20 arguments for the existence of God

[SithDoughnut]

Objective = it is true independent of whether you and I believe in it.

Subjective is a belief that you can express. It applies only to you, and nobody else.

Indeed, and the phrase "I don't believe in God" fits in the first category. Even if you think I believe in God, and I've deluded myself into thinking that I do as well, I still don't believe in God.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Semantics describe concepts. The concepts don't change themselves to fit the semantics. The FSM looks to us like flying spaghetti, because we cannot comprehend his infinite nature. If you want, his manifestations are similar to how Jesus was a manifestation of God. He was part of of the whole.

Then you are also using semantics. Wait a minute you're a Conceptualist/Idealist aren't you?..lol. You should study Josh McDowell's critique on Immanuel Kant.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Indeed, and the phrase "I don't believe in God" fits in the first category. Even if you think I believe in God, and I've deluded myself into thinking that I do as well, I still don't believe in God.

Its based on what you believe. It fits in the second category. If you can't get this right, you're not going to get a lot of the logical premises for your positions right thereafter.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Really? Prove it. You may put a lot of people out of a job.

To save you the trouble, there is little to no real scholarship for the historical support that Yeshua did not exist.

Where is the proof that he did exist? The Bible is primarily written by those who never met or saw Jesus, and I know of no historical records that name him.

He doesn't have to be. Those are you standards of who God is, not God's as defined in his Word.

Fine.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Where is the proof that he did exist? The Bible is primarily written by those who never met or saw Jesus, and I know of no historical records that name him.

Prove that. We have MANY, and plenty of proof thereafter from outside sources of the activity of his life.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all supported by the early church fathers. Papias mentions Matthew for example. And I believe REAL scholarship seems to take for granted these books attributed to the writers mentioned. Josephus names him. Cornelius Tacitus does. The Talmud does. Suetonius, and Thallus. Pliny the Younger mentions the following of Yeshua, which was amazing in itself that it existed.

Are you getting your information from the Jesus Seminar, Dan Brown, or Bart Ehrman? Or Early Doherty, Acharya S? G.A. Wells? Zeitgeist?

Do you know what all of these groups have in common?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Then you are also using semantics. Wait a minute you're a Conceptualist/Idealist aren't you?..lol. You should study Josh McDowell's critique on Immanuel Kant.

I am neither an conceptualist or an idealist.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Prove that. We have MANY, and plenty of proof thereafter from outside sources of the activity of his life.

OK, give me a little while to locate the sources and I will.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Its based on what you believe. It fits in the second category. If you can't get this right, you're not going to get a lot of the logical premises for your positions right thereafter.

It's not based on what a believe though. You're still not understanding. If you would like, I could re-phrase it as thus:

"I have a lack of belief in God".

I have it, it is objective. To have something is objective - you either have it or you don't, and no matter what people think, the fact remains that you have it. Having something can be independently verified by other people. What I have is irrelevant, because the statement "I have" is objective.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I am neither an conceptualist or an idealist.

Your focus has been on concepts this whole time. You might be a conceptualist and not realize it.

 

[hamashiachagape]

It's not based on what a believe though. You're still not understanding. If you would like, I could re-phrase it as thus:

"I have a lack of belief in God".

I have it, it is objective. To have something is objective - you either have it or you don't, and no matter what people think, the fact remains that you have it. Having something can be independently verified by other people. What I have is irrelevant, because the statement "I have" is objective.

You have it. I don't. It has no objective truth.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I'm going to stop here before we derail the thread any further. You still need to deal with our critiques of your OP, as that is the topic of this thread. I'll get back to you on the evidence for and against Jesus' existence.

I will however reply to these as you posted them before I posted this, but I'll stop here and we can address this in another thread, if you want.

Your focus has been on concepts this whole time. You might be a conceptualist and not realize it.

Conceptualists believe reality is a construct of the mind. I do not.

You have it. I don't. It has no objective truth.

I have a banana. You don't. Is that subjective?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I can honestly say that this will probably be my one post in this thread: why 20 arguments? Why not 10 to just be as concise and philosophically precise as possible without repeating yourself as others have aptly pointed out that this set of arguments is doing? 10 Commandments...10 arguments for God...hmm? Advertisement!

 

[awitch]

Your second part of the position is where hte problem is because you can detect the substance to be a unicorn. Kind of the same problem as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster."

I'm behind after coming back from a party with the local Quakers.

Please define the methods you would use to detect the unicorn.

