Is The Concept of God Incoherent?

Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm not asking you to admit that God exists. But I think you should recognize that your presuppositions might unfairly affect your reading of Scripture. Since you assume before you ever interpret Scripture that God does not exist, how can you even see anything other than a man-made document?

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is the word of God, you would not be able to recognize it as such because your presuppositions would not allow you to do so.
That is as it should be. How would you feel if someone approached you, told you about their own religion, and said that before you could properly understand it you had to believe in it? And accused you of arguing in bad faith if you didn't?

The basic position of most atheists is this: if the argument is convincing, we'll be convinced. Simple as that.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why not. If its not long, I'll watch it.

Alrighty then! Here it is. In brief, this is a compare and contrast between two working views of science as it relates to the issue of Religion, Evolution and the Scientific Enterprise as it swims around within the realm of the field of N.O.S., otherwise known as the Nature of Science. And here we have atheist Eugenie Scott, a Methodological Naturalist, run up against fellow atheist, Richard Dawkins, a Philosophical Naturalist. And despite the fact that both individuals work in science and mutually respect each other for their scientific presence in their respective academic work, they disagree about N.O.S.

And here is the compare/contrast of their individual views on science, the theory of evolution, and as to what it may or may not be able to do in relation to religion:

 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
That is as it should be. How would you feel if someone approached you, told you about their own religion, and said that before you could properly understand it you had to believe in it? And accused you of arguing in bad faith if you didn't?

The basic position of most atheists is this: if the argument is convincing, we'll be convinced. Simple as that.

That you presuppose that God does not exist means that no argument or evidence can possibly convince you.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,559
Colorado
✟428,017.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
That you presuppose that God does not exist means that no argument or evidence can possibly convince you.
???

Not believing in God is hardly the same as a commitment to reject all putative new evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
???

Not believing in God is hardly the same as a commitment to reject all putative new evidence.

It would make it difficult to rightly interpret evidence for God's existence. If you have an atheistic worldview, you will interpret all evidence in the light of that worldview. This is why Jesus said: "Even if someone should rise from the dead, they will not believe."

In other words, we have no bare facts. All the "facts" we possess are interpreted by our worldview.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,411
15,559
Colorado
✟428,017.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
It would make it difficult to rightly interpret evidence for God's existence. If you have an atheistic worldview, you will interpret all evidence in the light of that worldview. This is why Jesus said: "Even if someone should rise from the dead, they will not believe."

In other words, we have no bare facts. All the "facts" we possess are interpreted by our worldview.
Not sure I agree with Jesus there.

Seems to me, the dead rising or some other world bending miracle would cause a lot of people to re-think their worldview.

Weaker evidence thats easily explained in naturalistic terms would be less convincing... as it should be.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not sure I agree with Jesus there.

Seems to me, the dead rising or some other world bending miracle would cause a lot of people to re-think their worldview.
...or it may depend upon one's predisposition toward God, something that God knows about each one of us. For instance, let's say we have a person like Paul the Apostle. It's understandable to see that in his case Jesus could just "show up" and Saul would more or less instantly convert and thus change His overall perspective, and thus become our dearly beloved Paul. On the other hand, if Jesus just "showed up" for someone like Anton LaVey, I'm not so sure Jesus' sudden appearance would be taken with a sense of awe, wonder, and abject humility. No, I rather think that Jesus would receive a loud earful. I could be wrong; but God does knows our deepest disposition toward Him, and that, in the end, is what He either works with ............................or against.....................as He deals with each one of us in our respective lives.

Weaker evidence thats easily explained in naturalistic terms would be less convincing... as it should be.
Again, this would be to reduce things down to an approximately one dimensional measure of response.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That you presuppose that God does not exist means that no argument or evidence can possibly convince you.
Of course it doesn't. It's exactly my approach to unicorns, fairies and aliens. I haven't seen any evidence of their existence, therefore I lack belief in them. Provide evidence, and I will believe.

Not believing in God is hardly the same as a commitment to reject all putative new evidence.

I agree that this is an obvious point. Basically, it goes like this:
Christian: Do you believe in God?
Atheist: Not yet. Do you have any evidence that God exists?

Which is as it should be.
Tree of Life, 2PhiloVoid - if you believe in God, present your evidence that such a being exists.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Of course it doesn't. It's exactly my approach to unicorns, fairies and aliens. I haven't seen any evidence of their existence, therefore I lack belief in them. Provide evidence, and I will believe.



I agree that this is an obvious point. Basically, it goes like this:
Christian: Do you believe in God?
Atheist: Not yet. Do you have any evidence that God exists?

Which is as it should be.
Tree of Life, 2PhiloVoid - if you believe in God, present your evidence that such a being exists.

Which kind of "evidence" is needed to address our epistemological cravings, and how much of it do you think we need for each of us to feel satiated? Is there some exacting measure I'm supposed to produce; am I supposed to go about it with technical aptitude like I would in bringing about a cup full of coffee? Or am I supposed to somehow demonstrate 'god' for you through some experimental science or instead use sheer logic of one kind or another? [Tarski or Godel, anyone?]

