Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

Moral Orel · Jul 2, 2015

SkyWriting said:
All you've got is storytellers who reluctantly admit they lie.

Here's the thing about scientists and their ability to lie. No one trusts them at their word. Not even other scientists.

When you try to publish your scientific research, you don't just publish the results, you publish the methods you used to get those results as well. In doing this, other people can test your results for validity. Have some scientists fudged results to stay in line with their hypothesis? You bet. How many of them made a drastic claim that never got caught? None. All scientists want to do is make a name for themselves, and the best way to do that is to prove some old way of thinking wrong, which is the advancement of knowledge. It sounds cynical, I know.

But science isn't a big club out there full of people trying to prove each other right. They're out there trying to prove each other wrong so that they can stake the claim of being the one who got it right.

So dismissing scientific claims that are widely accepted by the scientific community is to dismiss the fact that they have all done the best darn job they can to prove it wrong, and yet those facts still remain.

Religion seems to come from the opposite direction. A shared belief causes people to come from different directions to find theories and ideas that support the original claim. No one is taking a serious critical look at their beliefs because everything starts with, "well, I know such-and-such is the truth, so let's just look at evidence that supports this and nothing else".

OzSpen · Jul 2, 2015

paulm50 said:
Therefore eyewitness testimonies from people who have seen aliens, are also true. I suggest you watch this program to see the other truth.

He has actual physical evidence.

So supporting eyewitness evidence isn't so great. Unless god is an alien. Which is a maybe.

Another red herring fallacy.

OzSpen · Jul 2, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
But science isn't a big club out there full of people trying to prove each other right. They're out there trying to prove each other wrong so that they can stake the claim of being the one who got it right....

Religion seems to come from the opposite direction. A shared belief causes people to come from different directions to find theories and ideas that support the original claim. No one is taking a serious critical look at their beliefs because everything starts with, "well, I know such-and-such is the truth, so let's just look at evidence that supports this and nothing else".

Try taking that line with Richard Dawkins re the scientific 'big club'.

As for religion not 'taking a serious critical look at their beliefs', this demonstrates how out of touch you are with the religious or Christian worldview. I had to deal with religious on the orals panel last Monday night who were extremely critical of my beliefs. They were coming from what you call 'religion' not 'taking a serious critical look'. That really is an ignorant perspective of what happens in higher levels of education in the religious establishment. To be honest, you have declared here that you don't know what you are talking about in regard to 'religion'.

Oz

Moral Orel · Jul 2, 2015

OzSpen said:
The burden of this book is that the category of testimony is the one that does most justice to the Gospels both as history and as theology. As a form of historiography testimony offers a unique access to historical reality that cannot be had without an element of trust in the credibility of the witness and what he or she has to report. Testimony is irreducible; we cannot, at least in some of its most distinctive and valuable claims, go behind it and make our own autonomous verification of them; we cannot establish the truth of testimony for ourselves as though we stood where the witnesses uniquely stood. Eyewitness testimony offers us insider knowledge from involved participants' (Bauckham 2006:505).

OzSpen said:
See what you do? I provide details that address what you raise and look what happened with this response. You refuse to deal with the material I present but are off and running with another of your angles. It's a red herring fallacy again. Why don't you quit doing this and address the content of what I raise?

What people seem to be trying to do through hyperbole, I'll try to explain straight. I agree with their view, just not their delivery, it isn't very clear.

Your quote says, "As a form of historiography testimony offers a unique access to historical reality that cannot be had without an element of trust". The point to be made is just how much trust should you place in the statements of an eyewitness? You would place a lot more trust in these people than the rest of us. I put a level of trust in the Bible a little higher than most non-believers, I think.

What these folk are trying to get at is that there is a level of trust that is safe and a level of trust that is unsafe. Just taking someone's word for it no matter what they are talking about is unsafe. Trusting that the people in the Bible had no reason to lie about locations existing is safe. See?

Eye witness testimony should only take you so far. Since we see so much testimony turn out to be incredibly wrong now, and we verify that with science and technology, we can easily infer that the same problems existed throughout human existence, and it was only recently that we discovered the problem was so rampant. People have talked about "big fish stories" forever, but no one acknowledges the fact that it doesn't require outright lying, it just requires a little more exaggeration each time you tell it.

Moral Orel · Jul 2, 2015

OzSpen said:
Try taking that line with Richard Dawkins re the scientific 'big club'.

As for religion not 'taking a serious critical look at their beliefs', this demonstrates how out of touch you are with the religious or Christian worldview. I had to deal with religious on the orals panel last Monday night who were extremely critical of my beliefs. They were coming from what you call 'religion' not 'taking a serious critical look'. That really is an ignorant perspective of what happens in higher levels of education in the religious establishment. To be honest, you have declared here that you don't know what you are talking about in regard to 'religion'.

Oz

And you show how little you know about what it means to be a non-believer by putting us all in one big club because Dawkins says we are.

