Theist evidence/arguments.

[anx66]

I want to go back to this point:

An unbiased chance does not increase the likelihood of something, so if an explanation increases the likelihood of something it should be preferred over an explanation that does not increase the likelihood of something. Teleological explanations do just that.

I'm still trying to understand your original argument. What you seem to be saying is, that the best explanation for our intellectual faculties is that they they were designed, just like a calculator was designed, rather than them coming into existence as the result of pure chance. Evolutionary biologists would answer that evolution is driven not just by chance, but also by the inheritance of those facets of the brain that give a survival advantage.

 

[anx66]

that which is known about God is evident within them;

To whom is the them referring in this quote?
And what is the truth to which it is referring?

 

[anx66]

well, can only wish you good "luck" in your earthly life as an atheist

I pray someday you will return to the Lord, would like to see you there someday. Amen.

I might or might not return. I'm not sure whether it's my decision or God's or a mixture of both, so we'll have to wait and see. If there is a God.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm going to say it, you already believe in God but you are simply suppressing it in your unrighteousness.

When did you first discover your magical mind-reading powers?

You should believe in God because you are nothing without him, your life is nothing with him.

You’re confused. You are the one who purports to derive all your life’s meaning from ‘God’. Therefore, your life is nothing without him.

Kindly do not project your theistic quasi-nihilism onto other people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The oxford dictionary defines reliable as, able to be depended on or trusted. I trust my intellectual faculties to be capable of discovering truths about reality the majority of the time.

Is that sufficient for you to start your argument?

I know this all seems like semantics, but there has to be some nuance involved with discussions of this sort

You're right about one thing, there does have to be some nuance involved with discussion of this sort, but I'm not sure that the typical Modern Christian evangelical paradigm is robust enough to enable a person to succeed in really establishing his or her epistemic expectations in a way that will achieve belief. No, it's going to take a lot more than that, both on the human philosophical front and ---(the part we can't provide for ourselves)---from God.

So, from my more Pascalian, Existential point of view, I'd say it's very difficult to believe and should be expected to be difficult, and if you're REALLY going to rely on rationally induced means, then you should consider Pascal's Wager, which isn't meant to make you achieve belief but rather to help you be more willing to open up to God's Presence.

Once you've done that, then you'll be set to put a step forward with Journey Epistemology rather than the usual Foundationalistic claptrap.

 

[Jonaitis]

When did you first discover your magical mind-reading powers?

I simply am reiterating what God said, so your controversy is with him.

You’re confused. You are the one who purports to derive all your life’s meaning from ‘God’. Therefore, your life is nothing without him.

Kindly do not project your theistic quasi-nihilism onto other people.

If there is no God, then you have no purpose. Haven't you yet figured out what atheism actually leads to? You are here for no reason, and your existence is worth less than nothing in your worldview.

 

[Silmarien]

It’s not a choice, though. The moment you decide that your rational faculties are not reliable, you’re relying on something else you’re assuming is more reliable, and the question of whether you can trust that must be applied. And if the answer is no, it begins an infinite regress of unreliable faculties outstripping the last. No, you have to trust that some part of you is interfacing with reality or you’re just invoking a paradoxical loop of “I can’t trust that I can’t trust that I can’t trust that I can’t trust...” ad infinitum.

I'm not sure this is true, actually. I've run into people in the hard Kantian camp who do seem to take it on faith that reality is utterly unknowable to the human mind. There are postmodernists out there who'd probably laugh at you if you suggested that rational faculties were reliable in any meaningful way, so the rabbit hole really does go all the way down.

Give me an argument or two as to why I should believe in God? Not including the sentence or one like this: "You know there is a God really."

What's up? Why are you asking?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I simply am reiterating what God said, so your controversy is with him.

Firstly, no you’re not. You’re reiterating what Paul said. And since he’s not here, and you’re advocating for what he said, my 'controversy' is with you. No one else. If you're incapable of owning up to the things you say, then don't say them.

Secondly, I know my own thoughts. You don’t. Therefor, the best case scenario for you is that you’ve misinterpreted ‘what God [Paul] said’ in the Bible. The worst case scenario for you is that you’ve interpreted it correctly, and the Bible itself is wrong.

