The stumbling block for atheists.

[KCfromNC]

The person postulated a mind that isn't part of nature but who created nature. I hypothetically responded by saying that such a hypothetical mind does not arise by virtue of its being the cause of everything in existence besides itself.

There's no reason to assume that.

Please note that there are thought experiments of this kind which are used to discover philosophical truths.

You're in the science forum - whatever philosophy wants to make up is irrelevant here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, then you come up against the insurmountable infinite regression paradoxes of both being and location.

You get around it by asserting your god was always there without any justification. It would be hypocritical of you not to let others assert the same about whatever causes they think they need to make their argument work.

 

[KCfromNC]

I post Bible verses on threads posted on this scientific forum which involve God. I refrain from posting Bible verses on my threads which are about an intelligent designer.

So you're saying the ID isn't god?

 

[KCfromNC]

You don't know what that even means.

Doesn't change the fact he used the term correctly. Maybe he just got lucky - or perhaps your accusation isn't as truthful as it could be.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I couldn't see it I would be agreeing with you and I don't.

Your inability to present evidence is a tacit agreement.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't know what that even means.

Then what does it mean?

 

[Abraxos]

I'm sorry but as an atheist, you've got that completely wrong. You must remember that this is a debating site on a Christian forum so the atheists on here might just enjoy a good old debate with people who have a different viewpoint, or belief system. Personally I am on here to try to understand more about Christianity because I am dating a confirmed church going Christian, and I find it interesting to here what other Christians have to say on various topics.

I fully accept that many people have deeply held and genuine religious beliefs, and those beliefs throughout the world are extremely numerous. But the fact that lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.

I have no interest in discrediting any of the available deities or indeed deities which have been invented yet, or those now out of fashion. My girlfriend says she truly believes in God and Jesus and she has a personal relationship with God, it gives her comfort. Personally I simply don't get it, the whole concept of this all seeing, all powerful God who can just "make" things is, in my opinion utterly ludicrous. Let alone the Bible being the word of God, resurrection, angels, Satan..... I believe it's all a myth. I have however never ever attempted to dissuade her of her beliefs, if she asks what I believe I just say that all of this, that we see around us is entirely natural and no God is needed, I do not see the need to discredit God in front of her.

For example I went to Church with her yesterday and the vicar quoted from Pauls gospel. In the pub after, we had a chat about Paul and I said he never met Jesus, and he was only quoting what he believed to be Gods word, there can be no evidence that Pauls words were Gods, it's a matter of belief. She agreed that she believes Pauls word is Gods word because the Church says it's so. As the Church has decreed the Bible to be holy, she believes in all of it as Gods word. We left it at that because as it's faith based, there can be no logic. She has been going to Church since she was born, from a long line of Christian church goers, I call it indoctrinated but again that's my opinion.

I can't speak for other atheists, but I only would have a discussion about God on a site like this, which is a discussion forum. Outside of this forum I am left with wondering how otherwise sane and intelligent human beings can possibly believe in the Bible, God, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism or any of the other thousands of belief systems available, but they do and good luck to them.

Personally, it seems you haven't been intellectually challenged on the existence of God, or namely, the Christian faith.

Something you may want to consider looking into if you are an honest man, I'd recommend the resurrection of Jesus.

The death and resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity and it is where Christianity stands or falls; and as a Rabbinic lawyer by the name of Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:12-19) In other words, if the resurrection of Jesus didn't take place, Christianity is false. Conversely, if Jesus did rise from the dead then His life and teachings are true. And Christianity has been willing to put itself on the line on this matter across the centuries.

To any thinking person when they question Jesus and the resurrection itself, is to rigorously determine what Christians had believed in for over 2,000 years through serious investigation of history. The best approach is to treat the Christian scripture as a secular scholar would treat it as any other historical document from antiquity as well as other non-Christian sources and how they line up.
I think it's important to note that many have tried to refute the resurrection of Jesus only to have ended up becoming Christians themselves because of the facts and evidence for the resurrection.

