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

[nash8]

Obviously I was excluding Jesus.

Doesn't the Bible say "Honor thy father and mother", and although that can obviously be interpreted many ways, I fail to see how dissapearing from your parents without telling them where your going would be considering "honoring them".

That was one of the laziest and most obviously insincere arguments I have seen an atheist make is a while.

Your assumption that I am an athiest is one of the laziest and most obviously insincere assumptions I have seen a Christian make in a while.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That will not work either. Jesus body was not bad nor his soul. His body never sinned, his soul never sinned. There exists no basis for concluding that he was actually saying he was not good and that only God was. If it did why is this the only place that earth shaking information was revealed. Christ was the PERFECT sacrifice because he was perfect. Just as the sacrificial animals were to be perfect in Judaism how much more so was Christ the truly perfect sacrifice. If he had sinned all of Christianity is nonsense and the salvation billions have experienced does not exist. However either interpretation simply ends your claim that Christ or anyone suggested we could actually be perfect. If even he was not good on what basis are we to be perfect? That debate is over (so is the other) but I will discuss the other a bit more if you wish.



So you are saying Jesus said he was not even good but that man must be perfect. That is an incoherent understanding and conflicts with about half the Bible.
So only if I give everything to charity then I may enter heaven. Did this man who did enter heaven do this?

New Living Translation
But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames.

He had no works. At the judgment everything he ever did was destroyed as unworthy. Yet he was saved. How has a man with not one single work done what you have claimed. BTW where have all the other verses I provided gone? Your interpretation must not conflict with other verse to work. Yours does with at least a dozen I have given so far and mine with none.


You should not give a rip what my views are. You should only care what makes all scripture work as a complete and consistent narrative. Mine do. Yours destroy the very core of Christianity and conflict with hundreds of verses. I do not necessary mean you but only critics are satisfied with using things out of the narrative the fit in. Why would they? The have a goal in search of evidence. I am not saying that is your motivation but your tactics are similar.

That was one point but it existed in a larger point. Jesus knew that man (I think most believe he was of a legal background)n thought he could debate Christ into confirming he was righteous based on personal merit. Jesus said you think your perfect huh, Then why are you not willing to do X. X could have any of a million things but he chose giving away possessions because the man was wealthy and Jesus knew where to hit to make the point that if he was relying on merit he like us all doomed.


It was for him and Jesus knew it. The conversation ended there because the point being made was accomplished. If I had been there Christ would have said oh yeah then why are you not willing to never get angry or always go to Church. He would have found a suitable issue that who ever was talking to him would have found just too much because and showed anyone who had bee asking the merit will never get us there because no one is without failure.





He had failed in all areas just as we all do. However Christ wanted to make a point within his own assumptions instead of simply saying no you haven't because of common ground issues and impact. I have been interested in debate for a long time and take my word for it Christ was lethal. He is almost always subtle but with care and patience layer upon layer of deeper and deeper meaning can soon be found beyond the often not correct surface reading.

There is another reason to believe your perfect requirement is not possible. No matter if someone thinks that anyone could reach perfection or not. No one could possibly believe anyone always was perfect and past sins from God's perspective are just a damning as current ones. Even if one could behave perfectly (which no one can) their record is still marred and far from the perfect standard needed. However when Christ's record is applied to our account it covers all sin so once again Christianity's salvation works and merit based salvation fails.

From another post: You mentioned righteousness. That term does not mean perfection. It means right standing with God. We are made righteous by faith.

Yet

Jesus still say's he's not Good. He never calls himself perfect. The best you can do is draw from other scripture and make parallels.

However end of the day, Jesus said he was not Good only God is good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I'm using the word "zombie" in the sense of "a magically reanimated corpse". Sheesh.

 

[nash8]

I'm using the word "zombie" in the sense of "a magically reanimated corpse". Sheesh.

What verse was this again?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What verse was this again?

If you couldn't be bothered to read either of the times I already posted it, then I can't be bothered to post it again. If you click on the little blue arrows on the quote boxes, you can track back through the thread to see it.

