Atheism (2)

[KCfromNC]

there is a book

called "science speaks" by peter stoner I believe that has the statistics of 30 prophecies coming true, then He does 300 I think.

He says it is as likely as filling texas 2 feet deep in silver dollars and picking one.

I was looking for a probability, not a bibliography. If you don't know the answer, it's OK to just say so.

If I remember accurately

Speaking of long odds...

 

[KCfromNC]

God didn't make you do it, you have a free will. God allowed it, but didn't make it happen.

Proof of these claims?

 

[KCfromNC]

God is self existent and self defining, because He is a universal agent, and has universal agency.

No she isn't. Wow, asserting stuff as if it were real is easy. Too bad it's not convincing.

 

[Belk]

unless you know what caused the singularity that caused the big bang, all we have is my option which is God did it. There are no other hypothesis.

No, it does not work like that. Not knowing what causes lightning does not mean Zeus is the only explanation. First off you need to show that the singularity required a cause. Then you need to show that your God is the cause. Just claiming you don't know therefore my god is a classic God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dave Ellis]

it's both

You can't have truly free will if God's will is influencing your decision.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Eusebius (CE 263-399), placed Job "two ages before Moses" or 2,000-1,500 BCE

wikipedia

And Eusebius is also known to have forged and edited documents to support his Christian world view. He's not a reliable source of information. Generally most of the Old Testament texts are accepted to have been written between 1200BC and 400BC

 

[Elioenai26]

No, it does not work like that. Not knowing what causes lightning does not mean Zeus is the only explanation. First off you need to show that the singularity required a cause. Then you need to show that your God is the cause. Just claiming you don't know therefore my god is a classic God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are actually mistaken. A theist needs to provide evidence that would make his claim that an intelligent being created the universe more plausible than its negation. You seem to misunderstand, as many of your fellows have as well, that empirically verifiable evidence is not the only type of evidence used in determining the veracity of a truth claim. If it were, then the vast majority of what we consider historical knowledge must be considered mere speculation since little of what we know about history can be proven empirically. The same is true of moral values, logical laws, and mathematical principles. Clearly we have knowledge of these things, and yet we lack empirical evidence for them. Indeed, empirical evidence is not even possible for such things.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is no reason or evidence to assume anything in the bible is divinely inspired. Therefore, until a divine link can be established it's just the works of whoever wrote that particular book. If you can use the words of that anonymous author, then I can use the words of Gene Roddenberry. At least we know he was a decent guy!

In short, If you can quote the bible and pass it off as authoritative truth, I can quote Captain Kirk and also pass it off as authoritative truth.

They are equally as valid.

 

[Dave Ellis]

unless you know what caused the singularity that caused the big bang, all we have is my option which is God did it. There are no other hypothesis.

That's the argument from ignorance fallacy "If you can't prove your case, then my claim is proven to be right". It doesn't work that way.

If it does work that way, then I will use your exact same argument against you and be equally as justified.

Unless you know what caused God, or in the case that he is infinite, can demonstrate that he is actually is infinte... then all we have is my option which is the Big Bang caused the creation of the universe through purely natural processes. There are no other hypotheses.

Stated that way, I'm sure you can see the obvious logical flaw in the argument.

Just because we don't understand what caused the big bang, does not allow you to plug your god into the equation and assert it as truth. That is also committing the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

The honest answer is we don't know how the universe was created in full. Trying to make up an answer for the sake of having an answer is counter-productive. We would be far better served by continuing to investigate, learn all we can on the topic and hopefully one day be able to fully understand it.

 

[keith99]

pliny the younger and josephus both testify to Christ. That he was real. And the Biblical texts state what day He rode in to Jerusalem. So I am unsure what you are talking about.

They prophesied the exact day 483 years ahead of time, from the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to the very same day Christ came (donkeys are not in the prophecy- I don't think).

Care to give the chapter and verse of this prediction? Picking 6 seperate verses that have to be interperted a paticular way, a way that no one came up with until after the fact is not what I'd call an accurate predection. But that is just what I see touted most of the time.

 

[Dave Ellis]

pliny the younger and josephus both testify to Christ. That he was real. And the Biblical texts state what day He rode in to Jerusalem. So I am unsure what you are talking about.

They prophesied the exact day 483 years ahead of time, from the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to the very same day Christ came (donkeys are not in the prophecy- I don't think).

Both of Pliny the Younger and Josephus were born decades after Christ was supposedly killed, and their writings on the topic date from the very late 1st century to early 2nd century.

They were not contemporary.

Also, the biblical texts are not reliable, as we don't know who wrote them, and are not backed by any other piece of evidence. We can't even prove Jesus existed, much less fulfilled prophecies as there is no contemporary evidence for him at all.

All we have to go on is writings from historians that lived and worked in an era where the eyewitnesses would have been long dead (that goes for the Gospels too). All people like Josephus were able to report is the beliefs of early Christians, and no historical account of Jesus himself.

 

[Elioenai26]

That's the argument from ignorance fallacy "If you can't prove your case, then my claim is proven to be right". It doesn't work that way.

If it does work that way, then I will use your exact same argument against you and be equally as justified.

Unless you know what caused God, or in the case that he is infinite, can demonstrate that he is actually is infinte... then all we have is my option which is the Big Bang caused the creation of the universe through purely natural processes. There are no other hypotheses.

Stated that way, I'm sure you can see the obvious logical flaw in the argument.

Just because we don't understand what caused the big bang, does not allow you to plug your god into the equation and assert it as truth. That is also committing the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

The honest answer is we don't know how the universe was created in full. Trying to make up an answer for the sake of having an answer is counter-productive. We would be far better served by continuing to investigate, learn all we can on the topic and hopefully one day be able to fully understand it.

