Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[outhouse]

What do you think this means in relevance to the discussion?

Its what you think that seems to be the problem.

Remember you have not brought up any evidence at all, and you are only attacking the argument using only opinion.

But I digress, it simple means I can throw out all your evidence unless you have something that resides or exist in the natural world.

Conscious thoughts and dreams do not lie in that category, they lie under personal perception which can amount to imagination and hallucination and day dreams.

The human mind is weak, and people will often hear and see things they want to. That's why there is no credibility I'm these personal experiences.

One thing we know for certain, mythology exist in society deeply ingrained to those who live it. And we know many are literary creations and nothing more.

 

[outhouse]

Gatta ask

What part of the supernatural can be scrutinized with reason?

 

[outhouse]

Which particular god do you worship, I'm guessing the Christian god.

So do you define your god as equal jesus and equal god and equal ghost ?

Lets get into what you call god and where that concept originated. Because if your relying on text for definition, you may have some accuracy issues to deal with.

 

[Theunis]

Also, of course evidence of the supernatural is going to be supernatural. Duh.

To me the supernatural has merely meant the as yet unexplained natural.
We are inclined to fear the unknown and in the process we shy away from investigation it. On the entrance to an ancient temple it was written - I am a dark and terrible God, I have dominion over all men; My name is fear. On the entrance to the inner door it was written... (but) when you know me then you have dominion over me.
This was an ancient temple where people were taught not to fear and how to overcome their fears

 

[Mister Emu]

Remember you have not brought up any evidence at all, and you are only attacking the argument using only opinion.

That you consider the a skeptic using the application of logic and reason to determine the merit of claims "opinion" is an interesting discovery.

Lets get into what you call god and where that concept originated.

Why would we do that, when the discussion is about whether it is a rational proposition to consider all possible evidence past and present on deity as part of one's knowledge set.

I have proposed that it is not a rational position to so consider; this in counter to your positive claim to have that knowledge. As they say "He who smelt..." wait sorry, wrong one. As they say 'the burden of proof lies with the assertion'. I look forward to your expounding on the methodology of collecting every possible evidence and its evaluation. I know you wouldn't make a positive assertion you couldn't prove, right? Right?

 

[Thief]

Gatta ask

What part of the supernatural can be scrutinized with reason?

the supernatural can be examined ONLY by reason....

 

[outhouse]

the supernatural can be examined ONLY by reason....

Lol you mean the lack of it.

 

[prometheus11]

We can use logic to deduce from a natural experience that something beyond nature exists. I can reasonable believe that God exists when I've had conversation with Him. That is evidence, even if it isn't compelling or credible at all to you. It is to me, I experienced it.

How can we "use logic to deduce that something beyond nature exists?"

You might assert that everything known requires a cause only to assert the opposite, but that doesn't make sense, does it?

You might assert that everything known requires a cause only to assert that there is an infinite chain of causality, but that doesn't make sense, does it?

Aren't "first cause" and "infinite regression" equally preposterous and equally plausible? They have equivalent evidence: none.

 

[Theunis]

.....
We can use logic to deduce from a natural experience that something beyond nature exists. I can reasonable believe that God exists when I've had conversation with Him. That is evidence, even if it isn't compelling or credible at all to you. It is to me, I experienced it.


What do you think this means in relevance to the discussion?

Since you experienced it I must agree with you. I notice that you said this before but no one appears to have responded to what you say you experienced.

 

[prometheus11]

Since you experienced it I must agree with you. I notice that you said this before but no one appears to have responded to what you say you experienced.

Personal experience is valid evidence for personal belief.

However, if it cannot be verified as factually accurate by independent investigation, then it may be considered as either divine revelation or delusion since there is no way to differentiate as to which is surely the case.

 

[outhouse]

all possible evidence past and present on deity as part of one's knowledge set.

There is none for, only against

Why would we do that

Because the same method you create your own deity in your own conscious mind, is the same way the authors did you source your belief from.

And not only do we see them do this over and over, they always change the definition to meet their own personal needs. Many political in nature.

Belief in a deity is not based on reason or logic or evidence, its based on faith of ancient mens mythology not all modern people can break free from.

I have proposed that it is not a rational position to so consider

Your not in a position to steer the debate.

I know you wouldn't make a positive assertion you couldn't prove, right?

The problem is I can.

I can show, prove is your word. I can show without a reasonable doubt that only man defines and creates gods from a time when all men lived mythology and attributed gods to the severe ignorance of nature alone.

Your god, I can show how men defined him for political reasons alone, combining two mythological concepts into one deity.

How can you call the abrahamic deity real when Abraham never existed and is complete 100% mythology by ALL academic standards.

The same book you call a source talks about talking lizards and magic gardens, much we know was plagiarized from previous mythology and previous deities.

So what I have for proof, is a mountain of evidence against.

Your only source is mythological in nature.
Your source contains factual pseudohistory
Your source contains factual mythology
Your source contains factual pseudoscience.
Your source contains fiction
Your source was written in rhetorical prose
Your source claims a god did things that never happened.

Without this source you have no foundation for belief. And your main source has no credibility.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham

By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'

This mean he factually has no historicity as existing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[71][72] With the emergence of the monarchy at the beginning of Iron Age II the kings promoted their family god, Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court, religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered.[73] The major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[74] At an early stage El and Yahweh became fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult

So this states two Canaanite deities were made one by Israelites. We know the text reflects this, as it was redacted after King Josiah's political monotheistic reforms after 622BC.

 

[Theunis]

Personal experience is valid evidence for personal belief.

However, if it cannot be verified as factually accurate by independent investigation, then it may be considered as either divine revelation or delusion since there is no way to differentiate as to which is surely the case.

I get the impression that he sees it as a divine revelation and as such it is impossible to verify.
Apart from delusion we also have the case of his inner voice which many see as a message from the subconscious. Others see it as the small still voice of the comforter (The Holy Spirit/Ghost) that was left behind when God left this earth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Lol you mean the lack of it.

Are you a human being .. or maybe you some sort of robot?
Have you ever heard of 'an exception to the rule'?

You speak as if they don't exist

 

[outhouse]

You speak as if they don't exist

Another name for the supernatural is, "does not exist"

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

Which atheistic idea of the formation of the universe stands to scrutiny in light of reason? Name me one.

 

[prometheus11]

Which atheistic idea of the formation of the universe stands to scrutiny in light of reason? Name me one.

Atheists don't need to explain the formation of the universe. Atheists acknowledge that a hot dense point expanded into what we see today. As to where that point came from, no one knows.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Atheists don't need to explain the formation of the universe. Atheists acknowledge that a hot dense point expanded into what we see today. As to where that point came from, no one knows.

False. You should read a few more test books.

 

[Theunis]

False. You should read a few more test books.

It appears that they acknowledge a theory as a fact which of course does not stand to reason as there are opposing views.

 

[prometheus11]

False. You should read a few more test books.

Test or text?

No, atheists need not provide any reasons for what exists. Honest people admit when they don't know.

 

[prometheus11]

It appears that they acknowledge a theory as a fact which of course does not stand to reason as there are opposing views.

Scientific theories are facts assembled into reasonable pictures. The Theory of Gravity uses the facts about gravity to produce the most comprehensive picture that can be formulated.