Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[nash8]

Some theists are exercising their faith, others had experiences and personal evidences.

Indeed!!!!

 

[nithyastha]

In Hinduism Has Many Gods. In Hinduism Gods are many But Source is one, Generally there is a misunderstanding about the word God. Highly Evolved Beings or Enlightened Beings are Considered as God. Because they have Merged with the Source.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You can't prove the universe has a beginning of its existence, and are assuming such for the sake of the argument.

Actually I can, and if you have been following my exchanges with others, you would know what kind of evidences I provide for a finite universe.

If God can exist above time and not need a beginning of his existence, why can't the same be said for the universe itself?

Because the universe is a physical reality that is based upon cause and effect relations. Things are moving, things are changing, and you cannot have motion and changes without physical time.

The Kalam argument operates under the assumption that the universe is not God. If God is the only thing that can exist without a beginning, you're essentially saying "everything except God has a cause". Unless you can think of more than one thing that exists without an initial cause, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God's existence.

It isn't as if we are begging the question in favor of God, we have both empirical AND philosophical reasons to conclude that the universe began to exist. Before you even get to the question of "God", you have to deal with the arguments against an infinite universe.

[/list]This argument just makes absolutely no sense. Classic equivocation fallacy. Anselm relies on there being two definitions of the word “God,” and he switches up between the two whenever it's convenient to him. The first definition is "a god who exists in reality" and the second is "a god who exists only in the mind". This link describes it better than I can:

The Ontological Argument for God - Skeptico

I am not using Anslem's version of the argument, I am using Plantiga's version of the argument. So you try again.

The historicity of Jesus himself has yet to be proven, let alone the resurrection part... Try again.

Yes it has. The arguments based on the historicity of Jesus are out there for all to see. If you think you can offer some type of argumentation for it, please be so kind. But until then, we have good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[nash8]

That he rose from the dead, that's a little much. That he was actually a real person, that is definitely more supported.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That he rose from the dead, that's a little much.

Then you have to explain the empty tomb and post mortem appearances.

 

[1robin]

[/list]You can't prove the universe has a beginning of its existence, and are assuming such for the sake of the argument.

There in so such thing as proof in historical cosmology. Historical claims of all types are given in terms of probability. The current model with the highest probability and the most acceptance is the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem.

…three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
-W.L Craig “Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe”

If God can exist above time and not need a beginning of his existence, why can't the same be said for the universe itself?

Is what is true for a divine and infinite spiritual being really a good basis for establishing what is true for nature?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then you have to explain the empty tomb and post mortem appearances.

Does everything that's claimed in a book have to be explained? The possibility that the book isn't accurate has to always be considered.

And even if the Gospels are correct, then dead people leaving their tombs and appearing to people was the big thing at the time:

Matthew 27:52-53:

52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

If the Bible's correct, then Jesus' resurrection wouldn't make him special - lots of people were doing it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Does everything that's claimed in a book have to be explained?

No, but the argument is on the table, and if one is to deny the argument I would like refutation of the evidence that has been presented for the argument.

The possibility that the book isn't accurate has to always be considered.

The possibility that the book isn't accurate? They wrote as eyewitnesses to the account, so why wouldn't it be accurate?

And even if the Gospels are correct, then dead people leaving their tombs and appearing to people was the big thing at the time

You are saying "even if the Gospels are correct", well, if they are correct then there is a such thing as "the supernatural", because dead people normally stay dead.

If the Bible's correct, then Jesus' resurrection wouldn't make him special - lots of people were doing it.

As just stated, if the Bible is correct, then God exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but the argument is on the table, and if one is to deny the argument I would like refutation of the evidence that has been presented for the argument.

It doesn't work that way. It's the person putting forward the claim who has the burden of proof. If you're going to argue that Jesus was resurrected, it's up to you to support it. If you're going to use the Bible to support your claim, then it's up to you to demonstrate that it's reliable.

