it's trying to prove, the assumption is formed in the hypothesis. A hypothesis is a basic assumption. That's when you use the proof to ... well, prove your hypothesis. The prove cannot be self-assuming otherwise any number of arguments would be valid.

For instance: unicorns exist because unicorns exist.
Or ...
Elvis Presley is still alive because Elvis Presley is still alive.

You get the idea.

It would seem that you're the one who has my terms confused, not me.

I didn't say anyone was assuming proof --that would be silly.

Edit: You have to assume "god exists" into your argument, else you have nothing to prove. 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 ...well, either a miracle or the height of comedic humour.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Faith is the evidence of things not beheld.

So basically: Faith is evidence of nothing?

 

[waitasec]

You either didn't read my post or didn't grasp what I was saying. Faith is the evidence of things not beheld. Millions who have never seen Jesus believe in him based on the historical accounts in the Bible.

the bible is not a historical account...
did you mean to say "biblical accounts" instead?

We do not need, as Thomas did, to feel his wounds to believe in his resurrection. You are saying one is considered to be virtuous by ignorance. The Bible says the opposite. (Proverbs 4:5, Romans 12:1,2 and many other scriptures.)

no. the bible says god wants people to make uninformed decisions...unlike doubting thomas.

proverbs 4:5
do not forget my words or turn away from them...
that is not a passage that encourages skepticism.

romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

in other words do as your told without any questions...

seems your principles adhere to a celestial dictatorship....no thanks
i'd rather think for myself.

 

[Futile Crush]

That applies to atheists too. Many trying to convince others there is no God are trying to convince themselves.

I could turn that round on you and say "Many Christians trying to convince others there is a God are trying to convince themselves" but it would be equally vacuous, baseless and meaningless.

 

[Futile Crush]

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.

"millions follow today." Yeah, well millions follow Islam, too. Does that change anything?
"Josephus..." Did you read what I said about him? He wasn't even around when Jesus was.
"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,"
It happens, why rule it out here? You know that most religions have some kind of "saviour" to attach the name of good to.

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.

Care to cite any of this?

Disbelief is easy and comfortable for many. If I don't believe in God, then I don't have to be answerable to him. That is faulty reasoning, since God will hold us to account for whatever choices we make.(Romans 14:5)

Easy and comfortable? People get killed all over the world simply for not believing. People have to cover up their atheism in many places because they'll be ostracised if they come out as an atheist. In most of these communities, religion is drilled into them at such a young age that it's extremely difficult for them to abandon belief, but they do it because reason has brought them to that conclusion. Reason. That's all it is. Not a lack of desire to believe in God or a lack of desire to be answerable to God. Reason.

 

[Futile Crush]

It would seem that you're the one who has my terms confused, not me.

I didn't say anyone was assuming proof --that would be silly.

Edit: You have to assume "god exists" into your argument, else you have nothing to prove. 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 ...well, either a miracle or the height of comedic humour.

You don't have to assume god exists in your argument, that's your hypothesis. I can't stress this enough. The theory is "God exists", now we set about proving it. You can't assume God exists while proving it, you have to use reason and observation combined to prove it.

Let me illustrate by example. I want to prove that unicorns exist. I say "unicorns exist". That's my hypothesis. Now I go about testing my hypothesis. I look everywhere I humanly can to try and find unicorns, research the origin of the unicorn myth and find out exactly who propagated it, I would henceforth realise that the idea of a unicorn is a mere myth.

But say I say "unicorns exist." If I assume that unicorns exist and use this to prove my argument, I'm basically saying "unicorns exist because they exist." I'm assuming they exist and not going to the extent of actually proving or disproving that.

Do you see why you can't assume anything in a proof now?

 

[crotsch]

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

 

[Willamena]

You don't have to assume god exists in your argument, that's your hypothesis. I can't stress this enough. The theory is "God exists", now we set about proving it. You can't assume God exists while proving it, you have to use reason and observation combined to prove it.

Let me illustrate by example. I want to prove that unicorns exist. I say "unicorns exist". That's my hypothesis. Now I go about testing my hypothesis. I look everywhere I humanly can to try and find unicorns, research the origin of the unicorn myth and find out exactly who propagated it, I would henceforth realise that the idea of a unicorn is a mere myth.

But say I say "unicorns exist." If I assume that unicorns exist and use this to prove my argument, I'm basically saying "unicorns exist because they exist." I'm assuming they exist and not going to the extent of actually proving or disproving that.

Do you see why you can't assume anything in a proof now?

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.