Spoiler: To name a few

Professor Thomas Arnold
14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts.
"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Brooke Foss Westcott
The English scholar said, "Raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

Dr Simon Greenleaf
Born on December 5, 1783, Greenleaf was an agnostic, some say atheist, who believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ was either a hoax or a myth. No stranger to truth, and to the proof of the truth, Greenleaf was a principal founder of the Harvard Law School and a world-renowned expert on evidence. Challenged by one of his students one day to “consider the evidence” for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Greenleaf set out to disprove it, but ended up concluding that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was indeed fact, not fiction. Being a man of conviction and reason, and in accordance with his conclusions, Greenleaf converted from Agnosticism to Christianity.

Recommended books if you're interested:
The case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona
An excellent resource and you by no means need to be a studied apologist to fully appreciate this book. Mr. Habermas in most respects is the spearhead for the Resurrection, and his methods which I am still learning and applying.

The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
It's about 900 pages long. I'm offering this one in case you're a very serious seeker and/or the type that considers reading a joyous pastime over outdoor activities. It is considered the definitive defense of the Resurrection of Jesus, and a compulsory resource to have on the bookshelf.

 

[Loudmouth]

To any thinking person when they question Jesus and the resurrection itself, is to rigorously determine what Christians had believed in for over 2,000 years through serious investigation of history. The best approach is to treat the Christian scripture as a secular scholar would treat it as any other historical document from antiquity as well as other non-Christian sources and how they line up.
I think it's important to note that many have tried to refute the resurrection of Jesus only to have ended up becoming Christians themselves because of the facts and evidence for the resurrection.

When you treat the Koran or Book of Mormon in the same way, then we might consider it.

 

[Abraxos]

When you treat the Koran or Book of Mormon in the same way, then we might consider it.

What makes you think I haven't?

 

[Loudmouth]

What makes you think I haven't?

So you accept that Joseph Smith was given the Book of Mormon by the Angel Moroni? Do you accept that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?

 

[Abraxos]

So you accept that Joseph Smith was given the Book of Mormon by the Angel Moroni? Do you accept that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?

Make a seperate thread on the matter of Joseph Smith and the book of Mormons or Islam, and I'll tell you all about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Make a seperate thread on the matter of Joseph Smith and the book of Mormons or Islam, and I'll tell you all about it.

The matter can be settled here. The whole point that atheists are making is that all of these different religions make contradictory claims of absolute truth. They all claim that they are the one true religion, and all other religions are false. The obvious conclusion in the absence of evidence for any of them is that they are probably all false religions.

You even start with the argument of how millions of Christians can't be wrong, as if numbers makes something true. It is bad reasoning piled on bad reasoning.

 

[Kylie]

You don't know what that even means.

It means, "I can't believe that it could have happened like that, therefore it didn't happen like that."

Like saying, "I can't believe that the creation of exceedingly complex organisms, including the human brain, could have come from unintelligent mindless chemicals, because I can't believe that those unintelligent mindless chemicals could have somehow programmed themselves to do it. Therefore an intelligent mind did it."

So yes, what you said in post 879 is indeed an argument from incredulity.

 

[Abraxos]

The matter can be settled here. The whole point that atheists are making is that all of these different religions make contradictory claims of absolute truth. They all claim that they are the one true religion, and all other religions are false. The obvious conclusion in the absence of evidence for any of them is that they are probably all false religions.

You even start with the argument of how millions of Christians can't be wrong, as if numbers makes something true. It is bad reasoning piled on bad reasoning.

You have a census, then you have facts and evidence. Make a thread as this topic deserves it's own, and I'd love to go into detail about Joseph Smith and the book of Mormons and Mohammed and Islam.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have a census, then you have facts and evidence. Make a thread as this topic deserves it's own, and I'd love to go into detail about Joseph Smith and the book of Mormons and Mohammed and Islam.

Why don't you start with some evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

Why don't you start with some evidence?

I see a distinct pattern.

 

[Michael]

It means, "I can't believe that it could have happened like that, therefore it didn't happen like that."

Like saying, "I can't believe that the creation of exceedingly complex organisms, including the human brain, could have come from unintelligent mindless chemicals, because I can't believe that those unintelligent mindless chemicals could have somehow programmed themselves to do it. Therefore an intelligent mind did it."