Davian · Jul 2, 2015

OzSpen said:
See what you do? I provide details that address what you raise and look what happened with this response. You refuse to deal with the material I present but are off and running with another of your angles. It's a red herring fallacy again. Why don't you quit doing this and address the content of what I raise?

The Adventures of Fallacy Man

Archaeopteryx · Jul 2, 2015

OzSpen said:
See what you do? I provide details that address what you raise and look what happened with this response. You refuse to deal with the material I present but are off and running with another of your angles. It's a red herring fallacy again. Why don't you quit doing this and address the content of what I raise?

I am addressing the point you raised; namely, "the validity and superiority of eyewitness testimony." Based on my background (psychology), I question this claim. Since everything else you present hinges on this claim being tenable, it's best to address this claim first before proceeding to the others.

OzSpen · Jul 2, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
What people seem to be trying to do through hyperbole, I'll try to explain straight. I agree with their view, just not their delivery, it isn't very clear.

Your quote says, "As a form of historiography testimony offers a unique access to historical reality that cannot be had without an element of trust". The point to be made is just how much trust should you place in the statements of an eyewitness? You would place a lot more trust in these people than the rest of us. I put a level of trust in the Bible a little higher than most non-believers, I think.

What these folk are trying to get at is that there is a level of trust that is safe and a level of trust that is unsafe. Just taking someone's word for it no matter what they are talking about is unsafe. Trusting that the people in the Bible had no reason to lie about locations existing is safe. See?

Eye witness testimony should only take you so far. Since we see so much testimony turn out to be incredibly wrong now, and we verify that with science and technology, we can easily infer that the same problems existed throughout human existence, and it was only recently that we discovered the problem was so rampant. People have talked about "big fish stories" forever, but no one acknowledges the fact that it doesn't require outright lying, it just requires a little more exaggeration each time you tell it.

There is accumulating evidence to confirm the authenticity of much of biblical history. You seem to miss a fundamental in this discussion. Down through the centuries since the time of Christ, there have been many scholars from various disciplines investigating the truth or otherwise of the testimony of eyewitnesses and others recorded in Scripture.

I've cited elsewhere Sir William Ramsay's skepticism towards the content of Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts. Ramsay's research as an archaeologist and NT scholar demonstrated from archaeological sites that Luke was a superb historian.

Contemporary archaeologist, John McRay has articulated in his book, Archaeology & the New Testament (1991) of how there were two Quiriniuses, one was governor of Syria when Jesus was born (see Luke 2:2). He cited Jerry Vardaman's evidence of the discovery of 'the name of Quirinius on a coin in micrographic letters, placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod' (in McRay 1991:154). This confirms the truth of what Luke wrote in Luke 2:2.

Go to p. 23 of this document to read about 'Luke the Historian', with archaeological evidence from Sir William Ramsay.

Works consulted
McRay, J 1991. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Moral Orel · Jul 2, 2015

OzSpen said:
There is accumulating evidence to confirm the authenticity of much of biblical history. You seem to miss a fundamental in this discussion. Down through the centuries since the time of Christ, there have been many scholars from various disciplines investigating the truth or otherwise of the testimony of eyewitnesses and others recorded in Scripture.

I've cited elsewhere Sir William Ramsay's skepticism towards the content of Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts. Ramsay's research as an archaeologist and NT scholar demonstrated from archaeological sites that Luke was a superb historian.

Contemporary archaeologist, John McRay has articulated in his book, Archaeology & the New Testament (1991) of how there were two Quiriniuses, one was governor of Syria when Jesus was born (see Luke 2;2). He cited Jerry Vardaman's evidence of the discovery of 'the name of Quirinius on a coin in micrographic letters, placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod' (in McRay 1991:154). This confirms the truth of what Luke wrote in Luke 2:2.

Works consulted
McRay, J 1991. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

See, now this is where I don't disagree so much. I'll say that I am pretty sure that all those facts are true. As a point of reference to what that means to me, I am pretty sure OJ Simpson did it. Never totally sure.

But there is a giant leap to believe things like miracles, events that happened around Jesus, words that people said, even the personality of the people described. These are all the types of things that people fudge when they recount stories to other people. And by fudge I don't necessarily mean lie, although I don't completely rule that out. It just means that even if I trust a person not to be a liar, I don't trust them to have the ability to recount a story to me with all the pertinent details and without errors.

I heard someone else say that a John Grisham novel is as accurate about time periods and locations as the Bible is, and that states the idea that facts such as those are not relevant to determining if the facts such as what was said are true.

OzSpen · Jul 2, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
I am addressing the point you raised; namely, "the validity and superiority of eyewitness testimony." Based on my background (psychology), I question this claim. Since everything else you present hinges on this claim being tenable, it's best to address this claim first before proceeding to the others.

I also have background in psychology, so pulling that one on me doesn't work. I have a master's degree in that field, so I'm not a novice in dealing with psychological issues. I spent the last 17 years of my working life in management as a therapist and manager of therapists.

Eyewitness testimony needs to be cross-checked. This has been done over and over down through the centuries for OT and NT to confirm the reliability of Scriptures. There are many gaps that have not yet been discovered, but where checks can be made, there is good reason to believe the Bible's historical veracity.

