Let's suppose God did....

[Elioenai26]

If god were as you suggest he is, he would have no problem demonstrating it's existence. Instead, we're having this conversation.

Well now see this is precisely the problem Mr. Bearpaw. The two sentences you just typed are not an answer to the question I posed.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I am not concerned at the present moment about what God is able to do or not able to do. I simply asked for you to give me an example of evidence for God that could not be dismissed as something other than having resulted from God.

If you cannot do this, then just say so.

 

[Freodin]

Oh, everything could be dismissed as being other than having resulted from God. You can always claim other supernatural origins, if you want.

Still, any evidence for something supernatural would be at last giving pause to the naturalistic presupposition.

So, are you going to answer?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Well now see this is precisely the problem Mr. Bearpaw. The two sentences you just typed are not an answer to the question I posed.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I am not concerned at the present moment about what God is able to do or not able to do. I simply asked for you to give me an example of evidence for God that could not be dismissed as something other than having resulted from God.

If you cannot do this, then just say so.

Well now see, that is precisely the point, isn't it. I have no idea, but your god should.

 

[Gadarene]

Well now see, that is precisely the point, isn't it. I have no idea, but your god should.

Yup.

And even if it turns out it is impossible for proof to be obtained - guess what - that still doesn't make it ok to light people on fire for disagreeing with you.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well now see, that is precisely the point, isn't it. I have no idea, but your god should.

Well, Mr. Bearpaw, this is quite a strange situation you find yourself in, at least it seems to me.

1. You are a non-theist.

2. You say you are a non theist because there is no evidence for God.

3. When asked by a theist what would qualify as evidence for God's existence you confess you have no idea.

Since you have no idea what evidence for God's existence would look like or be, then you cannot say that this evidence does not exist. You would have to know what it was in order to be able to say it does not exist. All you can say is that you have no knowledge of whether evidence for God's existence exists or not. It may and it may not. And until you come up with an idea of what this evidence might be so that you can start investigating to see whether or not it exists, then you are definitely not in a position to be arguing against God's existence.

Your knowledge regarding the matter can be classified in one of two ways:

1. Hard Agnosticism - It is impossible for anyone to know if God exists.
2. Soft Agnosticism - I personally do not know, but it is possible to know if God exists.

Hard agnosticism can be eliminated because its position is too presumptuous. The only way to justifiably make that claim is to do so from an omniscient perspective.

Soft agnosticism is a far more feasible and tenable position. It makes no claims either way. God may exist, or He may not.

So you would be more apt at describing yourself as one who is seeking answers to questions you have. You are what is termed a soft agnostic non theist.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yup.

And even if it turns out it is impossible for proof to be obtained - guess what - that still doesn't make it ok to light people on fire for disagreeing with you.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[variant]

The most recent posts from Variant and several others serve to prove my point which I made earlier.

Many atheists ask for evidence for Gods existence and say that if only they had this evidence they would be obligated to believe God existed.

When asked what this evidence would look like, they cannot give an example that could not be explained away as something else other than an act of God.

The implication is that any act of God to demonstrate His existence is a priori impossible.

Therefore, those who maintain this view are not justified in using the absence of evidence as a sound argument for not believing in Gods existence.

And yet I gave an example I would find convincing.

Another example I would give would be if I had witnessed Jesus's ministry first hand as told.

Further If we are to take the Bible as true then God has no specific problem with proving himself first hand.

So, your argument is moot.

 

[Elioenai26]

Onus of proof is on you who claim they're reliable, not on those who reject your claim.

I have provided evidence for my claim.

If anyone rejects it, then they must give good argument(s) and or reason(s) as to why it is rejected and support these arguments and or reasons with sound logic and sound argumentation.

If you start from the a priori assumption that the NT documents are accurate, then any further argument is rendered moot.

Not all arguments based on a priori assumptions are rendered moot by their being based on a priori assumptions which is what I perceive you to be hinting at.

'Liar' is ambiguous - it presumes that all of what Jesus said was a lie, but what if only some things were a lie? And is he still a liar if he genuinely thought they were true, or would he simply be mistaken? If a child answers a question incorrectly, that doesn't make her a liar. So in that same situation, what would that make Jesus? He's not Lord, he's not insane, and he's not a liar - what his he?

Children do not walk around and claim that they can forgive people's sins either. Nor do they claim to be God, or the long awaited Messiah. Children do not walk around and say things like:

27“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.28“So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,30and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’31“So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.32“Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.33“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

34“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,35so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.36“Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Nor do children run around shouting:


37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!39“For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!’”


Jesus claimed to be The Way, The Truth, and The Life, among many other things. He claimed that in His person, the kingdom of God was being revealed. He claimed that the remission of sins was to be proclaimed in His name and that ALL AUTHORITY had been given unto Him in heaven and in earth.

My Dear Friend,

Lewis was attempting to keep you from making the very statements you have just made.

A man who says these things is either:

1. Telling the truth
2. He is not telling the truth.

If He is telling the truth He is God incarnate.

If He is not telling the truth he is either:

1. Mentally ill and he actually thinks he is God incarnate.
2. He is not mentally ill, knows he is not God incarnate, and is intentionally misrepresenting himself.

If he is misrepresenting himself he is either:

1. Some type of sick prankster joker who thinks stuff like this is funny.
2. Intentionally misrepresenting himself for some ulterior motive.

There is no other way out of this for the one who believes Jesus actually said these things. And quite sadly, most non-Christians do see Jesus as some type of "Good teacher" kind of like Ghandi, or Buddha.

This simply is not tenable. Christ did not leave us that option.

Still, Lewis false trichotomy demands that Jesus be declared a 'lair' if he uttered any untruths, so 'liar' is the choice I'll tentatively select.

This is a strawman. Lewis' work does not demand that Jesus be declared a liar if He uttered any untruths. It argues that if you do not infer that Jesus is Lord, or a mentally ill person, then He must necessarily be a liar.

Taking Lewis' usage of the word "liar" and re-defining it is not a good way to argue against the trilemma.

 

[variant]

This was my exact reason in providing the trilemma in the first place to Paradoxum.

Paradoxum specifically stated that she did not take the Bible to be authoritative.

So you are not providing a good argument for denying the credibility of the New Testament documents and you are falsely accusing me of presenting the trilemma for something it was not designed for.

The new testament is incredible without my help. Your misapplying Lewis is your fault not mine.

If you will notice, all the argument requires is for someone to generally accept the fact that Jesus existed and that the sayings recorded in the gospels are His. Paradoxum, the person I presented the trilemma to, if you will notice, has not expressed any misgivings regarding these things.

So she is the most appropriate type of person to present the argument to which renders your statement unnecessary.

Well in the thread I read Paradoxum specifically stated that she did not take the Bible to be authoritative.

Lewis meant to counter the assertion that Jesus was a moral teacher and no more than a moral teacher. This clearly cannot be a tenable position as he demonstrates. If Jesus was just a man, He would be the worst type of man imaginable if He were sane, and if He were not sane, well, then He may have actually thought He was God incarnate. All the evidence we have suggests He was not insane and He was not a megalomaniacal liar nor was He a mythological misrepresentation of some rabbi carpenter.

He was God.

Lewis can only counter this assertion by depending on the entirety of the gospels being true.

If for instance the Gospels are wrong that Jesus claimed to be the son of God or the Messiah for instance his argument falls apart completely.

Any key problem with the Gospels reliability renders Lewis's point moot.

And of course any unbeliever has problems with the reliability of the Gospels, it's kind of our thing.

 

[Elioenai26]

And yet I gave an example I would find convincing.

You mean this:

"a in your face booming "look at me" from a God.."

Another example I would give would be if I had witnessed Jesus's ministry first hand as told.

So, your argument is moot.

Well, now, I do not really see how the argument is moot. In fact, all I asked was for an example of evidence for God that could not be explained away as something else.

So far, you still have not answered the question.

With regards to your quote about the "booming look at me" from God....this could be easily explained away by a number of things....

1. Auditory hallucinations
2. Mental illness
3. Alien intelligence
4. Human agency i.e a loud broadcast of a man's voice via some broadcast
5. Vigorous imagination
6. Wishful thinking

I'm sure there are more, but you get the point.

With regards to your having witnessed Jesus' ministry public ministry which took place centuries ago qualifying as evidence of God's existence:

1. You cannot witness this event and therefore it does not even qualify
2. Even if you had, it could still be explained away as many people did back then.

So you still have yet to answer the question.

 

[Elioenai26]

Lewis can only counter this assertion by depending on the entirety of the gospels being true.

The trilemma is designed for those who agree that the gospels are accurate, but that Jesus was not God. That He was just some "good guy" like some other "good guys" we know i.e. Ghandi, etc...

It was not designed for the stubborn, reluctant atheist who denies Jesus even existed or that the gospels are bogus. But I do not think Paradoxum is a stubborn, reluctant atheist and I do not believe she thinks the gospels are bogus either.

If for instance the Gospels are wrong that Jesus claimed to be the son of God or the Messiah for instance his argument falls apart completely.

Your points are taken. But I really do not care. I did not present the trilemma to you in the first place.

Any key problem with the Gospels reliability renders Lewis's point moot.

And of course any unbeliever has problems with the reliability of the Gospels, it's kind of our thing.

Problems no doubt, but justifying these misgivings is a different matter. One which you have thus far not done well at.

 

[variant]

You mean this:

"a in your face booming "look at me" from a God.."

No I meant the bread.

Perhaps God should just make more bread appear in my refrigerator until I believe.

I would find it unlikely that there was some sort of saintly ninja who would sneak bread into my refrigerator over several months.

The alternative is that that someone else put bread in my refrigerator, and since no one else would know about the experiment I would find it highly unlikely.

With regards to your having witnessed Jesus' ministry public ministry which took place centuries ago qualifying as evidence of God's existence:

1. You cannot witness this event and therefore it does not even qualify
2. Even if you had, it could still be explained away as many people did back then.

So you still have yet to answer the question.

I can witness any similar event. I am saying I would find it convincing first hand.

The standard is what is most likely, not absolute proof, I don't even believe in absolute proof.

Your entire argument is a parade of straw men.

 

[Elioenai26]

No I meant the bread.



The alternative is that that someone else put bread in my refrigerator, and since no one else would know about the experiment I would find it highly unlikely.



I can witness any similar event. I am saying I would find it convincing first hand.

The standard is what is most likely, not absolute proof, I don't even believe in absolute proof.

Your entire argument is a parade of straw men.

Two things quickly:

1. Someone else could have put the bread in the refrigerator or another explanation would be that while bending down to stick it in the fridge, you then stand up quickly causing a rare but possible instantaneous blackout from bending over into the fridge and standing up immediately and develop severe short term memory loss/specified amnesia regarding having put the bread in the fridge. After the fact, you could see the bread and think, hmm..maybe God did it. Obviously, if this amnesia was the cause of you forgetting about putting it in there, then the explanation would be that you in fact did it, but just did not remember. Or atoms could randomly assemble themselves in your fridge to make up a loaf of bread purely by natural causes. Or you could be dreaming that the bread was there...or.... I could go on and on you see..

2. You can witness a person touching a person's eyes and have the person claim that their sight was restored by the one doing the touching. They could be working together and only pretending to be blind. No miracle there. Or, you could have a person that appears to be dead, has taken medications to make their heartbeat and pulse virtually undetectable, made themselves smell like decomposing flesh, even wear special contacts so that when you shine a light in their eye, the pupils do not contract. You could have a man come and say ARISE! and boom the dead man gets up. All explained away. No miracle. You could even have a man that appears to be one legged grow a leg right before your eyes. The man could wear a special device around his leg which allows him to "bend the light" in the area where his actual leg is to give the appearance of no leg being there. This technology exists by the way. He could simply hit a switch and voila, leg! No miracle. A man can appear to walk on water too in several ways without him actually walking on water. And on and on and on we go.

Get my point?

 

[JGG]

The trilemma is designed for those who agree that the gospels are accurate, but that Jesus was not God.

Really? That doesn't make much sense. If one believes the gospels are accurate, does it not follow that they believe Jesus was God? If they don't, then they don't believe the gospels are accurate.

 

[Elioenai26]

Really? That doesn't make much sense. If one believes the gospels are accurate, does it not follow that they believe Jesus was God? If they don't, then they don't believe the gospels are accurate.

I am astonished that this confusion has come up as frequently as it has.

Just because someone believes the gospel accounts are accurate as documents from ancient antiquity, does not mean that they automatically believe Jesus is God incarnate.

It means they may assent to the accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, but when interpreting the accounts, they interpret them to mean something other than what is actually written.

For example, a person can believe that the gospels accurately record Jesus as having healed the sick, but could interpret this to mean something like: "Well Jesus really just cared for the sick"....so on and so forth.

There is a great deal of explaining away that people are capable of doing when it comes to Jesus' teachings and ministry.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I had responded to the rest of your post, but as Lewis' trilemma makes for a very interesting discussion, I'd like to focus there

Children do not walk around and claim that they can forgive people's sins either. Nor do they claim to be God, or the long awaited Messiah. Children do not walk around and say things like:

[snip] Nor do children run around shouting:

[snip]

Jesus claimed to be The Way, The Truth, and The Life, among many other things. He claimed that in His person, the kingdom of God was being revealed. He claimed that the remission of sins was to be proclaimed in His name and that ALL AUTHORITY had been given unto Him in heaven and in earth.

My Dear Friend,

Lewis was attempting to keep you from making the very statements you have just made.

A man who says these things is either:

1. Telling the truth
2. He is not telling the truth.

If He is telling the truth He is God incarnate.

If He is not telling the truth he is either:

1. Mentally ill and he actually thinks he is God incarnate.
2. He is not mentally ill, knows he is not God incarnate, and is intentionally misrepresenting himself.

If he is misrepresenting himself he is either:

1. Some type of sick prankster joker who thinks stuff like this is funny.
2. Intentionally misrepresenting himself for some ulterior motive.

There is no other way out of this for the one who believes Jesus actually said these things.

And quite sadly, most non-Christians do see Jesus as some type of "Good teacher" kind of like Ghandi, or Buddha.

This simply is not tenable. Christ did not leave us that option.

This is a strawman. Lewis' work does not demand that Jesus be declared a liar if He uttered any untruths. It argues that if you do not infer that Jesus is Lord, or a mentally ill person, then He must necessarily be a liar.

So if Jesus' claims to divinity were untrue (i.e., he's not Lord), but he was not mentally ill (i.e., he's not a Lunatic), then the trilemma leaves us with only one possibility: he's a liar. But, what if he didn't know he was wrong about his claims to divinity, instead being quite genuine in his belief that he was God, perhaps coming to this conclusion by specious logic on his part? He isn't a liar by any usual definition, but as I just showed, Lewis' trilemma strongarms him into that pidgeon-hole, so we can only conclude that 'liar' now encompasses the unintentional utterance of untruths.

The point is that the trilemma ignores a very real possibility and in doing so results in one of two things: it either becomes a false trichotomy, or it remains technically a true trichotomy by abusing the definition of 'liar' to encompass unintentional untruths.

Taking Lewis' usage of the word "liar" and re-defining it is not a good way to argue against the trilemma.

My point is that the trichotomy is either false (it precludes very possible alternatives), or it stretches the definitions to their breaking point (making 'liar' encompass the unintentional utterance of an untruth). There's no two ways about it.

The possibility exists that Jesus was simply a sane Rabbi who mistakenly concluded that he was the Messiah (look at Harold Camping or the Millerites for how completely rational people can use specious logic to come to very wrong conclusions). He was sane (so he wasn't a lunatic), he was genuine in his beliefs (so he wasn't a liar), but he was ultimately incorrect (so he wasn't lord). What, then, was he?

 

[JGG]

I will point out again that we are talking about a supernatural entity that you want us to believe in. You can offer no supernatural evidence at all, much less supernatural evidence for this entity.

You then whine and complain that we only observe natural explanations for natural events with only natural evidence.

In order to link natural events with a supernatural cause, we would require supernatural evidence, or evidence of the supernatural at the very least. Since we do not have any particular verifiable concept of the supernatural, nor any way to observe the supernatural, we cannot speculate on what that evidence might be. Therefore, the natural explanation is always going to be more parsimonious.

Do you understand our reservation on the matter at all? What supernatural evidence do you have?

 

[JGG]

I am astonished that this confusion has come up as frequently as it has.

Just because someone believes the gospel accounts are accurate as documents from ancient antiquity, does not mean that they automatically believe Jesus is God incarnate.

It means they may assent to the accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, but when interpreting the accounts, they interpret them to mean something other than what is actually written.

For example, a person can believe that the gospels accurately record Jesus as having healed the sick, but could interpret this to mean something like: "Well Jesus really just cared for the sick"....so on and so forth.

There is a great deal of explaining away that people are capable of doing when it comes to Jesus' teachings and ministry.

Right, but then they necessarily don't believe the gospels are accurate when it says Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

 

[variant]

Two things quickly:

1. Someone else could have put the bread in the refrigerator or another explanation would be that while bending down to stick it in the fridge, you then stand up quickly causing a rare but possible instantaneous blackout from bending over into the fridge and standing up immediately and develop severe short term memory loss/specified amnesia regarding having put the bread in the fridge. After the fact, you could see the bread and think, hmm..maybe God did it. Obviously, if this amnesia was the cause of you forgetting about putting it in there, then the explanation would be that you in fact did it, but just did not remember. Or atoms could randomly assemble themselves in your fridge to make up a loaf of bread purely by natural causes. Or you could be dreaming that the bread was there...or.... I could go on and on you see..

I find the other explanations strained. The point is that it never happened. There is no bread in my refrigerator, I never buy any. I have a security system and live alone.

There are only a couple of explanations, bread ninjas (good enough to get through my security completely undetected and knowledgeable enough to know I need bread in there to believe in God). And yes I could always be going insane but I generally reject that hypothesis anyway.

Spontaneous bread is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

This is about what I find credible, and I find the God hypothesis feasible under these circumstances.

2. You can witness a person touching a person's eyes and have the person claim that their sight was restored by the one doing the touching. They could be working together and only pretending to be blind. No miracle there. Or, you could have a person that appears to be dead, has taken medications to make their heartbeat and pulse virtually undetectable, made themselves smell like decomposing flesh, even wear special contacts so that when you shine a light in their eye, the pupils do not contract. You could have a man come and say ARISE! and boom the dead man gets up. All explained away. No miracle. You could even have a man that appears to be one legged grow a leg right before your eyes. The man could wear a special device around his leg which allows him to "bend the light" in the area where his actual leg is to give the appearance of no leg being there. This technology exists by the way. He could simply hit a switch and voila, leg! No miracle. A man can appear to walk on water too in several ways without him actually walking on water. And on and on and on we go.

Get my point?

No not really. Nor do I think you are a fair judge of how I would react in hypothetical situations.

And again, I don't even believe in absolute proof, just reliable evidence. Your argument is only trying to buttress an idea that I already espouse, that absolute knowledge is impossible.

Give me some reliable evidence like either of the two scenarios mentioned and I am a believer.

Stories from eons ago isn't doing the trick for me.

 

[Elioenai26]

I had responded to the rest of your post, but it all boils down to the same thing. As Lewis' trilemma makes for a very interesting discussion, I'd like to focus there


So if Jesus' claims to divinity were untrue (i.e., he's not Lord), but he was not mentally ill (i.e., he's not a Lunatic), then the trilemma leaves us with only one possibility: he's a liar.

Correct.

But, what if he didn't know he was wrong about his claims to divinity, instead being quite genuine in his belief that he was God, perhaps coming to this conclusion by specious logic on his part? He isn't a liar by any usual definition, but as I just showed, Lewis' trilemma strongarms him into that pidgeon-hole, so we can only conclude that 'liar' now encompasses the unintentional utterance of untruths.

In clinical settings, people who claim to genuinely believe they are God, or Napoleon, or Alexander the Great, or any other person, are diagnosed as suffering from some sort of mental illness. Physicians do not diagnose it as a conclusion arrived at via rational thought processes in a normally functioning brain/mind via "specious logic". This simply is not a viable alternative. It is not strongarming or pidgeon holing anything.

However, ironically, your "specious logic" suggestion reinforces my point that people can come up with all kinds of nonsense to avoid coming to terms with reality. Why not just rather say that a person who really believes they are God and are not, is mentally ill?

The point is that the trilemma ignores a very real possibility and in doing so results in one of two things: it either becomes a false trichotomy, or it remains technically a true trichotomy by abusing the definition of 'liar' to encompass unintentional untruths.

If a person genuinely believes they are God, and are not, then they are deceived about who they really are. However this deception is generated is moot. They are deceived and living a lie. The question is:

Are the accounts we have of Jesus, the accounts of a man who is deceived, and or mentally ill?

My point is that the trichotomy is either false (it precludes very possible alternatives), or it stretches the definitions to their breaking point (making 'liar' encompass the unintentional utterance of an untruth). There's no two ways about it.

He is either God, a liar, or mentally ill, or a combination of the latter two.

The possibility exists that Jesus was simply a sane Rabbi who mistakenly concluded that he was the Messiah (look at Harold Camping or the Millerites for how completely rational people can use specious logic to come to very wrong conclusions). He was sane (so he wasn't a lunatic), he was genuine in his beliefs (so he wasn't a liar), but he was ultimately incorrect (so he wasn't lord). What, then, was he?

If He was not the Messiah, He was deceived. We was wrong about who He was. Since we have accounts of Him performing signs and wonders that would only have been possible if He were God, why not just rather admit He was God?

1. Jesus says He is God
2. He does things only God could do
3. He says things only God could rightfully say

Why not just say He is God?