So yes, what you said in post 879 is indeed an argument from incredulity.

Hmmm. I'm inclined to agree and say that his argument is more of a hypothesis, which he'd need to support with something like a slimemold, or another single celled organism that exhibits signs of "intelligence" without a 'brain'. Kind of a nifty trick for a single cell.

 

[Dave RP]

Personally, it seems you haven't been intellectually challenged on the existence of God, or namely, the Christian faith.

Something you may want to consider looking into if you are an honest man, I'd recommend the resurrection of Jesus.

The death and resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity and it is where Christianity stands or falls; and as a Rabbinic lawyer by the name of Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:12-19) In other words, if the resurrection of Jesus didn't take place, Christianity is false. Conversely, if Jesus did rise from the dead then His life and teachings are true. And Christianity has been willing to put itself on the line on this matter across the centuries.

To any thinking person when they question Jesus and the resurrection itself, is to rigorously determine what Christians had believed in for over 2,000 years through serious investigation of history. The best approach is to treat the Christian scripture as a secular scholar would treat it as any other historical document from antiquity as well as other non-Christian sources and how they line up.
I think it's important to note that many have tried to refute the resurrection of Jesus only to have ended up becoming Christians themselves because of the facts and evidence for the resurrection.

Spoiler: To name a few

Professor Thomas Arnold
14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts.
"I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Brooke Foss Westcott
The English scholar said, "Raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

Dr Simon Greenleaf
Born on December 5, 1783, Greenleaf was an agnostic, some say atheist, who believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ was either a hoax or a myth. No stranger to truth, and to the proof of the truth, Greenleaf was a principal founder of the Harvard Law School and a world-renowned expert on evidence. Challenged by one of his students one day to “consider the evidence” for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Greenleaf set out to disprove it, but ended up concluding that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was indeed fact, not fiction. Being a man of conviction and reason, and in accordance with his conclusions, Greenleaf converted from Agnosticism to Christianity.

Recommended books if you're interested:
The case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona
An excellent resource and you by no means need to be a studied apologist to fully appreciate this book. Mr. Habermas in most respects is the spearhead for the Resurrection, and his methods which I am still learning and applying.

The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
It's about 900 pages long. I'm offering this one in case you're a very serious seeker and/or the type that considers reading a joyous pastime over outdoor activities. It is considered the definitive defense of the Resurrection of Jesus, and a compulsory resource to have on the bookshelf.

Thanks, if I get time I'll have a look at these sources. I'm sorry but I will be very surprised if I change my mind, the whole thing in my humble opinion is still too ludicrous for words. So we die, there's a soul, not attached to anything, no sustenance, no physicality, and it survives for an unknown period somewhere unknown, then this long dead spirit called the son of god or god or whatever (I can never work out whether Jesus is god, son of god or both?) appears and "judges" everyone living and dead. The dead are then resurrected and go to eternal life, in a bodily resurrection on earth (or not depending on which particularly sect you follow) for eternity...... really? Then I always get stuck, where did god come from, who made god, how can this god just "make" things. Satan is a "fallen angel", what are angels, where do they live, how do they live, what do they live on?

I therefore have to believe that whatever "evidence" from 2000 years ago is put forward for Jesus resurrection must be bogus, although I'll admit I'm no scholar on the subject. What research i have done seems to show ample "evidence" for a whole range of opinions, from there was no historical Jesus to full support for the bibles stories, interpretation being the key. atheists interpretation seems to be, unsurprisingly, different from Christians interpretations.

So whilst, as I said I respect the rights of everyone to believe what they want, there is no way I will ever "get" it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What does make a difference are the indications of design which justify inferring a designer.

What are those indications? List them.

 

[Kylie]

Hmmm. I'm inclined to agree and say that his argument is more of a hypothesis, which he'd need to support with something like a slimemold, or another single celled organism that exhibits signs of "intelligence" without a 'brain'. Kind of a nifty trick for a single cell.

It also depends on how yo define "intelligence", as there are examples of very simple machines that have displayed some remarkably intelligent behaviour. Animal Behavior - Futility Closet