 

[nash8]

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

:sorry1: I actually looked for it numerous times, but reading through the last few pages trying to find a one sentence response hurt my eyes lol.

Interesting to know that the Jesus' divinity is not soley dependent on his ressurection. And the bible claims the existence of zombies lol.

 

[Moishe3rd]

As an agnostic theist I always notice other theist's attempting to prove God in one way or another. These arguments are never sufficient or conclusive enough to prove God. I recognize that my position is irrational and that there is no evidence for God. If you already have faith in God, what is the need to attempt to prove him?

There is no need.
I do respond to threads such as these but, I have never tried to justify G-d on the basis of "scientific proof."
The only reason I respond is to sometimes explain why I am 100% sure that, not only does G-d exist, but that He Created the Universe; Life: Man; and gave His Torah to the Jewish People.
Sometimes I wax poetic and sometimes I simply posit that there is no scientist that would ever claim that an complex machine, such as a computer, just "happened" through random accident; that it "evolved" over billions of years from a primitive motherboard into Pentium XXXVCIII with a 32" LCD screen....
However, some folk want to claim that Man; who is infinitely more complex than your top of the line Powerbook computer, "just happened" by accident.
Why?
I don't understand that rationale.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no need.
I do respond to threads such as these but, I have never tried to justify G-d on the basis of "scientific proof."
The only reason I respond is to sometimes explain why I am 100% sure that, not only does G-d exist, but that He Created the Universe; Life: Man; and gave His Torah to the Jewish People.
Sometimes I wax poetic and sometimes I simply posit that there is no scientist that would ever claim that an complex machine, such as a computer, just "happened" through random accident; that it "evolved" over billions of years from a primitive motherboard into Pentium XXXVCIII with a 32" LCD screen....
However, some folk want to claim that Man; who is infinitely more complex than your top of the line Powerbook computer, "just happened" by accident.
Why?
I don't understand that rationale.

So... you can't understand how a Powerbook could "just happen" by accident, but you have no problem believing this for a Powerbook factory?

Personally, the thing that most helps me understand that complex organisms can evolve naturally is the mountains of evidence we have that it actually happened.

 

[Moishe3rd]

So... you can't understand how a Powerbook could "just happen" by accident, but you have no problem believing this for a Powerbook factory?

As far as I know, Powerbook factories don't happen by "accident" either.

Personally, the thing that most helps me understand that complex organisms can evolve naturally is the mountains of evidence we have that it actually happened.

Okay.
Except for the last 5,000 years or so of History, you are absolutely correct.
Our brand new spanking "mountains of evidence" is a very recent phenomena. And, as more "mountains of evidence" are discovered, it changes to meet new discoveries.
This is all good.
However, it is also all theory.
As you most certainly cannot "prove" G-d based on the "mountains of evidence" for the last several thousand years, one cannot "prove" natural evolution that has theoretically occurred for the last several billion years.
But - as noted, I have zero interest in "proving" G-d. That seems slightly sacrilegious.
However, I have noticed that many folk (and I certainly am not including you of whom I do not know) get into a high dudgeon when their beliefs in the unprovable billions of years of evolution are questioned.
Such is the State of Man....

"There are times I almost think
Nobody sure of what he absolutely know.
Everybody find confusion
In conclusion he concluded long ago
And it puzzle me to learn
That tho' a man may be in doubt of what he know,
Very quickly he will fight...
He'll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!"
- The King and I

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as I know, Powerbook factories don't happen by "accident" either.

In this analogy, the "Powerbook factory" is God. It sounds like you agree with the idea that if a thing is complex enough to need a creator, then that creator is complex enough to need a creator of its own.

This means we have two possibilities:

- an infinite regress of increasingly complex creators.
- rejecting the idea that complexity necessarily implies that a thing can't arise naturally.

I think the second option is more reasonable.

Okay.
Except for the last 5,000 years or so of History, you are absolutely correct.

Come again?

Our brand new spanking "mountains of evidence" is a very recent phenomena. And, as more "mountains of evidence" are discovered, it changes to meet new discoveries.
This is all good.
However, it is also all theory.

