Your best argument that god exists

[outhouse]

My argument that God exists is this- observe creation, it's aesthetically pleasing, harmonious, it's the work of a master craftsman. Random genetic mutations, mostly harmful to nature could never have achieved this.

Creation Is outlawed from school children, and remains unsubstantiated.

Because you do not understand biology does not mean evolution is not fact.

 

[kepha31]

False

The contradictions between then show they wrote theology using mythology, as well as the nature of the text itself. Many events are factually mythological in nature.

"factually mythological"...........riiight.

Now if you had ever taken a REAL class on the subject, you would know they wrote in rhetorical prose. You know nothing of what this prose even is, and debating with you on this concept would be inane due to your severe lack of knowledge on historical aspects.

"rhetorical prose" , yes, St. Alphonsus Liguori is also guilty of such heinous crimes.

Let us compare the Gospels with two particular mythic writings from around that time to see for ourselves the stylistic differences. The first is the so-called Gospel of Peter, a forgery from around A.D. 125 which John Dominic Crossan (of the "Jesus Seminar"), a current media darling among the doubters, insists is earlier than the four Gospels. As William Lane Craig puts it:​

In this account, the tomb is not only surrounded by Roman guards but also by all the Jewish Pharisees and elders as well as a great multitude from all the surrounding countryside who have come to watch the resurrection. Suddenly in the night there rings out a loud voice in heaven, and two men descend from heaven to the tomb. The stone over the door rolls back by itself, and they go into the tomb. The three men come out of the tomb, two of them holding up the third man. The heads of the two men reach up into the clouds, but the head of the third man reaches beyond the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice from heaven asks, 'Have you preached to them that sleep?' And the cross answers, 'Yes.' (Apologetics, p. 189)

Here is a second comparison, from Richard Purtill:

It may be worthwhile to take a quick look, for purposes of comparison at the closest thing we have around the time of the Gospels to an attempt at a realistic fantasy. This is the story of Apollonius of Tyana, written about A.D. 250 by Flavius Philostratus....There is some evidence that a neo-Pythagorean sage named Apollonius may really have lived, and thus Philostratus' work is a real example of what have thought the Gospels to be: a fictionalized account of the life of a real sage and teacher, introducing miraculous elements to build up the prestige of the central figure. It thus gives us a good look at what a real example of a fictionalized biography would look like, written at a time and place not too far removed from those in which the Gospels were written.
(Thinking About Religion, p. 75-76)
Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli
Readers can compare the STYLE of the so-called Gospel of Peter with the Gospels for themselves.
The story of Apollonius of Tyana, a fictionalized biography, is not the same style. The Gospels are not about fictionalized biographies, they are about living a life transforming tradition enscripturated and authorized by the same authority that rejected the Gospel of Peter. If they are the same style, then explain why the g0p was never canonized, or why Flavius Philostratus' writings do not appear in any liturgy.


.

 

[Randy Carson]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

Saying that one can prove God's existence is shorthand for saying that the balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.

Atheists Austin Dacey and Lewis Vaughn write, “What if these arguments purporting to establish that God exists are failures? That is, what if they offer no justification for theistic belief? Must we then conclude that God does not exist? No. Lack of supporting reasons or evidence for a proposition does not show that the proposition is false.”

If he wants to demonstrate that atheism is true, an atheist would have to provide additional evidence that there is no God. He can’t simply say the arguments for the existence of God are failures and then rest his case.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Saying that one can prove God's existence is shorthand for saying that the balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.

Atheists Austin Dacey and Lewis Vaughn write, “What if these arguments purporting to establish that God exists are failures? That is, what if they offer no justification for theistic belief? Must we then conclude that God does not exist? No. Lack of supporting reasons or evidence for a proposition does not show that the proposition is false.”

If he wants to demonstrate that atheism is true, an atheist would have to provide additional evidence that there is no God. He can’t simply say the arguments for the existence of God are failures and then rest his case.

When did shirking the burden of proof because you can't fulfill it, become proof?
I don't see anything at all in your post that would count as evidence towards your god.

 

[Randy Carson]

Argue away.

Paul wrote from the Diaspora far removed from any eyewitnesses.

That's not what Paul says in the Letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 1:11-24
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised because of me.

Galatians 2:9
9 James, Cephas[Peter] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.

From this, you can see that Paul was acquainted with the apostles.

Paul belong to a different culture then Jesus and never knew or met him or heard a word pass his lips.

Paul also wrote about theology and did not describe any credible historical details about the man.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

In this passage, Paul is reciting a proto-creed of the Early Church which he had memorized during one of his visits to Jerusalem. Note that he specifically mentions seeing Jesus.

Paul describes the resurrection which is highly debated if it was spiritual or physical.

It is debated, but the historical evidence contained in the five eyewitness accounts of the NT support the literal physical resurrection.

I believe it was a spiritual resurrection that grew in mythology to physical by the time Paul wrote some 15 years after death.

1. Mythology doesn't develop that quickly.
2. Paul wisely points out to the Corinthians that while some eyewitnesses have died, many of the 500 are still alive and available for questioning concerning the truth of what Paul is saying.

