100 pages! Did we get anywhere?
It just kind of seems odd, that a claimed almighty God would instead rely upon philosophers, Christian apologists, and a few others, to put forth arbitrary arguments in support of His existence.
As opposed to what? An almighty God coming and living amongst us in person?
Let's be realistic--Christianity's claims for just how God has made his presence known are pretty spectacular. But one of the major themes of the Gospel is the coming of the kingdom of God, not empirically proving his existence to all and sundry, so maybe it's never been about proof?
Maybe the point was the triumph of the Christian humanistic ethos over the classical system of virtues? Just because humans may be obsessed with rational demonstration doesn't mean that God cares about such things at all.
I am not denying that non-functional vestigial organs exist, it depends on the situation and the organ. But the ones you mention are just the result of adaptation within a species or genera, ie microevolution. They are not the result of macroevolution. But far more of the so-called vestigial organs DO have functions especially ones that are necessary for survival. Such as the human appendix. Nevertheless, my initial statement remains unrefuted, if macroevolution were true there would far more non-functional vestigial organs in living things and in fossil organisms. But they are not there.It might be better, Ed, if you did a bit of research on evolution before discussing it. A discussion forum is not really the place to learn about a subject. Once you have learned what scientists actually think about evolution, you'll be in a better position to debate it.
Oh, and by the way:
CB360: Function of vestigial organs.
"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."
Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.
Yea, let's be realistic--Why bother presenting, both 'pre-resurrection' and 'post resurrection', to all desired on lookers, including 'doubting Thomas', 'Sal of Tarsus', etc...? If what you state were true, then just state that 'human sin has been paid.'
Post a book, not filled with anecdotal tales. And don't tell perspective members, in this same Book, that if they don't believe, they are doomed. The entire premise of this Book, is to present 'historical' evidence, from 'antiquity', that His existence was known to be true, both 'pre and post mortem'.
No, instead, God relied upon claimed anecdotal tales of 'eye-witnesses' from an ancient book. And now, we get to also read the many presented 'arguments' to boot. Weee!
Beg to differ... Again, why even make sure to bother presenting to onlookers with miracles? Such an action, if 'true', leads one to believe that God cares that there exists 'evidence.'
But again, as stated prior, it's a book of anecdotal tales, much like other opposing books you reject.
Here you are assuming what we are trying to prove. Every eye is functional because they are created and designed that way. But if evolution were true that would not be the case because some parts of the eye need to be there in full form for the eye to function but if there are tiny changes that occur over long periods of time, how is the timing of the structures going to coalesce so that they work together to maintain the function thru basically random unguided processes? The chance is astronomical to the point of being 0.Yes. I’m inferring that every step of the eye’s evolution served some function because if they didn’t, there would be no selective pressure towards that step and the “step” wouldn’t come to exist in the first place. It would instead just be a mutation that showed up in some individuals. Any progress toward a “better” eye would not build off of that mutation, but rather the last existing functional structure. That’s how natural selection works.
Now, it is possible for biological structures to lose all or most of their function due to redundancy or obsolescence. This happens when other structures evolve to do that structure’s job or when that structure’s job is simply not used by the organism anymore. This is what is meant by vestigial organs. It’s not contradictory to the principle of natural selection, it’s a direct result of it.
I’m telling you this all from the top of my head. It’s very basic biology, so if you’re not familiar with this information I would suggest reading up on how evolution works on Google or even at your local library before you jump straight into arguing that evolution isn’t real because look at our eyes.
I have literally no idea what you're talking about. How is God presenting 'pre-Resurrection' and 'post-Resurrection' to all desired onlookers (whatever that means)? How is he posting books? Who said that the premise of the New Testament is to present historical evidence from antiquity? I'm pretty sure the Early Church finally wrote things down as a teaching tool for their own congregations, not because they were thinking of people 2000 years in the future.
As for reading presented arguments, you certainly don't have to. If you're masochistic enough to come here and spend 100 pages fighting in a thread this silly, that's on you. It's certainly not evidence against the existence of God, or even against the strength of theistic arguments.
Not really. Look at something like the Temptation of Christ, where the third one is basically challenging him to work miracles at the will of another, or Lazarus and the Rich Man, where the miraculous option is ruled out.
