Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And rightly so. We should be wary of those claiming to speak for a divine being. But do you also have emotional and personal objections? Or would you like the God of the Bible to be real?
We believe the universe will continue to be consistent because there is no other option and we have observed consistency.
Second premise 2 is not a biblical idea it is the common idea of all sentient beings, it being true doesn't support the Bible one iota.
If Every experience at all is to be acquainted with God because "If God is the cause of every event then every experience of the world is also an experience of God."
To say that God is the cause of Every Event leads down a road you really don't want to travel.
So stubbing my toe is an experience of God?
When I stub my toe, I feel pain. I experience the hardness of the leg of the coffeetable. But I am not acquainted with any divine person.
There's more to this philosophy thing than just spouting random nonsense, you know. Since you've provided no evidence or logic to accept your claims, a simple "is not" is more than enough to dismiss them.
Again with the mind reading. Why do apologists think that incorrectly guessing what I'm thinking is going to make me trust them?
Who, exactly?
False. There's good evidence that the universe operates consistently. That's not proof, but it is a reason which is more than enough to trash your "no reason" claim.
In fact, it's precisely because I don't believe in the possibility of supernatural interference that I accept the uniformity of nature. The supernaturalist's assumption of uniformity is at the mercy of a supremely powerful cosmic being that not only can violate the apparent laws of reality, but according to their own holy book, does so. Far from 'co-opting' their word-view, I reject it outright as absurd and untenable.
Fails to understand what point?
Empirical evidence fails to justify what belief?
The God of the bible is a contradiction
a mixed bag of immoral and moral
and a story that (although it took me a while to figure out) is clearly the invention of man.
If a God exists, I give the least chance of that God being the God described in the bible and defined by unknown authors from 2000 years ago.
What do you mean no other option? There are certainly other options. One could remain agnostic on the issue. Or one could believe that, though we have observed consistency, there is no reason to suppose that the universe will continue to be consistent.
Of course you could mean that we need to believe in a consistent universe. On that point I would agree. But this need is not itself a reason to believe. You need a consistent universe but this belief can only be had in a theistic worldview. So atheists co-opt the belief but because they are personally offended by the idea of God they don't take it to it's logical conclusion.
I fully agree that all persons hold this belief. But only the Bible gives a reason for the belief.
Without God there is not reason to suppose that the universe is consistent.
The other option is the complete cessation of rational thought and deliberation of reality. Otherwise this proposition is axiomatic to all other propositions.
Science uses this proposition because it works, if it ceases to work science will cease.
The proposition is not a religious one but rather a pragmatic one that religion shares.
We need that proposition to have any rational thoughts.
The Bible gives us an explanation for the proposition not necessarily the reason. To hold this to be true merely assumes your conclusion so your not making an argument here but an assertion.
It is certainly possible to hold the proposition true and not believe in God so no your assertion that it can only be supported in a theistic worldview is simply wrong.
Again, you have it exactly backwards. Your assumption of consistency is predicated on the whims of a being that purportedly can, and does, violate natural laws on a whim. I do not, and cannot, 'co-opt' such a worldview.
In what ways do you find him contradicting himself?
The many biblical contradictions are easily found with a simple google search and there are MANY.
Moral according to whom?
Do believe anything commanded by God to be good, even if it means the slaughtering of people?
In what way is this clear?
The many errors in the bible, the many contradictions in the book and the language that fits the mythical times of attempts to understand the world, based on the limited knowledge they had at the time. Also, the historicity of the bible is quite interesting, when viewed from an objective standpoint. The many unknown authors, the decades that passed from authorship of the 4 gospels, the discrepancies in the accounts of Jesus, the fact only John mentions Jesus stated he was God and the gospel was written 70 year after Jesus died and is considered the least reliable to most scholars. Why would Matthew, Mark and Luke miss such an important point?
Many of the authors are known and the writings are 2000-5000 years old.
P1 God is the only explanation for a consistent universe
P2 The universe is consistent
... Therefore God exists.
P1 is the issue of debate. You have to show God exists to show that it is the only explanation for something.
The argument is also invalid. P2 being false doesn't disprove God it disproves your interpretation of God so the conclusion doesn't follow from the truth of the premises.
You're wrong on several accounts.
God created the world and all it's workings and it belongs to him. If this is the case I don't know how we could call his miraculous works a "violation" of natural law as if he was somehow held accountable to a law outside of himself.
Furthermore, the God of the Bible is the immediate cause of every event. There are no mediate natural laws that stand between him and creation. What makes you think that there are such things as natural laws? And what is a natural law?
Further still the belief is not based on the "whims" of God but on the promises of God. God has promised to uphold the world so the belief in a consistent universe is part of the larger belief in a trustworthy God.
The gospel authors are anonymous and most scholars (even evangelical scholars) agree with this. They also agree, 30-70 years passed from when they were penned, making true eye witness accounts, highly unlikely. The adding of numerous verses to Mark, over a century later so the story would align more with the other 3 gospels. The addition of the adulteress story centuries after the fact, etc. etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?