If you think that calling something a theory diminishes it in some way, then you don't know what the word "theory" means.

As you most certainly cannot "prove" G-d based on the "mountains of evidence" for the last several thousand years, one cannot "prove" natural evolution that has theoretically occurred for the last several billion years.

As long as we have the problem of hard solipsism, nothing can be "proven" with absolute certainty. However, the evidence in favour of evolution allows practical certainty that's far beyond the level where it would be reasonable to accept it, and a level of certainty equal to or greater than that of many things that we - including devout religious people - treat as unquestionable fact for all practical purposes.

But - as noted, I have zero interest in "proving" G-d. That seems slightly sacrilegious.

It seems to me that assuming that it would be sacrilegious to investigate the question of God's existence is putting the cart before the horse. It could only be sacrilegious if God exists, and even then, it would depend on the particular version of God.

However, I have noticed that many folk (and I certainly and not including you of whom I do not know) get into a high dudgeon when their beliefs in the unprovable billions of years of evolution are questioned.

If that's your way of saying that some people get annoyed when science is misrepresented, then I'd agree.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have already anticipated your mistake. You must first prove even the claim exists to make a proof about the actual claim relevant. Until Islam even claims that al their followers become Muslims by an act of God it is not even relevant. If you do prove this, (Good luck) then and only then is are you equating two likes. I see you are trying to salvage a failure of an argument by pointing out the liability of my original claim. It will not work because that is not the argument you have been using. Your contention requires equality not proof. Once you either give up (and you should) your argument or prove it then I will get into whether my original claim was true (which was not the question you asked). Nice burden shifting. The issue is the basis for equating two unequal things not proof of my original premise. If you had demanded proof for my original premise that would have been valid instead of taking the irrational off ramp into futility which you actually did take.

So, not only do you refuse to back up your claim, but you also fail to acknowledge that the claim is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum followed by circular reasoning and deflection.

I think I have made my point.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Deal with the argument.

I don't have to; it's based on nothing...

Prove it.

What do you mean "prove it"? You're clearly begging the question...

Really? What are your reasons for believing that dragons are real.

There are more stories about dragons than there are about Jesus. Almost every culture in the world has some form of dragon; it must be based in truth, right? :sarcastic

Actually, I do have reasons to believe that he was resurrected.

Besides a story book?

The Gospels were written by either the disciples, or friends of the disciples. So they were either first-hand accounts, or second-hand accounts that were directly from the source.

Prove it.

Then you would have to explain the empty tomb and the disciples claims of post-mortem appearances of Jesus.

Fiction.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So you pasted a very long and detailed "refutation" of Plantiga's version of the OA. Did you even read and understand it, or did you just paste it?

Wouldn't have pasted it without reading it.

1. God, by definition, is a maximally great being. (By "great", it is meant that God has certain attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, ominpresence, and omnibenevolence).

2. It is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some possible world.

3. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some possible world, it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world (and every possible world).

4. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world, then a maximally great being must exist in this world (and every possible world).

5. Therefore, God exists in every possible world, including this world.

Now if you disagree with ANY of the premises, why. If the premises are true, the conclusion in premise 5 follows LOGICALLY, and is inescapable. It seems to me that you people don't like the argument not because it is unsound, but because you just don't like the conclusion. But your like or dislike is irrelevant to the truth value of the argument.

For one, while the argument covers its own *** logically, it doesn't prove anything. Plantinga said so himself (I included the quote).

I also point to the example of the omnipotent evil being. By the same logic he must exist as well...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually my bad.

Noah was Perfect or Blameless

9 This is the account of Noah and his family.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Noah Pleases God

9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Though it does say his generation. So once in awhile one appears?

It just mean he was a very good person, and not every translation has the word "perfect". Besides, are we to believe that Noah didn't commit not ONE SINGLE sin in all of his years?? I don't think so. Besides that, to say someone is morally perfect is to say that they are on the same level as God, because God himself is morally perfect. So was Noah on the same level as God, or can anyone be on the same level as God? Not at all.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Doesn't the Bible say "Honor thy father and mother", and although that can obviously be interpreted many ways, I fail to see how dissapearing from your parents without telling them where your going would be considering "honoring them".