Actually, let's save a lot of time:
For every method you define, I will come up with a reason why it won't work (unicorn apologetics). You will be unable to prove that it doesn't exist. That's why the defacto position is that the unicorn does not exist until I provide empirical evidence that it does. The burden of proof is on me to prove the unicorn exists. Exactly the same way the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that god exists.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I can honestly say that this will probably be my one post in this thread: why 20 arguments? Why not 10 to just be as concise and philosophically precise as possible without repeating yourself as others have aptly pointed out that this set of arguments is doing? 10 Commandments...10 arguments for God...hmm? Advertisement!

Better yet, why not one decisively convincing argument?

 

[Delphiki]

I think burden of proof has been explained and repeated several times. It's obvious he just won't get it, nor what a positive claim is in the the first place. There is just no educating some people. :-/

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Better yet, why not one decisively convincing argument?

Seems like any general argument that would work best is the cosmological one, though even Kant I believe said that any argument for God is moot to begin with since there is necessarily the stronger element of faith in believing in an absolutely necessary being as commonly posited through the cosmological argument for example

 

[hamashiachagape]

Seems like any general argument that would work best is the cosmological one, though even Kant I believe said that any argument for God is moot to begin with since there is necessarily the stronger element of faith in believing in an absolutely necessary being as commonly posited through the cosmological argument for example

I have evaluated Immanuel Kant's arguments. From a philosophical standpoint, they are lacking. You have to remember that his a priori stances are at fault. He attempts to find reality by looking in the mind. But then his position becomes unstateable since he also believes that categories of the mind do not apply to reality. So he self contradicts.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'm going to stop here before we derail the thread any further. You still need to deal with our critiques of your OP, as that is the topic of this thread. I'll get back to you on the evidence for and against Jesus' existence.

You can't even back up your own position.

I will however reply to these as you posted them before I posted this, but I'll stop here and we can address this in another thread, if you want.

Happy to.

Conceptualists believe reality is a construct of the mind. I do not.

Thats part of what a Conceptualist believes. You have some other beliefs that they carry..

I have a banana. You don't. Is that subjective?

Two problems. One your example is physical in nature. Its A Posteriori. We are discussing A Priori arguments. It does not tell us whether thought processes which are immaterial in nature, are true, so its a red herring. Two, we are discussing belief systems. So it would be true for both you and me, if it is true. But you are comparing apples and oranges. The lack of belief in a banana seems to be more relevant to the situation you are talking about. "I don't believe in God" is something that applies only for you. Likewise, I could also state It tells us nothing about objective reality. IOW, what is true regardless of what you believe in, or what I believe in. It does not tell us whether or not God actually exists or not.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Now I want to slam a homerun out of this discussion because the Atheist "lack of position" then wanting to evaluate other positions, is illogical. It seems to have applied to those in the past who are illogical. Existentialists don't like to be classifed, neither do postmodernists, and now it appears the same for Atheists.

As the three main proponents of the modern ideology behind Atheism are concerned that adhere to a "Lack" of position (an absurdity from a logical standpoint BTW), Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens all fall flat on their faces. Dr. Ravi Zecharias demonstrates why in his book "The End of Reason." He states on pgs 49-50 "Sam Harris does not believe that Atheism should be a philosophical category. He notes that one does not describe himself or herself as a 'non-alchemist' or 'non-astrologer'. But if in a discussion about your future, someone looks at your hand and asks for yoru date of birth so that he can study the planetary alignment that day, it might be to your advantage to know whether he is in fact an astrologer or a pizza maker who reads palms as an avocation. If you are facing serious health issues and a stranger gives you a potion to drink, iot would be of interest to know whether this is an alchemist or a pharmacist or a witch doctor you are dealing with. When you are debating every definition of life ranging from origin to destiny, it makes sense to know whether you hold to an atheistic worldview or to something else." (Pg 49).

Here we see Ravi Zecharias SUCCESSFULLY demonstrate the absurdity, putting the "Nonposition" in the same reductio ad absurdum's as Existentialism and postmodernism.

We'll continue with a further post to totally show how the position is untenable.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I have evaluated Immanuel Kant's arguments. From a philosophical standpoint, they are lacking. You have to remember that his a priori stances are at fault. He attempts to find reality by looking in the mind. But then his position becomes unstateable since he also believes that categories of the mind do not apply to reality. So he self contradicts.

A quick glance on a tentative description of Kant's philosophy on Wikipedia reveals that he believes the mind's categories are applicable to reality in that they organize it, but not that they are the same as the reality we perceive outside our mind and organize by that mind's schema.