It's just not the case that God, as portrayed in the New Testament, cares to condescend to other people's perceptions about what sufficient evidence ought to look like.
Quit with the tired ad hominems. I have a lot more respect for the sacred scriptures of other religions than you seem to, since I wouldn't describe any of them as "books of anecdotal tales." Much of what other religions have produced is pretty profound.
Since humans are emotional beings and not robots, of course, emotion is involved, it is also involved in people who become atheists. But generally most humans also believe that they change their view based on evidence and reasoning. So in most cases it is a combination of both. Two somewhat famous former atheists are Hugh Ross and C.S. Lewis who converted because of the evidence and logical arguments and there are many others who I dont remember their names right now. And some no one would know. There is no real evidence Anthony Flew was senile, atheists only said that after he became a theist. But he did not become a Christian. There is nothing about atheists being any more about the evidence than Christians, there are emotions and other factors for them also. Such as not wanting to be held accountable for their time or being faced with peer pressure. This often happens with scientists, they dont want their colleagues to think are some backward fundie and possibly lose their job.Ed1wolf said: ↑
I have met several former atheists and agnostics that were converted by similar arguments for God and read about dozens more.
ia: Really? I should be interested in seeing those. I've seen plenty of testimonies from people who became Christians, and almost all of them were based on emotional experiences.
You may find this article interesting: How Could an Atheist Convert to Christianity?
It's about how three atheists became Christians. One of them was going senile. The second made it clear he was not converting for intellectual reasons. And the third converted because she was surrounded by Catholics.
If there really were good arguments for Christianity, then plenty of atheists would convert. They would follow the evidence. But of course, there aren't.
In post #1983 you stated 'But one of the major themes of the Gospel is the coming of the kingdom of God, not empirically proving his existence to all and sundry, so maybe it's never been about proof?'
God made sure He sent Himself down to earth, in human form to teach stuff, perform miracles, and then return from death, all to demonstrate He was a Messiah; in front of humans whom would later write stuff down, and claim He fulfilled prophecy.
And BTW:
Anecdotal: '(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research'
And now we are to believe these anecdotal tales. And if we do not, we are doomed; according to the later writings...
Well, you're here too, so there's that
If you should have 'evidence' for the existence of God, I'm ready to hear it...
Again, tell that to 'doubting Thomas', just for starters... There exists stories of Jesus performing miracles for many to witness. You don't think God did as such to assure such acts would later be written down, to use as 'evidence'? ...Anecdotal evidence...
Text being profound is one thing. Such books also mentioning supernatural tales, is quite another. Or, do you believe that of all the supernatural tales proclaimed, from such opposing doctrines, as well?
I see no reason why supernatural tales from a variety of different cultures could not simultaneously be true. I don't think they are, anymore than I think the Old Testament tales are, but they're hardly conflicting.
I don't understand your argument, though. You claim that God intended for "anecdotal" evidence to exist, and then complain because the evidence that exists is "anecdotal"? I think you're using the word incorrectly, because we're not dealing with statistical analysis where anecdotal evidence is problematic, but that set aside, your complaint here makes very little sense.
I think we did, yes. Given a hundred lengthy pages to work in, the Christians were unable to offer convincing evidence for God. I think it seems reasonable that, if they did have such evidence they would by now have stated it. Ergo, they do not. Lacking evidence for the existence of God, the only sensible thing to do is for us all to be a-theistic.100 pages! Did we get anywhere?
No idea what you mean, I'm afraid. Perhaps you could clarify your point, if you have one?Your are circularly deducing the concept of "supernatural" in this case. If God exist, then whatever nature is, would be an extension of that God. In an Apophatic sense, God would be closer to "conscious nothing" that gives rise to reality of events. It's no more magical than (in loose analogy) the BIOS software in your computer boots up the OS.
God would be the ultimate nature of reality. Hence, it wouldn't be "supernatural" for reality to exist as an extension of God. There's nothing illogical about making such hypothetical assumption and then tracing its implication on observable reality.
Without SOME concept of God, the problem of ordered experience in context of the consciousness that matches that experience would be rather difficult to explain. For example, there is no inherent reason why we need conscious experience. To this day, there's no viable conceptual theory behind why evolution would result in consciousness as byproduct. Hence, it's no less "magical" than invoking conscious being that was there all along, both experiencing reality, and structuring its contents.