Contemporary OT archaeologist, Alfred J Hoerth in his Archaeology and the Old Testament (1998, Baker Books) has demonstrated that veracity for many OT issues.

I was about to give you an example from p. 21 of this book, but my wife is calling for dinner and I must respond positively to her.

Oz

Archaeopteryx · Jul 2, 2015

OzSpen said:
I also have background in psychology, so pulling that one on me doesn't work. I have a master's degree in that field, so I'm not a novice in dealing with psychological issues. I spent the last 17 years of my working life in management as a therapist and manager of therapists.

So you are aware then of the abundant research showing your claim ("validity and superiority of eyewitness testimony") to be dubious? That being the case, why did you make such a claim in the first place? You already know, or you should already know, given your background, that such a claim cannot stand up to scrutiny.

paulm50 · Jul 2, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
Are you suggesting that the fallibility of eyewitness testimony is only a recent phenomenon and that this doesn't pose a problem for any eyewitness testimony delivered prior to the 20th century?

The fallibility of any statement and record is in "What was the motivation of the witness or recorder?"

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq.

Faith Healers are often claiming they're motivated by god.

Churches have a long history of lying to make money.

Does anyone trust politicians today? Then why trust them from 1700 and 3,000 years ago. The compilers of the OT and NT were just the same as politicians today. They just told you they spoke to god.

paulm50 · Jul 2, 2015

OzSpen said:
Another red herring fallacy.

If that's your best throw, leave the game.

paulm50 · Jul 2, 2015

OzSpen said:
There is accumulating evidence to confirm the authenticity of much of biblical history. You seem to miss a fundamental in this discussion. Down through the centuries since the time of Christ, there have been many scholars from various disciplines investigating the truth or otherwise of the testimony of eyewitnesses and others recorded in Scripture.

No one disputes Jesus lived. Same as no one disputes some promises he made or were written as his words, were lies.

Your assertion of "Down through the centuries since the time of Christ,". Is ignoring a big point. The RCC church had complete authority over the bible and it's teaching. It burned people at the stake for questioning their version, wanting t written in a language the people understood, went to war over people deciding they were wrong and even up till today are still mired in corruption and abuse.

Did the eyewitnesses believe they saw something, looking for attention, trying to gain power or mad? The evidence is fairly split, some have definitely been mad, some were looking for attention, most certainly many were looking for power and yes many believed they saw a vision. Like those who see aliens. Which isn't a red herring, it proves the power of the mind. The problem you have is the Ancient Alien theory comes with a huge number of Ancient artifacts. Fakes like the church faked them, or real copies of what they saw?

Moral Orel · Jul 2, 2015

paulm50 said:
Even the bible is proven to lie.

Hey, I'm on your side. Don't misquote me like that. You're going to make people think I'm throwing out unnecessarily inflammatory remarks.

paulm50 · Jul 2, 2015

OzSpen said:
Contemporary OT archaeologist, Alfred J Hoerth in his Archaeology and the Old Testament (1998, Baker Books) has demonstrated that veracity for many OT issues.

I read this and it's true, Hittites existed, there's no evidence they knew Abraham, there is evidence they knew Solomon, David is recorded.
Sodom and Gomorrah, is shaky ground. Excavations at Bab edh-Drha prove that. Act of nature interpreted as as god.
The Walls of Jericho more shaky ground. Some say the city walls fell at the wrong time for the bible version, some say it did fall at the right time. Earthquake or act of god. For proof the bible is right and the word of god, it needs to be proven to be proven as an act of god, not nature.

This was the funniest. "One of the most beloved characters in the Bible is King David. Scripture says that he was a man after God’s own heart." He was right B@#stard according to the bible. More like a Mafia Boss than anything.

Really is that your best evidence?

paulm50 · Jul 2, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
Hey, I'm on your side. Don't misquote me like that. You're going to make people think I'm throwing out unnecessarily inflammatory remarks.

Edited it, I misread your post and mistook it. Sorry.

paulm50 · Jul 2, 2015

Proof the bible is wrong.

Proof Jesus lied or was misquoted.

Yes Oz, the places and kings they wrote about existed. The Israelites weren't that stupid to believe in stories of places and Kings that never existed. The problem is backing up the bible with real hard evidence and it fails miserably.

If you need proof the church lies, then there's no convincing you. And the church wrote the bible. They had to convince people it was to be obeyed without question. They even passed a law to make it so. Like a few others that had less meaning.

OzSpen · Jul 2, 2015

duplicated

OzSpen · Jul 2, 2015

paulm50 said:
This was the funniest. "One of the most beloved characters in the Bible is King David. Scripture says that he was a man after God’s own heart." He was right B@#stard according to the bible. More like a Mafia Boss than anything.

Really is that your best evidence?

Your appeal to ridicule fallacy has influenced me not to respond further to you. We can't continue a logical discussion when you do this.

Bye.

Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Regular Member

Regular Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Proud Citizen of Moralton

fallible

Wanderer

Regular Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Regular Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads