Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Davian]

I did. I showed how the information in Luke 1 and 1 Corinthians 15 was provided by eyewitness testimony. Are you denying the validity of the superiority of eyewitness testimony in court or in history?

Provide the names and addresses of those witnesses.

 

[HitchSlap]

Red herring!

Ridicules a poster for using Wiki, then uses the bible.

 

[Davian]

And even that had iron cross-bracing. You just can't make a wooden boat that big seaworthy.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

The characteristics of iron and steel would appear as magic to those initially conceiving those big wooden boat stories.

 

[Davian]

In theory it could "float". In practice, a much smaller vessel was found to not be able to survive on the open seas. Wyoming
And Noah's ark wasn't just out on calm, open seas, it was in the middle of the biggest torrential downpours in the history of the world, so...

In theory, it could float, as it would have been lighter than water; the question is, could it be kept from collapsing under its own weight without magic, iron age or otherwise.

 

[Moral Orel]

In theory, it could float, as it would have been lighter than water; the question is, could it be kept from collapsing under its own weight without magic, iron age or otherwise.

Probably not. That Ken Ham fellow is involved in a project to rebuild Noah's ark... in Kansas. Not on water, just on land. So even people who really believe it's possible won't do it for real.

What's funny is that they plan to make it a tourist attraction to make money off it. Which shows that a rich person who actually believes that Noah's ark would be possible has a reason to recreate it not just to prove the Bible true, but also to make a buck. So even with all this justification, no one will attempt to recreate the ark because everyone really knows it won't work.

 

[Davian]

You can't scientifically examine history. It's impossible.

Is that supposed to leave a hole in "science" big enough to pull your god through? Yet small enough that we don't release all of the prisoners from our jails?

 

[SkyWriting]

Is that supposed to leave a hole in "science" big enough to pull your god through? Yet small enough that we don't release all of the prisoners from our jails?

I think we could release all of them on a rotating schedule to see which ones are an ongoing problem.
That would be a worthwhile experiment.

 

[Davian]

I think we could release all of them on a rotating schedule to see which ones are an ongoing problem.
That would be a worthwhile experiment.

Sure. We can run the outplacement program from your home, and you can simply pray to your god that nothing goes wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

I think we could release all of them on a rotating schedule to see which ones are an ongoing problem.
That would be a worthwhile experiment.

I would assume, as long as the most violent one's, don't show up at your door?

 

[OzSpen]

Provide the names and addresses of those witnesses.

You are using an alleged 21st century approach to history. This is the first century. If you are serious (which doesn't seem to be your emphasis), you can read the names of some of them in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (ESV).

 

[The Cadet]

You are using an alleged 21st century approach to history. This is the first century. If you are serious (which doesn't seem to be your emphasis), you can read the names of some of them in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (ESV).

How many eyewitnesses would convince you that a man levitated, then transformed himself into an elephant with heads on both ends?

 

[Davian]

You are using an alleged 21st century approach to history.

Alleged? Do you dispute the importance of identification of witnesses within our court systems?

This is the first century.

No, this is the 21st century. Come join us, if you like.

Standards

• Davian
• Jun 1, 2015

If you are serious (which doesn't seem to be your emphasis), you can read the names of some of them in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (ESV).

I am completely serious. You said, "the superiority of eyewitness testimony in court"; If you think anonymous second-hand witness testimony is regarded as "superior" to other evidences within North American court systems, feel free to provide some examples.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Ah, the 'eyewitness' apologetic. One of my favorites.

Firstly, Christians - you don't have eyewitness testimony. You have anonymous accounts written decades after the events they purport to describe.

Secondly, even if you did have it, eyewitness testimony is the weakest of all forms of evidence. I can easily accept it as sufficient for banal claims, but I do not accept it for extraordinary claims.

Neither do you. You don't believe Muhammad had visions of Jehenna. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. You don't believe mystics in the slums of Calcutta can cure disease through 'chakra alignment'. Only when it comes to your own brand of religion does eyewitness testimony - which again, you don't have in the first place - magically become an acceptable standard.

