Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[OzSpen]

So you are aware then of the abundant research showing your claim ("validity and superiority of eyewitness testimony") to be dubious? That being the case, why did you make such a claim in the first place? You already know, or you should already know, given your background, that such a claim cannot stand up to scrutiny.

That's a straw man argument. I also happen to be an historian so I know that psychology cannot define and/or explain all that existed or exists.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

"scientific integrity"
What would that be?
And how do you remain outside of law or medicine?

A pooled weighted average of 1.97%...of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices.

...admitted to...
...admitted....

Perhaps the real number is higher?

That's just about the laziest attempt at dodging the issue as I've ever seen. Even if I grant everything said here, it has nothing to do with the point I was arguing.

Nothing else to be said.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

And you produce not one piece of evidence to support your claim.

You have it backwards. The burden of proof is yours. You haven't met it. Nothing you listed actually substantiates the content of your assertion. All it does is restate it.

And I'll point out, once again, even if you did have 'eyewitness testimony', it wouldn't make the slightest difference. I don't accept 'eyewitness testimony' as sufficient for demonstrating extraordinary claims, and neither do you.

 

[OzSpen]

And I'll point out, once again, even if you did have 'eyewitness testimony', it wouldn't make the slightest difference. I don't accept 'eyewitness testimony' as sufficient for demonstrating extraordinary claims, and neither do you.

On tonight's TV News in Brisbane (2 July 2015), there was a story of a young Colombian woman who was crossing the Brisbane River at night via the Story Bridge when she was followed from behind and attacked by a man. There was CCTV picture but it was not clear. Police are appealing for have a guess what? They would like to speak with eyewitnesses of this event or people who know who the man is, who have seen him.

You are denying eyewitness testimony, but here in Brisbane this very day, the police are appealing for eyewitnesses to help locate the alleged criminal who attacked the woman.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You are denying eyewitness testimony

You like to accuse other forum members of committing logical fallacies. I have yet to see you correctly identify a single one, so it's hardly surprising you'd be so quick in committing one yourself.

No, I'm not 'denying eyewitness testimony'. That's a straw-man. I'm denying that eyewitness testimony is sufficient for demonstrating extraordinary claims.

If you tell me you flew from Sydney to Perth yesterday, I will take it on your word.

If you tell me you flew from Sydney to Perth yesterday by flapping your arms up and down, I will need more than your word.

I proportion my belief in a claim to the evidence given, with specific regard to the nature of the claim. I don't accept say-so as sufficient evidence for the demonstration of extraordinary claims, and neither do you. The only difference is that you special plead a case for the claims of your particular religion, while I do not.

Also, take a few minutes to educate yourself: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

[pshun2404]

Now let us take this in another direction. Let’s look at the word “Empirical” and see what it actually means…

Empirical - based on, concerned with, or verifiable by, observation or experience

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

em·pir·i·cal [em-pir-i-kuh l] Show IPA

adjective

1.derived from, or guided by, experience or experiment.

2.depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3.provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

So we can see here that in fact empirical evidence does not rely on having to be demonstrated by the scientific method whatsoever, and that indeed God can be said to be proven to exist through empirical means. We hear what this God has said would take place and then witness (observe that it has)…we experience God personally and our experience with God has shown to us He is real and alive…God can be demonstrated in the transformation of others not yet saved…since we are guided by God and our experience with God is derived from God then God is revealed empirically.

Thus if one follows a set of outlined protocols and comes to a certain conclusion, it is sufficient to establish cause for experimentation. If in the course of time millions of others who followed the same protocols come to the same conclusion, it is almost readily accepted as factually true. Now in fact millions of people throughout time have done just that in relation to this God. They have followed the protocols provided to the letter and have come to the same conclusion regarding the result.

Now as with any experiment, if there are a few who did not obtain the same result, it is most likely (and usually true) that they did not meet the requirements or procedures of the outlined protocols. I therefore challenge any to follow the Biblically defined protocols and see for themselves rather than just deny the possibility just because it does not fit their current conclusions based on a box to define “proof” that they at this time will only adhere to.

Most materialists are person who are like being inside a small corner of an infinitely huge box with total and sole faith in their quite limited perceptual faculties and instrumentation they intelligently designed, and by experiments they always and only intelligently engineer. They, having no possible (not just improbable) way of knowing there even is an outside or beyond the box (except perhaps SOME theoretical quantum physicists) by there puny limited methodologies yet make assertive, often assumption-based declarations of that which IS or MAY BE outside of the limited box they create and impose on all.

