Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[KCfromNC]

Which parts of reality?

In my experience, the parts of reality dismissed are those which disagree with the religious beliefs of the person making the "we're not 100% certain" argument.

 

[TillICollapse]

I have no power. If I quote God's word, it's Him speaking, not me. You don't have to like it.

So what appears to be a bullet wound, is evidence. Finding the bullet, is proof.

Right now this is you quoting a translated version of a manuscript, which in and of itself has disputed authenticity in the very chapter which you quote from (chapter 8), and has disputed authorship as a whole. Yet you are claiming that when you quote it, it isn't even you, it's God speaking.

Where is the bullet wound and bullet in this scenario ? How do you go from you typing out words on a forum, to, "It's not me, it's God." Because I assume you are not God, I assume the author(s) of the Gospel of John are not God, nor are the translators, etc. Are you suddenly God ? It is you typing out the words, right ? Where is the evidence and where is the proof, that it's not you quoting scriptures, but it's God doing it ?

 

[Kirsten]

In my experience, the parts of reality dismissed are those which disagree with the religious beliefs of the person making the "we're not 100% certain" argument.

Throw me a bone.

 

[Kirsten]

So what appears to be a bullet wound, is evidence. Finding the bullet, is proof.

Right now this is you quoting a translated version of a manuscript, which in and of itself has disputed authenticity in the very chapter which you quote from (chapter 8), and has disputed authorship as a whole. Yet you are claiming that when you quote it, it isn't even you, it's God speaking.

There are perhaps very minute differences between the original texts and the translated versions.

Where is the bullet wound and bullet in this scenario ? How do you go from you typing out words on a forum, to, "It's not me, it's God." Because I assume you are not God, I assume the author(s) of the Gospel of John are not God, nor are the translators, etc. Are you suddenly God ? It is you typing out the words, right ? Where is the evidence and where is the proof, that it's not you quoting scriptures, but it's God doing it ?

I believe you were not following my posts. I was simply describing the difference between evidence and proof.

 

[Joshua260]

Too bad your holy book fails to mention these "three centers of self-consciousness."

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Joshua260]

It depends on your particular "God" concept. Does your "God" concept require that the Earth be less than 10000 years old, and that the Earth's population of animals, including humans, are descendants of a tiny group that survived, in a boat that cannot be built, a global flood that left no evidence, missed wiping out the Chinese civilization of the time, yet killed all the dinosaurs in a manner that give palaeontologists the impression through independent and repeatable methodology that it happened more than 65 millions years ago, in almost complete contrast to almost all of modern scientific knowledge on geology, genetics, astronomy, and astrophysics?

That "God" concept is not coherent to me.

You are confusing believability in coherency.

 

[lumberjohn]

You are confusing believability in coherency.

Are you saying that we should believe in something that is not coherent? Isn't coherency a necessary condition of believability? What possible justification could you have for believing in an incoherent concept? One of the main problems I've always had with those advocating Christian belief is that they fail to adequately demonstrate the coherency of the creedal prerequisites.

 

[HitchSlap]

Inspired by God in which most prophetic words contained therein have come to pass.



Many people reject God's word but ultimately, it will never return void because His word is more powerful than anything you or I can possible imagine.

Ok.

 

[Joshua260]

Are you saying that we should believe in something that is not coherent? Isn't coherency a necessary condition of believability? What possible justification could you have for believing in an incoherent concept? One of the main problems I've always had with those advocating Christian belief is that they fail to adequately demonstrate the coherency of the creedal prerequisites.

Maybe you have not read through the thread. We were discussing the trinity, which is not incoherent as some suggest.

 

[TillICollapse]

There are perhaps very minute differences between the original texts and the translated versions.

I believe you were not following my posts. I was simply describing the difference between evidence and proof.

I was speaking to your claim that it wasn't you speaking, but God, when you quoted a passage from the Bible.

What do you identify as evidence and proof that it is God speaking when you are quoting the scripture ? IOW, how do you support that statement with evidence and proof ? I'm trying to use terms the way I saw you using them previously.

 

[Davian]

You are confusing believability in coherency.

It would seem like you are trying differentiate between a silvery thing with gills that swims in the water, and a fish.

 

[Joshua260]

It would seem like you are trying differentiate between a silvery thing with gills that swims in the water, and a fish.

You don't seem to understand what coherency means.
Here's a definition:
"Marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts".