The possibility that the book isn't accurate? They wrote as eyewitnesses to the account, so why wouldn't it be accurate?

Do you believe every book that purports to be an eyewitness account?

Moby Dick is written as an eyewitness account; do you think that its events actually happened?

You are saying "even if the Gospels are correct", well, if they are correct then there is a such thing as "the supernatural", because dead people normally stay dead.

Except in that time and place, if the Bible is to be believed. According to the Bible, Jerusalem had an epidemic of (apparently harmless) zombies at the time - Jesus would just have been one zombie of many.

As just stated, if the Bible is correct, then God exists.

If the Bible is correct, then your argument that Jesus is special because of the resurrection fails.

 

[nash8]

Then you have to explain the empty tomb and post mortem appearances.

My personal view is that he never really died, and his post mortem appearances were actually him in the flesh.

Yogic practices enable a person to be able to endure things that most "normal" humans would not be able to endure. To all outward appearances Jesus would have appeared dead, although in reality he was just in an altered state of conciousness. There's a scientific experiment where a monk induced Delta wave patterns within his brain, which scientists basically concluded that he was asleep, but he was still able to answer questions that they asked him during his "meditation".

You also have to consider what has been added in over t he centuries?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It doesn't work that way. It's the person putting forward the claim who has the burden of proof.

First off, I am not denying the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, what I am saying is that the Resurrection of Jesus has been highly debated within the past 25 years alone. Books have been written about it and academic papers has also been written. The argument is out there, and if one denies that Jesus rose from the dead, then he/she would have to tear down the argument, and that wasn't the case.

If you're going to argue that Jesus was resurrected, it's up to you to support it. If you're going to use the Bible to support your claim, then it's up to you to demonstrate that it's reliable.

I could give the argument, as I've did countless times with other arguments, but in this case I won't. Look the argument up, and if there is anything you deny, holla at me.

Do you believe every book that purports to be an eyewitness account?

It depends. Do I have reasons to believe or disbelieve?

Moby Dick is written as an eyewitness account; do you think that its events actually happened?

Moby Dick was a fiction novel, try again.

Except in that time and place, if the Bible is to be believed. According to the Bible, Jerusalem had an epidemic of (apparently harmless) zombies at the time - Jesus would just have been one zombie of many.

You already said "if it was true". There is no escape now. If it was true, then Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead, thus being who he claimed to be and there is really something to all of this "Christian" stuff.

If the Bible is correct, then your argument that Jesus is special because of the resurrection fails.

 

[nash8]

What verse in the bible cites an epidemic of (apparently harmless) zombies during the time of Jesus lol?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What verse in the bible cites an epidemic of (apparently harmless) zombies during the time of Jesus lol?

Matthew 27:52-53. I quoted the passage earlier:

52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Actually I can, and if you have been following my exchanges with others, you would know what kind of evidences I provide for a finite universe.

You mean none at all...

Because the universe is a physical reality that is based upon cause and effect relations. Things are moving, things are changing, and you cannot have motion and changes without physical time.

And you operate under the assumption that time is linear and has a beginning.

It isn't as if we are begging the question in favor of God,

That's exactly what you're doing.

we have both empirical AND philosophical reasons to conclude that the universe began to exist.

Based on what evidence? I have reasons to believe dragons are real; does that mean they are?

I am not using Anslem's version of the argument, I am using Plantiga's version of the argument. So you try again.

Plantinga's argument is just as easily refuted. I'll do it in another post so this one doesn't take up a ridiculous amount of space.

Yes it has. The arguments based on the historicity of Jesus are out there for all to see. If you think you can offer some type of argumentation for it, please be so kind. But until then, we have good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

You have reason to believe he existed (even that is pretty shoddy), not that he was resurrected. Contrary to your belief, the Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts, and no such accounts exist for either the existence or resurrection of Jesus.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I am not using Anslem's version of the argument, I am using Plantiga's version of the argument. So you try again.