Now we all absolutely know for sure (scientifically speaking) there is no way can “prove” by any means (empirical or purely materialistically) that there IS NO GOD (God is not falsifiable)…I am sure you agree with that (I hope)….and there is no way we can “prove” materialistically that there is a God (who is outside of materiality). But we do have the empirical evidence demonstrated above (and a challenge offered…do the experiment outlined first) and the fact that philosophy has given us is 15 or 20 lines of reasoning that indicate there must be a God/god/creator/designer etc., and absolutely zero that indicate there cannot be one.

 

[KCfromNC]

Most materialists are person who are like being inside a small corner of an infinitely huge box with total and sole faith in their quite limited perceptual faculties and instrumentation they intelligently designed, and by experiments they always and only intelligently engineer.

Weird how materialism described by people who are demanding we need to include magic is so very different from actual materialism as it exists here in the real world. Also strange that such a limited approach has much better practical approaches than those requiring us to imagine that there's magic everywhere. Wonder why that is.

Now we all absolutely know for sure (scientifically speaking) there is no way can “prove” by any means (empirical or purely materialistically) that there IS NO GOD

Which just means that this god thing makes no difference to what we observe. If god is consistent with any observation, there's no way to use particular observations to support it or reject it. Any observation is equally likely if god is real or not - meaning that nothing we can observe will help us distinguish between the two situations. That destroys your whole point about a possible evidence-based approach towards finding god.

 

[bhsmte]

See what you do? I provide details that address what you raise and look what happened with this response. You refuse to deal with the material I present but are off and running with another of your angles. It's a red herring fallacy again. Why don't you quit doing this and address the content of what I raise?

Do you have like red herring on the brain or something?

 

[bhsmte]

Your contemporary worldview is clouding your discussion. You stated: 'My assertion is that eyewitness testimony is not a good judge of these things'. It is nothing more than your assertion, which proves nothing. I've provided evidence of the importance of eyewitness testimony in first century culture, but you don't seem to be able to grapple with the evidence from that century. We are NOT discussing eyewitnesses in the American or Australian court system. We are discussing eyewitnesses in first century society - which were extremely important. So important that scholar, Dr Richard Bauckham, has devoted an entire book of 538pp to Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans 2006). His conclusion was:

'The burden of this book is that the category of testimony is the one that does most justice to the Gospels both as history and as theology. As a form of historiography testimony offers a unique access to historical reality that cannot be had without an element of trust in the credibility of the witness and what he or she has to report. Testimony is irreducible; we cannot, at least in some of its most distinctive and valuable claims, go behind it and make our own autonomous verification of them; we cannot establish the truth of testimony for ourselves as though we stood where the witnesses uniquely stood. Eyewitness testimony offers us insider knowledge from involved participants' (Bauckham 2006:505).​

I don't expect you to be convinced because you have a bias against eyewitness testimony, but the NT does not. Neither did first century bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, in his major work, Exposition of the Logia of the Lord [in Fragments of Papias, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html] that he wrote in 5 books.



Oz

You are correct, I am not convinced.

As others have pointed out, could you explain in detail, why eye witness testimony was more reliable in the 1st century than it is today?

Also, since it is widely agreed, the gospels were penned by anonymous authors, how would we verify they spoke with any eye witnesses, decades after the events?

 

[paulm50]

Your appeal to ridicule fallacy has influenced me not to respond further to you. We can't continue a logical discussion when you do this.

Bye.

That's a straw man argument. I also happen to be an historian so I know that psychology cannot define and/or explain all that existed or exists.

Red Herring, Straw Man, are you afraid of the truth? As a historian you would know the link to the Historian's site. Doesn't prove the existence of god. It only proves the existence of people and places. But that's a logical discussion.

On tonight's TV News in Brisbane (2 July 2015), there was a story of a young Colombian woman who was crossing the Brisbane River at night via the Story Bridge when she was followed from behind and attacked by a man. There was CCTV picture but it was not clear. Police are appealing for have a guess what? They would like to speak with eyewitnesses of this event or people who know who the man is, who have seen him.

You are denying eyewitness testimony, but here in Brisbane this very day, the police are appealing for eyewitnesses to help locate the alleged criminal who attacked the woman.

They know the event took place, they have CCTV of it.

If the woman turned up and said she was attacked by a ghost, spirit, vision. No one would take her seriously. Because we have learned a lot since the Middle Ages.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thus if one follows a set of outlined protocols and comes to a certain conclusion, it is sufficient to establish cause for experimentation. If in the course of time millions of others who followed the same protocols come to the same conclusion, it is almost readily accepted as factually true. Now in fact millions of people throughout time have done just that in relation to this God. They have followed the protocols provided to the letter and have come to the same conclusion regarding the result.

The problem with saying, "it works for a lot of people, it must be true" makes a lot of contradictory things true. Islam works for a lot of people, so does Hinduism or Buddhism. They can't all be true. So what this shows is that for at least one group, but perhaps all groups, the evidence in this empirical approach can easily be misinterpreted, misconstrued, or fabricated. So then it requires some other kind of proof to actually show any real evidence.

I therefore challenge any to follow the Biblically defined protocols and see for themselves rather than just deny the possibility just because it does not fit their current conclusions based on a box to define “proof” that they at this time will only adhere to.

What if I took your advice, but instead of starting with Christianity, I immersed myself in Scientology. I don't believe in their claims either, but I could decide to spend a bunch of time with Scientologists, keep an open mind, and try to adhere to their beliefs as much as possible. What do you think will happen?

Now we all absolutely know for sure (scientifically speaking) there is no way can “prove” by any means (empirical or purely materialistically) that there IS NO GOD (God is not falsifiable)…I am sure you agree with that (I hope)….and there is no way we can “prove” materialistically that there is a God (who is outside of materiality). But we do have the empirical evidence demonstrated above (and a challenge offered…do the experiment outlined first) and the fact that philosophy has given us is 15 or 20 lines of reasoning that indicate there must be a God/god/creator/designer etc., and absolutely zero that indicate there cannot be one.

God cannot be proven any more than he can be disproven. There are plenty of logical disproofs to God, but they don't do any better than the logical proofs, so non-believers don't bother carting them out as if they could prove something. These threads always end up talking about the proofs for God because those are the only ones that get defended. That doesn't make them valid though, it just means that people will believe in things that are not true.

 

[paulm50]

God cannot be proven any more than he can be disproven. There are plenty of logical disproofs to God, but they don't do any better than the logical proofs, so non-believers don't bother carting them out as if they could prove something. These threads always end up talking about the proofs for God because those are the only ones that get defended. That doesn't make them valid though, it just means that people will believe in things that are not true.

All we can do is prove the words written by men to be untrue. And that's why they have to fall back to things we're yet to learn.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's a straw man argument. I also happen to be an historian so I know that psychology cannot define and/or explain all that existed or exists.

No, it's not a strawman, but the point at issue. You staked your claim in the "validity and superiority of eyewitness testimony," even though you should have known better given your alleged scientific background. You can either admit that your claim was not warranted or rise to defend it.

 

[nonbeliever314]

No, it's not a strawman, but the point at issue. You staked your claim in the "validity and superiority of eyewitness testimony," even though you should have known better given your alleged scientific background. You can either admit that your claim was not warranted or rise to defend it.

I think we might have another poster faking there backgrounds..... And if that's the case, they're lying and God knows they're sinning.. Dun dun dunnnnnnn!

 

[bhsmte]

I think we might have another poster faking there backgrounds..... And if that's the case, they're lying and God knows they're sinning.. Dun dun dunnnnnnn!

Not uncommon for that to happen, we have seen it numerous times on these threads.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Not uncommon for that to happen, we have seen it numerous times on these threads.

Agreed.

 

[pshun2404]

Weird how materialism described by people who are demanding we need to include magic is so very different from actual materialism as it exists here in the real world. Also strange that such a limited approach has much better practical approaches than those requiring us to imagine that there's magic everywhere. Wonder why that is.



Which just means that this god thing makes no difference to what we observe. If god is consistent with any observation, there's no way to use particular observations to support it or reject it. Any observation is equally likely if god is real or not - meaning that nothing we can observe will help us distinguish between the two situations. That destroys your whole point about a possible evidence-based approach towards finding god.

Magic? Did I say anything about magic? Hmmm? Perhaps you're psychic and see things that are not there? Or (so typical) re-interpreting what others say to say something they did not because you can't talk your way out of the point that was made....or who knows what your motive is????? Magic? Really?

 

[Belk]

That's a straw man argument. I also happen to be an historian so I know that psychology cannot define and/or explain all that existed or exists.

No, it is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[pshun2404]

Agreed.

Exactly!~ Take your self for example...

 

[paulm50]

No, it's not a strawman, but the point at issue. You staked your claim in the "validity and superiority of eyewitness testimony," even though you should have known better given your alleged scientific background. You can either admit that your claim was not warranted or rise to defend it.

Straw man, red herring, ridicule, all excuses for not having an answer.