IOW, Paul says, "If you don't believe me, ask around. There are plenty of other folks who saw Jesus after the resurrection besides me."

 

[Randy Carson]

When did shirking the burden of proof because you can't fulfill it, become proof?
I don't see anything at all in your post that would count as evidence towards your god.

I did not offer any in that post.

I merely pointed out that should I or any other Christian apologist fail to make the case for Christ adequately, that simply means that I am a poor apologist. It does NOT mean that the atheist position has been proven, and skeptics must still offer their own convincing evidence that God does not exist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Proving a negative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bunyip]

I did not offer any in that post.

I merely pointed out that should I or any other Christian apologist fail to make the case for Christ adequately, that simply means that I am a poor apologist. It does NOT mean that the atheist position has been proven, and skeptics must still offer their own convincing evidence that God does not exist.

Yeah, but the atheist position does not need to be proven. The burden of proof is on the party claiming he exists. The convincing evidence that god does not exist is simple the absence of evidence .

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, but the atheist position does not need to be proven. The burden of proof is on the party claiming he exists. The convincing evidence that god does not exist is simple the absence of evidence .

Anyone making a posit about the world has a burden, hence the atheist has a burden which is filled by the absence of evidence. Of course, a burden isn't an obligation, so it's not about proving things.

 

[Willamena]

Proving a negative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for posting that.

 

[Randy Carson]

Yes, I am familiar with the problem associated with proving a negative. Consequently, I think skeptics will have a tough time with this.

Remember, there are two sides to this argument - not one.

Theists affirm that God does exitst, and they attempt to offer convincing evidence for their belief.

Atheists affirm that God does not exist. They, too, must offer evidence to prove that He does not.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, I am familiar with the problem associated with proving a negative. Consequently, I think skeptics will have a tough time with this.

Remember, there are two sides to this argument - not one.

Theists affirm that God does exitst, and they attempt to offer convincing evidence for their belief.

Atheists affirm that God does not exist. They, too, must offer evidence to prove that He does not.

One can't prove nonexistence, since it doesn't exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Anyone making a posit about the world has a burden, hence the atheist has a burden which is filled by the absence of evidence. Of course, a burden isn't an obligation, so it's not about proving things.

Sure. And of course atheism is not 'making a posit about the world' at all is it? It is the label we attach to those not positing gods.

 

[Willamena]

Sure. And of course atheism is not 'making a posit about the world' at all is it? It is the label we attach to those not positing gods.

No, it is. It is making a posit.

It's the negation of the posit about god(s).

 

[Bunyip]

No, it is.

It's the negation of the posit about god(s).

As much as you can play about with semantics, there is no trick of language that can magically transfer the burden of proof.

That God exists is a claim. Not accepting that claim is not.

 

[Randy Carson]

Yeah, but the atheist position does not need to be proven.

Why not? If you assert that God does not exist, then shouldn't you have to show some evidence of that?

The burden of proof is on the party claiming he exists.

It depends on how the resolution is stated. If the debate topic is: Does God exist?, then the theist has the affirmative and must prove his case. That happens to be the case given the subject of the OP. HOWEVER, if two people are having a conversation and one says, "God exists" while the other says "God doesn't exist", then they both have the burden of proof relative to their own positive affirmations. That's all I'm pointing out.

Theists are never going to be convinced by atheist who can't prove that their arguments are superior.

The convincing evidence that god does not exist is simple the absence of evidence .

You really mean "absence of evidence that I find compelling", don't you?

 

[Willamena]

As much as you can play about with semantics, there is no trick of language that can magically transfer the burden of proof.

That God exists is a claim. Not accepting that claim is not.

The burden of proof is never transferred, it rests with the person making the posit. The burden of proof, though, is not an obligation to prove.

That God does not exist is a claim.

 

[Bunyip]

Why not? If you assert that God does not exist, then shouldn't you have to show some evidence of that?

What do you mean by evidence of non-existence? Can you give a few examples? What sort of evidence that an immaterial being doesn't exist do you think atheists should be looking for?

It depends on how the resolution is stated. If the debate topic is: Does God exist?, then the theist has the affirmative and must prove his case. That happens to be the case given the subject of the OP. HOWEVER, if two people are having a conversation and one says, "God exists" while the other says "God doesn't exist", then they both have the burden of proof relative to their own positive affirmations. That's all I'm pointing out.

No, only one is a positive affirmation. Not believing something exists is not a positive affirmation.

Theists are never going to be convinced by atheist who can't prove that their arguments are superior.

What argument is that?

You really mean "absence of evidence that I find compelling", don't you?

No, I mean the absence of reliable evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

The burden of proof is never transferred, it rests with the person making the posit. The burden of proof, though, is not an obligation to prove.

That God does not exist is a claim.

The only person making the posit is the theist, no matter how carefully you try to write it - the burden remains the same.

 

[Willamena]

The only person making the posit is the theist, no matter how carefully you try to write it - the burden remains the same.

I disagree. Humans do not fail to posit everything.