HAHAHAHAHAHA. This is the funniest thing I've heard in a longggg time jack. You remember on the movie Home Alone when Kevin's mother, while on the plane, first noticed something was wrong and her husband tried to assure her that they didn't forget anything. And then she settled back in her seat and the suddenly popped up, "Kevin!!!".

What if that was the way it was with Mary and Joseph, on their way back home from their journey, as they were on the carriage ride Mary noticed that something was wrong and Joseph tried to convince her otherwise, and Mary settled in her seat and all of a sudden popped up, "Jesus!!!" Hahaha. Funny stuff.

But in regards to what you said, look, if you and your children go on a road trip and then it is time to go home..before you leave, you are to get accountability of your children before you leave, right? Just sayin.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you couldn't be bothered to read either of the times I already posted it, then I can't be bothered to post it again.

LMAO

If you click on the little blue arrows on the quote boxes, you can track back through the thread to see it.

Oh snaps, I didn't know that.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It just mean he was a very good person, and not every translation has the word "perfect". Besides, are we to believe that Noah didn't commit not ONE SINGLE sin in all of his years?? I don't think so. Besides that, to say someone is morally perfect is to say that they are on the same level as God, because God himself is morally perfect. So was Noah on the same level as God, or can anyone be on the same level as God? Not at all.

Those were two translations.

You are right not every translation has perfect. But they have blameless which is synomous with having no guilt. If he had sin he would have been guilty.


I mean Moses didn't make it into Canaan for that one slight to God. Yet God saved Noah because he found Noah blameless.

Now if you want to make it complicated and do the little dance that we all do with scripture. The part where it says "his generation" can be said to apply that God judge Noah based on the merits of people, and not to what merit that God has...but that's still twisting the arm a little because the only merit that God would use to judge us is his own since morality is not something created by God but exists simply by the premise that God exists. So to God Noah would have been moral in accordance with Gods moral standard and Gods moral standard is perfect.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

4. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world, then a maximally great being must exist in this world (and every possible world).

This is a different, and much worse, version of the MOA. This premise is patently false. It is possible that Michael Jordan won 15 championships in this world, but it does not follow that Michael Jordan DID win 15 championships. Clearly, merely being possible does not entail being actual. There are literally an infinite number of states of affairs which are logically possible, but don't obtain- for instance, that I was the NFL MVP last year is logically possible, but false.

Anyways, ISLAM's quoted point about S5 is spot on; in this context, it simply amounts to begging the question that God's existence is necessary.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Wouldn't have pasted it without reading it.

For one, while the argument covers its own *** logically, it doesn't prove anything. Plantinga said so himself (I included the quote).

Are you going to tell me what premise of the argument is false?? All I see is rhetoric. I would like direct refutation of the argument.

I also point to the example of the omnipotent evil being. By the same logic he must exist as well...

Granted, I don't think the attribute of omnibenevolence is a "necessary" attribute. Whether this being is maximally good, or maximally evil, it is still a necessary being.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Are you going to tell me what premise of the argument is false?? All I see is rhetoric. I would like direct refutation of the argument.

The argument proves nothing. By Plantinga's own words, it justifies the rationality of believing such a thing exists, but does nothing to prove its existence.
“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

Calling this argument proof of God's existence is false.

Granted, I don't think the attribute of omnibenevolence is a "necessary" attribute. Whether this being is maximally good, or maximally evil, it is still a necessary being.

For one, the same Bible from which you got your faith in your god says he is omnibenevolent... Are you saying it's false?
Secondly, the argument shows that both are sound, so by your logic it would mean both definitely exist. Now that we've established that both of them exist, the problem is how that matters. If both a maximally good and maximally evil being exist, and both are omnipotent, everything they did would cancel out and it would be as if neither existed since one is always working against the other and neither's power knows any bounds. Since neither one can accomplish anything that doesn't get cancelled out by the other, it is not necessary for either to exist.