 

[Achilles6129]

So in other words, take physics and bin it? Look, I'm sorry, but this is a perfect illustration of why we use methodological naturalism.

In reality, Noah's Ark is not possible. The fact that you have to invoke the supernatural to make it work is an admission of failure. It's saying, "Yeah, you're right, without some external force which we cannot prove exists, this could not happen." You could apply that to anything.

You're missing the fact that the Creator of the universe said it happened. It wasn't made up by me or someone else. So if the Creator of the universe said it happened, then that overrules everything else, meaning your and everyone else's interpretations of naturalism.

 

[Achilles6129]

Show your math.

Already did.

Once you have made an appeal to magic, however small, everything goes out the window.

Not at all. The appeal is not to anything I've said or someone else has said, the appeal is to what God himself has said. There's no "magic" involved. If God said it, then your interpretation of the science is simply wrong.

Why could not this allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing-whatever simply fix the problem without flooding the Earth? Or, why bother with a boat? Just teleport the animals and people to when/where they need to be.

You've missed the point of the flood: water cleanses the earth of mankind's evil. That's the point. When God brings judgment he almost always does so by using some sort of representation of himself (water or fire). In this case, it's water. Next time, it's with fire.

But then, that does not make for big scary stories for the preachers to use to keep the flock in line.

Nothing's being made up at all by these preachers, they're simply quoting the word of God. You're acting as though we've made all of this up; we haven't.

 

[bhsmte]

You're missing the fact that the Creator of the universe said it happened. It wasn't made up by me or someone else. So if the Creator of the universe said it happened, then that overrules everything else, meaning your and everyone else's interpretations of naturalism.

This is why what you state above is meaningless to some; some people don't believe, what some men wrote down in stories, is the same as some creator talking and they don't see the stories as valid.

It would be like me using the holy book from another religion, you probably wouldn't go along with it.

 

[Achilles6129]

This is why what you state above is meaningless to some; some people don't believe, what some men wrote down in stories, is the same as some creator talking and they don't see the stories as valid.

Ah! But can you see why it would be reasonable to those who do in fact believe the Bible to be the word of God?

It would be like me using the holy book from another religion, you probably wouldn't go along with it.

Correct. But we've discussed this before: I believe the Bible based on internal/external evidence that it's true and based on personal experience, the sort spoken of in the NT.

 

[Cush]

Hello all,

In your opinion, what's the very best argument for the existence of God? Conversely, what's the top argument against the existence of God? Interested to hear your responses and subsequent reasoning. Thanks!

Best arguments for/or against God's existence comes from professing believers as well as unbelievers alike. Satan's lie is hands down the best argument for or against existence - free will.

Genesis 3:5, when Satan, disguised as a serpent, said to Eve, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Here are the double lies being offered to Eve springing out of the same principle behind his botched coup attempt; first, that she would be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over herself apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over himself or herself.

To understand what autonomous-self is more clearly, let us look at RC Sproul’s definition of autonomy: “To be autonomous means to be a law unto oneself. An autonomous creature would be answerable to no one. He would have no governor, least of all a sovereign governor. It is logically impossible to have a sovereign God existing at the same time as an autonomous creature. The two concepts are utterly incompatible. To think of their coexistence would be like imagining the meeting of an immovable object and an irresistible force. What would happen? If the object moved, then it could no longer be considered immovable. If it failed to move, then the irresistible force would no longer be irresistible.”

The Doctrine of Autonomous Self: A hidden idolatry

 

[bhsmte]

Ah! But can you see why it would be reasonable to those who do in fact believe the Bible to be the word of God?



Correct. But we've discussed this before: I believe the Bible based on internal/external evidence that it's true and based on personal experience, the sort spoken of in the NT.

No problem with those that believe it on faith.

Regarding evidence that it is true? Have seen many claim this and have yet to see credible objective evidence. I guess that is why, most say they believe it on faith.

 

[OzSpen]

How many eyewitnesses would convince you that a man levitated, then transformed himself into an elephant with heads on both ends?

Another red herring. Don't you understand what you are doing with this kind of response? Read the meaning of a red herring logical fallacy HERE and see how it applies to your response.