Let's suppose God did....

[FrenchyBearpaw]

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.

You must have me pegged as someone who swallows lousy arguments quite readily?

If your god existed and wanted me to know about it, he would. As it stands, I have every reason to believe in it's nonexistence. Your claims of such a god existing have failed to meet the burden of proof. Maybe he exists, maybe he doesn't, but at this point, there is insufficient evidence to convict him of his existence. Agnostic is a statement of knowledge, and atheism a statement of belief.

Your god could, if he wanted to, could spin the Milky Way in a different direction, and let Hovind announce it from his prison cell five minutes before he does it. How's that?

 

[Elioenai26]

Spontaneous bread is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

And the spontaneous, unguided, purposeless, generation of life from rocks by purely naturalistic means is not dumb?

 

[Elioenai26]

You must have me pegged as someone who swallows lousy arguments quite readily?

If your god existed and wanted me to know about it, he would. As it stands, I have every reason to believe in it's nonexistence. Your claims of such a god existing have failed to meet the burden of proof. Maybe he exists, maybe he doesn't, but at this point, there is insufficient evidence to convict him of his existence. Agnostic is a statement of knowledge, and atheism a statement of belief.

Your god could, if he wanted to, could spin the Milky Way in a different direction, and let Hovind announce it from his prison cell five minutes before he does it. How's that?

He could do that.

But you currently are a soft agnostic non theist. That is all I am saying. I would encourage you to keep searching for the truth. I wish you well.

 

[variant]

And the spontaneous, unguided, purposeless, generation of life from rocks by purely naturalistic means is not dumb?

And how are those two proposed processes comparable?

Should I take it that you're done with straw-man arguments about what sort of evidence I would find necessary for God to be feasible?

 

[variant]

He could do that.

But you currently are a soft agnostic non theist. That is all I am saying. I would encourage you to keep searching for the truth. I wish you well.

He's an atheist same as me.

Atheism includes everyone who lacks belief in Gods.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Another very realistic possibility lays in the fact that the gospels were written decades after Jesus's purported life, and his exploits were passed around by oral tradition in the intervening years. You're basically playing a 50 year long game of telephone.

For example, if at a specific moment in his life he had 20 followers who were hungry, and he was able to either buy, or get food donated to his followers so they should be able to eat.... 50 years later that can easily turn into a story where he miracled food into existence and fed thousands.

So Jesus himself may not have been a lunatic, liar or lord. Legend applies to this one, because although the original story may have truth to it, the story that exists today has been blown out of proportion to such an extent it is best considered mythical.

And of course, to counter another theistic objection to this idea, these exaggerations would be carried out completely independent of the storytellers having any personal gain or anything of the sort in it. People like to exaggerate stories, it's something humans do.



* Note: I should clarify I'm not asserting this is what actually happened with the Jesus feeding the multitudes story, I'm just saying it's a plausible possibility for what may have happened. I'd also say this possibility is more plausible than the actual story itself.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

And the spontaneous, unguided, purposeless, generation of life from rocks by purely naturalistic means is not dumb?

I dare you to find a single scientific source that defines abiogenesis in this way.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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".

Because it is unlikely for a sane person in the 21st century to conclude they are the Messiah - in our modern, Western culture, we rightly deride the idea of someone claiming to be the Messiah, so only the mentally ill persist in this claim. However, we're talking about 1st century Galilean Rabbi, who is not a part of our culture, and would not be so predisposed to reject the conclusion that he is the Messiah.

Much like how Harold Camping and the Millerites inferred from the Bible that the Second Coming was in 2011 and 1843, respectively, Jesus could have been a Rabbi who, through his reading of the texts, erroneously concluded that he fit the various Messianic prophecies. This error does not make him mentally ill.

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?

Quite simply, because they might not be, and because it would be a horrifically irrational and irresponsible conclusion to come to.

People believe all sorts of rubbish, but that doesn't automatically make them insane. Someone can be a Creationist because the genuinely (and erroneously) believe the evidence supports their case - they could simply be unaware of what the evidence really is. Are they insane? No. Are they lying? No. They're simply mistaken.

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?

If he really isn't God, then he be deceived (by himself or by others), he could mentally ill, or he could be both.

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

I disagree - he could be simply mistaken, which would mean he's none of the above.

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?

Because I disagree with premises.

First, we only have the NT's word that those things are true, but are they? Scholars generally agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but there's no evidence he was anything more than a mundane Galilean Rabbi.

Second, it's incorrect that he said things only God could say - any lunatic can say them, and any mistaken (but otherwise sane) person could genuinely say them.

Third, it's incorrect that he did things only God could do - anyone can walk on water in the winter Even if he did do the things alleged of him (water into wine, calming the storm, raising the dead, etc), that doesn't prove he's God, only that he's sufficient powerful to do those things. I posit that wholly natural aliens fabricated the entire thing - how would you tell the difference? If you can't, then your claim is wrong.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

And the spontaneous, unguided, purposeless, generation of life from rocks by purely naturalistic means is not dumb?

No, that's pretty dumb.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

He could do that.

But you currently are a soft agnostic non theist. That is all I am saying. I would encourage you to keep searching for the truth. I wish you well.

I don't believe in god/s, so atheist. I will keep searching for the truth, it's how I ended up atheist. And I wish you well, also. May you find what you need.