Which is it?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Which kind of "evidence" is needed to address our epistemological cravings, and how much of it do you think we need for each of us to feel satiated? Is there some exacting measure I'm supposed to produce; am I supposed to go about it with technical aptitude like I would in bringing about a cup full of coffee? Or am I supposed to somehow demonstrate 'god' for you through some experimental science or instead use sheer logic of one kind or another? [Tarski or Godel, anyone?]

Which is it?
Why don't you start off with this: what is your strongest argument for the existence of God?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Why don't you start off with this: what is your strongest argument for the existence of God?

There are many good arguments for the existence of God. I was considering starting a thread on the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why don't you start off with this: what is your strongest argument for the existence of God?

My strongest argument? My strongest argument is that atheists over-assert their epistemic boundaries, and they somehow think they're impervious to the very same analytic sauce that it so often used to disparage Christians.

Furthermore, since the Biblical epistemology is what it is, AND Methodological Naturalism essentially rules, if God chooses not to 'magically' enable you, the atheist, to be drawn to Him, then I can sit here until I'm blue in the face in attempting to defend the Christian faith and still get absolutely nowhere with you.

So, the way this apologetics stuff should REALLY work, as Blaise Pascal said long ago, is for me to wonder why you atheists are so apathetic and then hope that you'll come to your senses and make that Big'O Wager that Pascal was talking about ...................

But, as far as basic evidence is concerned: I guess you'll just want to look around and see that the Mark of the Beast is right at the door everywhere you look in the World, especially these days. So, wakey, wakey!

You see, I'm not here to defend Christianity. I'm here to tear a hole in the power of anti-Christ, wherever I find it...and bask in the existential reality that is left in that little void. If you want to engage someone who will outright defend Christianity, you can go read or listen to one of a hundred difference Christian apologists who make it their professional endeavor to do so. Otherwise, let me know when you want me to pull an atheist book off of the shelf and begin to tear it apart ... :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
My strongest argument? My strongest argument is that atheists over-assert their epistemic boundaries, and they somehow think they're impervious to the very same analytic sauce that it so often used to disparage Christians.
It would really help this debate if you could use simpler language. What do you mean by this?

Furthermore, since the Biblical epistemology is what it is, AND Methodological Naturalism essentially rules, if God chooses not to 'magically' enable you, the atheist, to be drawn to Him, then I can sit here until I'm blue in the face in attempting to defend the Christian faith and still get absolutely nowhere with you.
Okay. So you're saying that there is no real evidence for God's existence, and that a person only becomes a believing Christian because God invites them to be? This raises a HUGE amount of problems for your argument.

So, the way this apologetics stuff should REALLY work, as Blaise Pascal said long ago, is for me to wonder why you atheists are so apathetic and then hope that you'll come to your senses and make that Big'O Wager that Pascal was talking about ...................
Are you seriously defending the argument known as "Pascal's Wager"?

But, as far as basic evidence is concerned: I guess you'll just want to look around and see that the Mark of the Beast is right at the door everywhere you look in the World, especially these days. So, wakey, wakey!
As evidence, that is so weak as to be laughable.

You see, I'm not here to defend Christianity. I'm here to tear a hole in the power of anti-Christ, wherever I find it. If you want someone to defend Christianity, you can go read or listen to one of a hundred difference Christian defenders who make it their professional endeavor to do so.
And if you want to go and tear down the anti-Christ, then you go and do that. Whatever that means.
Right now, here I sit, as usual, wondering if Christians have any evidence to back up their claims.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There are many good arguments for the existence of God. I was considering starting a thread on the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.
I would be interested in seeing that. The Kalaam Cosmological argument has well-known flaws, which I would be happy to explain to you.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It would really help this debate if you could use simpler language. What do you mean by this?
It means that all of these silly ethereal requests for evidence are ... exactly that. Ethereal. You ask for evidence without designating what should qualify as evidence and without due diligence in evaluating just how much supposed evidence of any historical kind we would expect to find in a world subject to Entropy. You also assume that there are certain axiomatic expectations one could just simply expect to find 'if Christianity were true,' all the while resorting to 'just so' statements when Christians can't produce the impossible.

Okay. So you're saying that there is no real evidence for God's existence, and that a person only becomes a believing Christian because God invites them to be? .This raises a HUGE amount of problems for your argument.
NO, I'm saying that what we have as 'evidence' for Christianity typically doesn't count as evidence according to the more or less emotively arbitrated epistemic decisions that atheist tend to make, even on a daily basis.

Are you seriously defending the argument known as "Pascal's Wager"?
Yes and no. You can flip a coin to find out which it is..............or do it a few times, if you want. And if all you can associate with Pascal is a Wager, then you don't know Pascal.


As evidence, that is so weak as to be laughable.
So is the assumption that there are multiple universes ...