Nowhere in that definition does it say that the subject has to be believable. Believability is a different concept. Things can be unbelievable (such as sci-fi and fantasy) yet still maintain coherency.

 

[Davian]

You don't seem to understand what coherency means.
Here's a definition:
"Marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts".

Nowhere in that definition does it say that the subject has to be believable. Believability is a different concept. Things can be unbelievable (such as sci-fi and fantasy) yet still maintain coherency.

And from what I gather, incoherency does not preclude believability. My point was, for the god concept I described in that post, I found it to be both unbelievable and incoherent. It may be that you can parse out a difference there, but all I see is a fish.

 

[Joshua260]

... unbelievable and incoherent. It may be that you can parse out a difference there, but all I see is a fish.

The concept of coherency and believability are as different as apples and cereal. As I explained, one can write a totally unbelievable, yet coherent sci-fi or fantasy story. In fact, that is one of the traits of good sci-fi/fantasy...that the creator of that tale has created logic that is maintained throughout (coherent). If you want an example of an incoherent sci-fi or fantasy story, ask a three year old to write one.

 

[Davian]

The concept of coherency and believability are as different as apples and cereal.

Yet both eluded that god concept I described earlier.

As I explained, one can write a totally unbelievable, yet coherent sci-fi or fantasy story. In fact, that is one of the traits of good sci-fi/fantasy...that the creator of that tale has created logic that is maintained throughout (coherent). If you want an example of an incoherent sci-fi or fantasy story, ask a three year old to write one.

That would be off-topic, as you often say. What I have yet to see is a coherent god concept, of the Biblical type.

 

[Achilles6129]

Which implies you're talking about stuff even you don't understand.

I guess I should have said "the way time works in this universe." I think that we can understand that God has his own time which runs differently for him than it does in our universe. The question "what came before" only applies when time works as it does in our universe. Elsewhere, if time works differently (as it would have to, in this instance), the question need not apply.

As can any number of other imaginary things.

Like? When I see a car or airplane, I deduce an intelligent designer, not a tree. When I see a universe, I deduce an intelligent designer. Please explain to me what other reasonable possibility there is.

 

[Davian]

I guess I should have said "the way time works in this universe." I think that we can understand that God has his own time which runs differently for him than it does in our universe.

How do you know this?

...
Like? When I see a car or airplane, I deduce an intelligent designer, not a tree. When I see a universe, I deduce an intelligent designer. Please explain to me what other reasonable possibility there is.

You have yet to establish an "intelligent designer" as a reasonable possibility. I am comfortable with "I don't know".

What would you give as an example of something not designed?

 

[nonbeliever314]

You didn't answer the question.

Why is it more reasonable that an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" created the universe as opposed to an intelligent Creator God? In point of fact, you have to show that an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" could somehow give birth to a universe as complex as ours and one that has creatures with intelligence in it. In other words, you have a much longer way to go than anyone who believes in a Creator God.

What is the intelligent creator God made out of? If you can't give me a reasonable answer to that, that's my reason why God is more unreasonable.

 

[nonbeliever314]

That's it???
I thought we were going to discuss the KCa? You only said one thing about p2, I showed you where your objection was incorrect, and then that's it! I thought you were going to "shred" the KCA?? You barely even spoke about it. Very disappointing.

Still waiting for a response to the rest of what I said.... You ignored it all and tried to make yourself look like you won an argument.

 

[KCfromNC]

I guess I should have said "the way time works in this universe." I think that we can understand that God has his own time which runs differently for him than it does in our universe.

How exactly do you understand "God's time" to work. What testable model do you have for this idea and what successful predictions has it made?

The question "what came before" only applies when time works as it does in our universe. Elsewhere, if time works differently (as it would have to, in this instance), the question need not apply.

Don't think I didn't notice the subtle attempt to shift from "we understand there's a different type of time for gods" to "if there is a different type of time for gods".

So do you have any evidence of how time works elsewhere? Sounds like you're just making up guesses and hoping for the best. Like I said before - talking about stuff that you can't possibly claim to know.

Like? When I see a car or airplane, I deduce an intelligent designer, not a tree. When I see a universe, I deduce an intelligent designer. Please explain to me what other reasonable possibility there is.

Another possibility is that there's no intelligent designer, obviously. We know cars are designed because we see humans design, build and repair them. Unless you have examples of a supernatural designer god doing the same, there's no comparison. And as I remember, you couldn't even produce examples of a supernatural god in the first place, much less examples of one designing things.