Plantinga's modal ontological argument refuted ( A Counter Apologist Blog: Countering the Modal Ontological Argument ) :
1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4.Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5.Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists

The modal argument hinges on “axiom S5” which is from a system of formal logic. Basically, if you’re going to do formal logic, you can pick which system of it to work under, and so long as you stay consistent in that system and obey its axioms, all is well.

For the record, there’s no problem with S5 axioms of modal logic, this is the logic of possibility and necessity. You just have to be aware of what you’re dealing with before you draw conclusions from an argument.

The problem here is that once you start operating under S5, making certain assumptions and running with it is frankly absurd. The argument relies on granting what sounds like a reasonable assumption that “X is metaphysically necessary” and “X possibly exists”. The issue here is that under S5, this logically equivalent to saying “X exists necessarily “.

This is problematic because in normal argumentation we can say that yes, “for all we know, it’s possible X exists”, where X can be Leprechauns, Unicorns, Fairies, or a god. The problem is that when in S5, if you say that something defined as “necessary” possibly exists, you may as well start this silly argument:
God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good, and as something that exists in any possible world.
An actual world exists.
Therefore god exists!
This is logically valid, but tells us nothing!

This is why Alvin Plantinga, the guy who came up with the modal version of the argument, admits that while the argument is logically valid, it doesn’t prove anything, to quote:

“Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion”

-Alvin Plantinga, "The Nature of Necessity" (1974), pg 221

1.A being has maximal depravity in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly evil in W; and
2.A being has maximal evilness if it has maximal depravity in every possible world.
3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal evilness. (Premise)
4.Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly evil being exists.
5.Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly evil being exists.
6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly evil being exists.

This is a pretty strong "reductio ad absurdum" defeater of the modal ontological argument, but there are a few weak objections apologists can throw at this that I want to refute before moving on.

The first objection claims that a maximally evil being is impossible since only "good" exists, and evil is defined as the "absence of good". But this is obviously wrong for two reasons. First is that it gets rid of the idea of morally neutral actions, which we know exist from our experience. But more importantly, it fails because its nothing more than a bald assertion. We could just as easily say that only evil exists and good is the "absence of evil" and have as much justification for it.

The second objection is that an omniscient being would have knowledge of an absolute "Moral Law" and as such would be incapable of evil, since it would feel "convicted" by the law, or that all beings aren't really evil, they just rationalize evil actions, but when doing something evil, they actually believe it's the right thing to do. This objection is defeated fairly easily since we can say that evil is grounded in the nature of the great demon, so that it isn't "convicted" by an absolute "Moral Law", if it existed, but driven to violate it. In fact we would go further to say that the perfect selfishness of the great demon means that it wouldn't be compelled to "do what is right" but rather to do what brings itself pleasure, which according to its nature is evil. Finally we can reject the notion that people always do what they think is right, since we've seen examples of people doing things they know to be wrong and going through with it anyway.

Now if all that wasn't enough, the final point we can make is that if the modal ontological argument is sound, then we have shown that at least two omniscient, omnipotent beings exists. But in this case, it would be the as if neither existed!

Let's start with the premise that a maximally good being would make sure that ultimately only good things would result in any actual world. Let's also start with the idea that a maximally evil being would make sure that ultimately only evil things would result in any actual world.

So if both a maximally good add a maximally evil being exist necessarily then they would cancel each other out. This is because they would both be omniscient and omnipotent, each knowing the others thoughts at all possible outcomes of any action the other would take. Because of this they would use their omnipotence to stop any action that the other being tried to enact. As a result if both beings existed necessarily than the actual world would be it as if neither existed since neither one could act in our actual world.

One way out of this problem is for an apologist to insist that only one omnipotent, omniscient being exists, but if that is the case, then the ontological argument can't be sound since it equally demonstrates that two very different kinds of omnipotent/omniscient beings could exist with no way to identify which one it is.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Moby Dick was a fiction novel, try again.