And if you want to go and tear down the anti-Christ, then you go and do that. Whatever that means.
Right now, here I sit, as usual, wondering if Christians have any evidence to back up their claims.
Yes, you can continue to sit there, over in China, mulling over your annoyance at Christians, and I'll just continue to sit here reading atheist literature and wondering why China will block out a Christian music video but yet allow you to write superfluously to me on Christian Forums across that same server ....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It means that all of these silly ethereal requests for evidence are ... exactly that. Ethereal. You ask for evidence without designating what should qualify as evidence and without due diligence in evaluating just how much supposed evidence of any historical kind we would expect to find in a world subject to Entropy. You also assume that there are certain axiomatic expectations one could just simply expect to find 'if Christianity were true,' all the while resorting to 'just so' statements when Christians can't produce the impossible.
Uh-huh. In other words, you don't have any particular reasons that could persuade someone of the truth of your claim, and then blame them for wanting a reason to believe something.

NO, I'm saying that what we have as 'evidence' for Christianity typically doesn't count as evidence according to the more or less emotively arbitrated epistemic decisions that atheist tend to make, even on a daily basis.
They're exactly the same standards that you would use if someone told you they believe in fairies. You'd want evidence before you accepted their claim.

Yes and no. You can flip a coin to find out which it is..............or do it a few times, if you want. And if all you can associate with Pascal is a Wager, then you don't know Pascal.
It's something of a pattern with you that you refuse to answer a question, then try to blame people for asking it in the first place. You're the one who brought up Pascal's Wager. If you didn't mean anything by it, you shouldn't have said anything.

So is the assumption that there are multiple universes ...
Right - and that's why my attitude towards them is the same as my attitude towards God: an interesting and unproven idea.

Yes, you can continue to sit there, over in China, mulling over your annoyance at Christians, and I'll just continue to sit here reading atheist literature and wondering why China will block out a Christian music video but yet allow you to write superfluously to me on Christian Forums across that same server ....
Presumably you have some reason for believing in God? Presumably you think it's a good reason, otherwise you'd be an atheist?
Of course, we're overlooking the obvious answer - you probably became a Christian for the same reason most Christians did: it's what you were brought up to believe. This might at least explain your fondness for using ten-dollar words to say very little.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Uh-huh. In other words, you don't have any particular reasons that could persuade someone of the truth of your claim, and then blame them for wanting a reason to believe something.
Have your ever heard of Lessing's Ditch?


They're exactly the same standards that you would use if someone told you they believe in fairies. You'd want evidence before you accepted their claim.
That's a load, and I think you know it. Fairies? Really? How about Jews. Do you "believe" in Jews?


It's something of a pattern with you that you refuse to answer a question, then try to blame people for asking it in the first place. You're the one who brought up Pascal's Wager. If you didn't mean anything by it, you shouldn't have said anything.
And this response shows that you don't know the first thing about Pascal. His Wager is the LAST thing a person could know about Pascal, not the only thing.


Right - and that's why my attitude towards them is the same as my attitude towards God: an interesting and unproven idea.
Ok. That's sensible.


Presumably you have some reason for believing in God? Presumably you think it's a good reason, otherwise you'd be an atheist?
Yes, my reason is that it provides to me an aesthetically attractive possibility, however existentially encountered, that I think is more likely than other competing possibilities, all in contradistinction to the certainty of my impending death.

Of course, we're overlooking the obvious answer - you probably became a Christian for the same reason most Christians did: it's what you were brought up to believe. This might at least explain your fondness for using ten-dollar words to say very little.
No, I wasn't brought up to be a 'christian,' at least not in the truest sense of the term. So, that little atheistic argument fails due to its social imprecision. As for my ten-dollar words, well that comes with earning two degrees. Does this mean I think I'm 'better' than everyone else? No, but it does mean that my mind is emancipated from the drudgery of the mundane thought patterns I commonly, all too commonly, had as a young person. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Have your ever heard of Lessing's Ditch?
I hadn't, so thank you for introducing it to me. What are your thoughts on it?

That's a load, and I think you know it. Fairies? Really? How about Jews. Do you "believe" in Jews?
By "that's a load", do you mean "that's a load of nonsense?"
If so, I certainly don't know it. Saying you'd want evidence before you accepted someone's claim is the most reasonable point of view imaginable. Yes, I do believe that Jewish people exist. Is this a trick question?

And this response shows that you don't know the first thing about Pascal. His Wager is the LAST thing a person could know about Pascal, not the only thing.
If you have something to say, say it. I can't be bothered with guessing games.

No, I wasn't brought up to be a 'christian,' at least not in the truest sense of the term. So, that little atheistic argument fails due to its social imprecision. As for my ten-dollar words, well that comes with earning two degrees. Does this mean I think I'm 'better' than everyone else? No, but it does mean that my mind is emancipated from the drudgery of the mundane thought patterns I commonly, all too commonly, had as a young person. :rolleyes:
Most Christians are brought up as such, so whether it applies to you personally or not is unimportant.
As for your two degrees, I am not impressed. Using long words is generally a sign of insecurity. In future, would you mind speaking in plain English? There are times when I simply don't understand your meaning, and it must be embarrassing for such an intellectual as yourself not to be able to communicate with people.

Yes, my reason is that it provides to me an aesthetically attractive possibility, however existentially encountered, that I think is more likely than other competing possibilities, all in contradistinction to the certainty of my impending death.
Like this, for example. Would you mind trying that again?
 
Upvote 0