Of itself, it's not a definitive demonstration of God. But it merely points in the direction away from what we are used to as "naturalism".
Perhaps you'd like to reread what you posted there? Your point is incoherent, and Pope Benedict's writings do nothing to back it up. His saying that the God exists and that He is conscious does not in any way imply, as you seem to think, that reality is subjective. You'll need to actually give evidence and reasoning, I'm afraid. As it is, your point is nonsensical, and the sources you back it up with, don't."Thus all three paths [monotheism, polytheism, atheism] are convinced of the unity and uniqueness of the absolute; where they differ is only in their notion of the manner in which man has to deal with the absolute or, alternatively, of how the absolute behaves towards him. If--to treat the question very schematically--monotheism starts from the assumption that the absolute is consciousness, which knows man and can speak to him, for materialism the absolute, being matter, is devoid of all personal predicates and can in no way be brought into contact with the concepts of call and answer; the most one could say is that man himself must liberate what is divine from matter, so that he would then no longer have God behind him as something that had gone before him but only in front of him as something to be creatively effected by him, as his own better future. Finally, polytheism can be closely related to both monotheism and atheism, because the powers of which it speaks imply the oneness of a supporting power, which can be thought of in either way. Thus it would not be difficult to show how in antiquity polytheism went perfectly well with a metaphysical atheism but was also combined with philosophical monotheism."
Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Introduction to Christianity, pg 109
At least in the Anglo tradition, the term "theism" is usually identified with the "philosophical monotheism" that's being discussed here--that's why we have concepts like "classical theism" and "philosophical theism," both of which are very explicitly monotheistic. I would probably challenge the use of the word "monotheism" to describe concepts like the Neoplatonic One or Brahman within the major forms of Hinduism, since they're not really personal in quite the same way that the Abrahamic God is, but these still involve the claim that the absolute is consciousness, so most people, myself included, would wrap them under the label of "theism." This is the standard understanding of the word within philosophy of religion.
My claim that theism entails that reality is in some sense ultimately subjective in nature, i.e., that it is personal, is not something I made up. It's really just a paraphrase of saying that "the absolute is consciousness," since the mark of consciousness is subjectivity. If you were to read literature like the Neoplatonists, many of the early Church Fathers, the Upanishads, and so forth and so on, you would see that the absolute being ultimately subjective is really the common denominator.
Of course, you can continue to disagree with me, with Pope Benedict XVI, with the entire theistic tradition going back at least 2500 years. Or you can admit that perhaps you don't know as much about theism as people who actually study theology.
The basic flaw of the cosmological argument, as we have seen displayed many times throughout this thread, is special pleading. Basically, you say that it is impossible for the Universe to have come into existence, except by an entity which - what good luck! - matches the God of your religion. But, as cvanwey and I have both pointed out, if we allow for the existence of the supernatural, there are an endless amount of possible universe-creators, including wizards, virtually every other god or goddess ever imagined, universe-creating pixies, theFlying Spaghetti Monster...If you allow for magic, anything goes. And any argument you could use against any of these either falls apart (for example, the Bandwagon Fallacy you were guilty of earlier) or also invalidates the God of the Bible.What special pleading?
Nonsense. This isn't even an argument to be rebutted. All it is is your simplistic views of history. The existence of "good" societies proves nothing at all, I'm afraid.Given that entire societies being generally good and moving in the direction of good are very rare, so if such societies exist that would show that there may be a force outside of the natural forces working in such societies. The few societies where this is occurring were all founded on Christian principles thereby providing some evidence that the Christian God exists, though not proving it.
Basically, Ed, what you need is evidence that God exists. When you have some, we'll be able to talk. But you don't.Since humans are emotional beings and not robots, of course, emotion is involved, it is also involved in people who become atheists. But generally most humans also believe that they change their view based on evidence and reasoning. So in most cases it is a combination of both. Two somewhat famous former atheists are Hugh Ross and C.S. Lewis who converted because of the evidence and logical arguments and there are many others who I dont remember their names right now. And some no one would know. There is no real evidence Anthony Flew was senile, atheists only said that after he became a theist. But he did not become a Christian. There is nothing about atheists being any more about the evidence than Christians, there are emotions and other factors for them also. Such as not wanting to be held accountable for their time or being faced with peer pressure. This often happens with scientists, they dont want their colleagues to think are some backward fundie and possibly lose their job.