Mr. Ellis, you are mistaken in your analogy. For in your assertion, you state that we must be able to ascertain what caused God. In saying this you show a lack of understanding regarding God's nature. The theistic God has many attributes, two of which are His aseity, and necessity. Aseity means that He is by definition uncaused. So when you use the phrase "what caused God" you are actually saying: "what caused that which has no cause", which is self-defeating.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are actually mistaken. A theist needs to provide evidence that would make his claim that an intelligent being created the universe more plausible than its negation. You seem to misunderstand, as many of your fellows have as well, that empirically verifiable evidence is not the only type of evidence used in determining the veracity of a truth claim. If it were, then the vast majority of what we consider historical knowledge must be considered mere speculation since little of what we know about history can be proven empirically. The same is true of moral values, logical laws, and mathematical principles. Clearly we have knowledge of these things, and yet we lack empirical evidence for them. Indeed, empirical evidence is not even possible for such things.

The problem is you are comparing apples and oranges.

Historical knowledge is not the same as science. Even then, for something to be regarded as historically accurate, the event in question must have multiple contemporary accounts, that support each other (ideally from multiple cultures), or some hard empirical evidence to back the account.

A truth claim about the existence of something is a scientific question, therefore the scientific method applies.

You can make a hypothesis with anything you want, but the only way to definitively prove something exists is through hard, empirical evidence.

On top of that, even going from a historical non-scientific perspective, you still have not established your position as the most plausible. There is no mutually supporting evidence, no contemporary accounts, and nothing to show your holy book is any more likely to be true than anyone elses... in fact given all the things it's been hopelessly wrong on, it would be fair to call it self-contradictory and unreliable.

 

[quatona]

unless you know what caused the singularity that caused the big bang, all we have is my option which is God did it. There are no other hypothesis.

Once we allow for exceptional claims to be accepted as hypotheses there are in fact countless other options.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Mr. Ellis, you are mistaken in your analogy. For in your assertion, you state that we must be able to ascertain what caused God. In saying this you show a lack of understanding regarding God's nature. The theistic God has many attributes, two of which are His aseity, and necessity. Aseity means that He is by definition uncaused. So when you use the phrase "what caused God" you are actually saying: "what caused that which has no cause", which is self-defeating.

Trying to define him into existence (again) is not going to work (again).

You have to demonstrate he possesses these attributes. Simply asserting he has them is not compelling at all.

 

[quatona]

Mr. Ellis, you are mistaken in your analogy. For in your assertion, you state that we must be able to ascertain what caused God. In saying this you show a lack of understanding regarding God's nature. The theistic God has many attributes, two of which are His aseity, and necessity. Aseity means that He is by definition uncaused.

Well, but the problem is that you can´t simply define things into existence.
Or else I could postulate the existence of METAGOD - the entity that caused God. In which case God would be caused, by definition.

So when you use the phrase "what caused God" you are actually saying: "what caused that which has no cause", which is self-defeating.

Your idea that God is uncaused is self-defeating because God, by definition, is caused by METAGOD.

 

[Elioenai26]

Both of Pliny the Younger and Josephus were born decades after Christ was supposedly killed, and their writings on the topic date from the very late 1st century to early 2nd century.

They were not contemporary.

Also, the biblical texts are not reliable, as we don't know who wrote them, and are not backed by any other piece of evidence. We can't even prove Jesus existed, much less fulfilled prophecies as there is no contemporary evidence for him at all.

All we have to go on is writings from historians that lived and worked in an era where the eyewitnesses would have been long dead (that goes for the Gospels too). All people like Josephus were able to report is the beliefs of early Christians, and no historical account of Jesus himself.

Since when has being a contemporary of a person become an absolute necessity in compiling an accurate historical account of said person?

We do know who wrote the biblical texts. This is not even an issue of contention in contemporary biblical scholarship. We have Christian and non-Christian evidence for the reliability of the New Testament as indicated by notable scholars such as Dr. R.T. France when he says: "Non-Christian evidence substantiates the fact of Jesus' existence, and His popular following, His execution and the rough date" (France, NBD, 564)

Edwin Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University, asserts that we have more and better historical documentation for Jesus than for any other religious founder (e.g., Zoroaster, Buddha, or Muhammad). Of the non-biblical sources testifying of Christ, Yamauchi concludes:

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher
2. Many people believed that He performed healings and exorcisms
3. He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
4. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
5. Despite His shameful death, His followers, who believed that He was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64.
6. All kinds of people from the cities and countryside-men and women, slave and free-worshipped Him as God by the beginning of the second century. (Yamauchi, JUF, 221,222).

Jesus was a real man and the fact that I have to even discuss this with you is quite incredible.

 

[Elioenai26]

Your idea that God is uncaused is self-defeating because God, by definition, is caused by METAGOD.

ROFL!

 

[Elioenai26]

A truth claim about the existence of something is a scientific question, therefore the scientific method applies.

Is the truth claim that "Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States" a claim that is subject to the scientific method or historical research?

You can make a hypothesis with anything you want, but the only way to definitively prove something exists is through hard, empirical evidence.

And can you provide me with your credentials in whatever branch of science you are an expert in? You say this as if it is an accepted fact. Not to mention the fact that I have said several times, empirical evidence is not always necessary to verify the truthfulness of a claim.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well, but the problem is that you can´t simply define things into existence.
Or else I could postulate the existence of METAGOD - the entity that caused God. In which case God would be caused, by definition.


Your idea that God is uncaused is self-defeating because God, by definition, is caused by METAGOD.

Hail METAGOD!