 

[pjnlsn]

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.



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.




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.



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.

And yet, while the back and forth between you and the other atheists is interesting on a personal level (at least one side of it), it still doesn't effect the potential or the state of a proof of a deity, as i've detailed.

 

[Elioenai26]

And how are those two proposed processes comparable?

Should I take it that you're done with straw-man arguments about what sort of evidence I would find necessary for God to be feasible?

You say bread appearing spontaneously in your fridge all by itself is dumb.

I say it is dumb to think that the universe could just spontaneously appear one day all by itself. I say it is dumb to think we humans could be the result of some change over time which began when natural processes just spontaneously made life appear one day all by itself.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, that's pretty dumb.

I am glad you agree.

 

[Elioenai26]

He's an atheist same as me.

Atheism includes everyone who lacks belief in Gods.

You, like him, could also be more precisely labeled as a soft agnostic non-theist.

It does'nt have the hardness and arrogance that is usually associated with the term "atheism" however. In fact, describing oneself as a soft agnostic non-theist is far more charitable and self-deprecating and therefore should be preferable, if one desires to be self-deprecating that is....

 

[Elioenai26]

I dare you to find a single scientific source that defines abiogenesis in this way.

Scientists who believe that rubbish would not dare describe it so baldly and plainly as I have, for then people would be more readily able to discern it for the rubbish it is.

So I do not think I will be able to answer your challenge.

 

[variant]

You say bread appearing spontaneously in your fridge all by itself is dumb.

Yep. I would prefer it happened many times so that I could easily rule out any such ridiculousness though and attribute it directly to a force beyond my comprehension that is trying to tell me something.

I say it is dumb to think that the universe could just spontaneously appear one day all by itself.

Maybe it is. Spontaneous or eternal Gods don't solve the issue though, we know even less about why they would exist.

I say it is dumb to think we humans could be the result of some change over time which began when natural processes just spontaneously made life appear one day all by itself.

So, since you're an expert on the subject: How complex would biological life need to be in order to start the process of self replication and would that be more or less likely as bread spontaneously forming in my refrigerator?

What conditions would cause spontaneous bread formation in a refrigerator? Are they even possible? Maybe you could walk me through that one too.

 

[variant]

You, like him, could also be more precisely labeled as a soft agnostic non-theist.

It does'nt have the hardness and arrogance that is usually associated with the term "atheism" however. In fact, describing oneself as a soft agnostic non-theist is far more charitable and self-deprecating and therefore should be preferable, if one desires to be self-deprecating that is....

I describe in terms of accuracy not emotionalism. Atheism encompass all people who lack positive beliefs in any God's deitys or deity like creatures.

It has more to do with me knowing what Atheist means.

Why would I desire to be self-depreciating with regards to my beliefs or lack there of?

 

[Elioenai26]

Because it is unlikely for a sane person in the 21st century to conclude they are the Messiah - in our modern, Western culture, we rightly deride the idea of someone claiming to be the Messiah, so only the mentally ill persist in this claim. However, we're talking about 1st century Galilean Rabbi, who is not a part of our culture, and would not be so predisposed to reject the conclusion that he is the Messiah.

Much like how Harold Camping and the Millerites inferred from the Bible that the Second Coming was in 2011 and 1843, respectively, Jesus could have been a Rabbi who, through his reading of the texts, erroneously concluded that he fit the various Messianic prophecies. This error does not make him mentally ill.

So now you want to tell me that Jesus was wrong about who He was. You seem to know the man better than He knew Himself!

And what of the miracles, signs and wonders?

Let me guess, we disregard them??

Take everything else, just disregard the miracle stuff.

Why?

This is my point. You are proving it even now. Any explanation other than the one we are given. Miracles cannot happen, therefore, they did not happen. That is circular reasoning by the way.

First, we only have the NT's word that those things are true, but are they? Scholars generally agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but there's no evidence he was anything more than a mundane Galilean Rabbi.

Do you have a source(s) for that assertion?

Second, it's incorrect that he said things only God could say - any lunatic can say them, and any mistaken (but otherwise sane) person could genuinely say them.

Strawman.

I used the phrase "rightfully say" because I knew you would say what you just said. Please read what I wrote.

Third, it's incorrect that he did things only God could do - anyone can walk on water in the winter Even if he did do the things alleged of him (water into wine, calming the storm, raising the dead, etc), that doesn't prove he's God, only that he's sufficient powerful to do those things. I posit that wholly natural aliens fabricated the entire thing - how would you tell the difference? If you can't, then your claim is wrong.

This portion right here is what I have been waiting for all along.

Thank you.

 

[Elioenai26]

I describe in terms of accuracy not emotionalism. Atheism encompass all people who lack positive beliefs in any God's deitys or deity like creatures.

It has more to do with me knowing what Atheist means.

It is just kind of sad that atheists cannot agree amongst themselves what "atheism" means.

But you seem to have it all figured out.

 

[variant]

It is just kind of sad that atheists cannot agree amongst themselves what "atheism" means.

But you seem to have it all figured out.

"atheists" aren't having a discussion about this you and I are.

Frankly though I've seen you get into this discussion often and are always pushing your stilted definition.

I meet the odd person who calls them-self an agnostic and holds no positive God beliefs and I disagree with their terms, but I rarely find myself disagreeing with other atheists on the subject.