Miss the point much? So are the Gospels...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Miss the point much? So are the Gospels...

"One important aspect of the study of the gospels is the genre under which they fall. Genre "is a key convention guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings." Whether the gospel authors set out to write novels, myths, histories, or biographies has a tremendous impact on how they ought to be interpreted. If, for example, Rudolf Bultmann was correct, and the gospel authors had no interest in history or in a historical Jesus, then the gospels must be read and interpreted in this light. However, some recent studies suggest that the genre of the gospels ought to be situated within the realm of ancient biography. Although not without critics, the position that the gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today." (source)

Surely you wouldn't DARE question Wikipedia!??

Ok, so the guy who wrote this is off, but not entirely. He's relied too much on the variability within and between ancient biographies, and ignored too many similarities between biographical literature and early "novels" of sorts. He's also ignored the unique circumstances in this situation that would ensure even if Plutarch, Xenophon, Diogenes Laertius, and Philostratus wrote the gospels with the purposes the authors had we'd find very different "lives".

But he's right, IMO, when it comes to identifying the gospels as a kind of ancient historiography.

In case you think my criticism of "the guy who wrote this" is pompous and/or arrogant, it was me. So whatever my criticisms of the wiki entry are, they are criticisms of a position I held some years ago that have changed after a good deal more research. They are not me mocking/criticizing Wikipedia or some unknown individual.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Plantinga's modal ontological argument refuted ( A Counter Apologist Blog: Countering the Modal Ontological Argument ) :
1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4.Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5.Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists

The modal argument hinges on “axiom S5” which is from a system of formal logic. Basically, if you’re going to do formal logic, you can pick which system of it to work under, and so long as you stay consistent in that system and obey its axioms, all is well.

For the record, there’s no problem with S5 axioms of modal logic, this is the logic of possibility and necessity. You just have to be aware of what you’re dealing with before you draw conclusions from an argument.

The problem here is that once you start operating under S5, making certain assumptions and running with it is frankly absurd. The argument relies on granting what sounds like a reasonable assumption that “X is metaphysically necessary” and “X possibly exists”. The issue here is that under S5, this logically equivalent to saying “X exists necessarily “.

This is problematic because in normal argumentation we can say that yes, “for all we know, it’s possible X exists”, where X can be Leprechauns, Unicorns, Fairies, or a god. The problem is that when in S5, if you say that something defined as “necessary” possibly exists, you may as well start this silly argument:
God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good, and as something that exists in any possible world.
An actual world exists.
Therefore god exists!
This is logically valid, but tells us nothing!

This is why Alvin Plantinga, the guy who came up with the modal version of the argument, admits that while the argument is logically valid, it doesn’t prove anything, to quote:

“Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion”

The point about S5 is a good one here, because this is what I've tried to stress, unsuccessfully, to Call of the Wild- that in order to be valid, the argument requires the S5 axiom "if it is possibly necessary that X, then X"- and while the point about being able to adopt any logical system you'd like is correct to a certain extent, if you want to apply a system of logic to a particular subject-matter, it needs to be appropriate; and it isn't clear how we justify the S5 axiom, since it makes no intuitive sense (there is at least one possible world in which God exists in every possible world) and is tantamount to simply asserting that God is necessary- which is effectively begging the question.

Besides, Plantinga's version of this argument is bad, even for a MOA- which is saying alot.

 

[1robin]

Miss the point much? So are the Gospels...

Then why have billions used as a roadmap to experience God? A treasure map that actually leads you to the treasure promised is not fictional.

 

[1robin]

Matthew 27:52-53. I quoted the passage earlier:

I did not see voodoo, the Caribbean, feeding on the living, or any indication they would not die again. They were not even said to be slow. So in what way were they zombies again? However I have always said if you are going to be facetious or simply wrong at least be funny and this was.