Strawman argument.As opposed to what? An almighty God coming and living amongst us in person?
By all means!Let's be realistic
Thank you, Silmarien. I think you've just provided the perfect ending for this thread. We started with "Arguments for the Existence of God" and now you come and inform us that there are none.Christianity's claims for just how God has made his presence known are pretty spectacular. But one of the major themes of the Gospel is the coming of the kingdom of God, not empirically proving his existence to all and sundry, so maybe it's never been about proof? Maybe the point was the triumph of the Christian humanistic ethos over the classical system of virtues? Just because humans may be obsessed with rational demonstration doesn't mean that God cares about such things at all.
If God exists and the Christian religion is accurate, then that is a very strange thing indeed.The crux of my argument is that God, in the claims of the Bible, asserts that belief is required; or the starting point. And belief also requires 'faith' in anecdotal stories. Well, the ones that do not buy such stories are 'unsaved', according to Jesus. I find it odd, that God's best plan, is to have humans write a 66 chapter book, expect all to believe it, and if some do not, tell them they are doomed.
Yes, you don't understand my argument
My point is that the Bible is really the only claim to your believed God, if this is what you actually believe?.?.?. And since many of the Bible's claims do not appear to comport with my reality, I have since concluded that I cannot believe in such claims. And God, in this later published book, asks that I believe them. And if I do not, I am doomed.
And it would appear that God's best line of 'evidence' may be anecdotal in nature. (i.e.) The writers of the Bible and their claims. Well, I no more believe the supernatural based anecdotal tales of the Bible, than I do from any other competing book. Especially when even some of the falsifiable claims may have been falsified.
The crux of my argument is that God, in the claims of the Bible, asserts that belief is required; or the starting point. And belief also requires 'faith' in anecdotal stories. Well, the ones that do not buy such stories are 'unsaved', according to Jesus. I find it odd, that God's best plan, is to have humans write a 66 chapter book, expect all to believe it, and if some do not, tell them they are doomed.
So though you may disagree, I trust you now understand my position? I'm not buying the story line. And if I'm incorrect, in my honest efforts in trying to believe prior, I'm doomed; if I'm wrong.
No, I'm still having trouble parcing what you're trying to say here. It seems like you're now arguing that anyone who does not accept a literal, inerrant view of Scripture and fully and completely believe everything in the Old Testament is doomed to hell? And because this threat is so clear, God cannot exist, because if he existed, he ought to make it obvious to everyone that Noah's Flood really happened? Is this your claim?
I think it's an objection that has teeth against certain interpretations of damnation, but none of them are required by Christianity, much less by theism more generally. I'm not going to say that beliefs don't matter, but I don't think they matter in quite the same way we generally think.
Silmarien, Ed, gradyll, anyone else who's listening: I know you're going to ignore this, or furiously deny it, or try to dismiss it; but what you won't do it post the evidence that would win you the argument. You can't, because you don't have any.
Perhaps you'd like to reread what you posted there? Your point is incoherent, and Pope Benedict's writings do nothing to back it up. His saying that the God exists and that He is conscious does not in any way imply, as you seem to think, that reality is subjective. You'll need to actually give evidence and reasoning, rather than simply quoting someone who used the same word as you.
Strawman argument.
No, the answer that @cvanwey and I both propose is that the alternative to God providing no evidence of His existence is that He provides good evidence of His existence. And, if the stories of the Bible are to be trusted, there should be plenty of evidence that God is real and that the Christian religion is accurate. Of course, there isn't, because He isn't and it isn't.
Thank you, Silmarien. I think you've just provided the perfect ending for this thread. We started with "Arguments for the Existence of God" and now you come and inform us that there are none.
Thank you.
Hence, in my honest assessment/conclusion, I have walked away from my prior 'faith', as I can no longer believe in this book any more than you believe in some opposing 'holy book.'
However, the premise appears pretty dang clear. If you do not accept Jesus as your gateway, you are doomed. So, if I'm wrong about my conclusion, I'm doomed.
So if you have 'evidence for God's existence', bring it. If not, then why are YOU here; lurking upon 100 pages of squabbling?
As I thoughtI'm a Platonist, lol. How could I possibly provide evidence for a position you refuse to admit even exists?
No, that's not the problem. The problem is that you make points that don't make sense and then try to rescue them. We are not interested in what "traditional Catholic and Orthodox" views on classical theism are; you said that "The whole underlying thesis of theism is that reality is in some sense ultimately subjective in nature (i.e., that it is personal)". Theism, you said. Not one particular flavour of it.I think the problem here is that you do not understand traditional Catholic and Orthodox classical theism. Ratzinger does not say that "God is conscious," but rather that "the absolute is consciousness."
If reality is conscious - and that is a huge "if", not worth considering except as an amusing thought experiment, without some reason to consider it so - then your assertion that reality is subjective still does not follow. By your own arguments: God is reality, God is conscious, therefore reality is conscious - but that doesn't mean that my reality or your reality is subjective, any more than the fact that a person can think and a brick cannot means that the brick is real and the person is not.You'll find that people who adhere to the traditional Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of God do not view God as a concrete immaterial being amongst others. We tend to take one of two approaches--God is Being Itself, or God is Beyond Being. In both cases, God is in some sense identified with reality itself, so if God is consciousness, then yes, we can say that reality is fundamentally, intrinsically subjective in nature. This is the major distinction between the materialistic and theistic models of reality: what consciousness really is.
Proof? Who said anything about proof?I don't see how God is obligated to prove his existence, but what sort of evidence should there even be? How do you intend to distinguish between a genuine miracle and a naturalistic explanation?
Do you think it is a satisfactory answer, Silmarien, when it leaves me none the wiser about what you actually think?Yikes! A bit of reading comprehension, please. I said that the obsession with rational demonstration was a human foible, and that there was no reason to belief that God cared about such things at all.
Right. So maybe, if it's never been about proof - or evidence - a thread of "Arguments for the existence of God" is a waste of time?Christianity's claims for just how God has made his presence known are pretty spectacular. But one of the major themes of the Gospel is the coming of the kingdom of God, not empirically proving his existence to all and sundry, so maybe it's never been about proof?
Uh-huh. In which case, maybe the humans who started this thread - mainly gradyll and Ed - should have taken a hint from God and not cared about demonstrating God's existence?Maybe the point was the triumph of the Christian humanistic ethos over the classical system of virtues? Just because humans may be obsessed with rational demonstration doesn't mean that God cares about such things at all.
Full, new, complex structures don't magically appear in biology. New complex structures, including eyes, form over millions of generations in tiny increments. Of course this process isn't unguided, it's completely determined by natural selective pressures. Each increment is advantageous over its predecessor. After enough time, the new structure can become very complex, as is seen in the human eye. What part of the eye are you referring to when you say that it must be "fully formed" lest the whole eye become useless, and how did you determine that it could not have evolved via small increments?Here you are assuming what we are trying to prove. Every eye is functional because they are created and designed that way. But if evolution were true that would not be the case because some parts of the eye need to be there in full form for the eye to function but if there are tiny changes that occur over long periods of time, how is the timing of the structures going to coalesce so that they work together to maintain the function thru basically random unguided processes? The chance is astronomical to the point of being 0.
Why do you keep on insisting I couldn't possibly believe in other holy books? I love the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita and honestly think it's about a 50/50 toss-up between Christianity and the Vedic tradition.
Possibly. You really need to get over your fear of hell, though. It's not healthy, and even as someone who does believe in damnation, I think your persistent bitterness towards God on this topic is much more dangerous than your atheism itself.
Christianity is obviously tricky because of the whole damnation issue--if you are going to reject it, you need to find a way to come to terms with that. I know your history is particularly problematic when it comes to coercing people with the fear of hell, but you're going to need to find a way around that. You need to get to the point where you're okay with the possibility of hell, since only then will it stop having power over you. I dealt with this myself in my atheistic days, and decided that even if the Christian God did exist, hell was preferable, since he wasn't the sort of being I'd want to be anywhere around anyway. I was wrong, but I think that sort of theological rebellion was still better than the sort of simmering resentment that comes with not being able to accept potential consequences.
What you need to do is own your decision, even if it ends up being the wrong one. You can't spend your life being afraid of hell, and hating a God you don't believe in for potentially sending you there. It's that very state of mind which is hell, whether it's finite or eternal.