If there is no God, then you have no purpose.

You’re still confused.

You purport to derive purpose from Yahweh, so you have no purpose without him.

What is your excuse for your inability to distinguish yourself from other people?

Haven't you yet figured out what atheism actually leads to? You are here for no reason, and your existence is worth less than nothing in your worldview.

Atheism isn’t a worldview. You have no idea what my worldview is.

 

[anx66]

What's up? Why are you asking?

Every so often I feel the need to have a discussion with Christians, to ascertain whether there is any vestige of truth in Christian claims. Not for the benefit of the other participants in the discussion, but for my own benefit as a seeker after the truth. I lived 30ish years as a Christian, and I guess I sometimes get the desire to find out if I've made a mistake in not being a Christian.

 

[anx66]

If there is no God, then you have no purpose. Haven't you yet figured out what atheism actually leads to? You are here for no reason, and your existence is worth less than nothing in your worldview.

If I may interject. I agree there is no innate reason for us being here, and no innate worth to us, but these things can develop. We can find meaning and purpose in life, by seeing what is important to us, and working towards development in that particular area. Try telling my wife and children, that I'm worthless, they value me. So, you don't necessarily need a God to have purpose and value in life.

 

[anx66]

if you're REALLY going to rely on rationally induced means, then you should consider Pascal's Wager, which isn't meant to make you achieve belief but rather to help you be more willing to open up to God's Presence.

I've examined Pascals wager before, but found it unconvincing, and I think I've been open enough to the possibility that God exists for years. I just don't believe in the existence of God.
If there is a God, then I'm not one of the elect, whom God has chosen, because he hasn't shown up.

 

[Sanoy]

We are forced to trust it because the alternative is to succumb to a dialectical loop. We’re further persuaded that it’s true because of how coherent everything is on that assumption, but it being false still isn’t a real option for us.

Only if we allow ourselves to engage in a dialectical loop. One can believe square circles exist, even though they are incoherent and form a loop of their own. Rational thought puts you in the loop and saves you from square circles. I can imagine someone lacking the meta-rationality to form the last parts of the loop, and I can imagine cognitive bias overcoming a piece of the loop (living in denial). I'm not fully convinced what I imagine is possible, just that it seems like one could. Are you no longer a pragmatist?

 

[Sanoy]

I want to go back to this point:



I'm still trying to understand your original argument. What you seem to be saying is, that the best explanation for our intellectual faculties is that they they were designed, just like a calculator was designed, rather than them coming into existence as the result of pure chance. Evolutionary biologists would answer that evolution is driven not just by chance, but also by the inheritance of those facets of the brain that give a survival advantage.

Here is the rub. For Evolution you have chance on one side and teleology on the other. One is caught in the middle trying very hard not to have any of one, and little of the other. Or as someone has said, "Teleology is a mistress without whom no biologist can live, but with whom none wishes to be seen in public". But of chance and Teleology, it is teleology that is the worst to reach for. One cannot dig out of the hole of improbability (chance), for everything above the hole speaks of God.

Facets of the brain that give survival advantage is simply the same problem restated. One needs facets of the brain that give truth, not survival here.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Hi there,
Give me an argument or two as to why I should believe in God? Not including the sentence or one like this: "You know there is a God really."

Steve C.

P.S. Was a "Christian"/christian for many years.

There are plenty of reasons. For atheists Hugh Ross probably has the best.

"Sixteen steps punctuate the history of life on Earth. Each of these steps is critical for making possible the entry of advanced life. The likelihood of all these steps occurring from a naturalistic perspective is essentially zero. This zero probability does not take into account either life’s origin or the origin of the mind and the human spirit.

Why does the history of life appear the way it does? Naturalists, materialists, deists, and most theistic evolutionists would answer that the chemicals on early Earth spontaneously self-assembled into a simple cell that was able to reproduce. From there, the cell’s daughters evolved to produce all the life-forms that have ever existed throughout the past 3.8 billion years. Such a history requires that life make at least 16 transitional steps in order to generate advanced life-forms.

1. Cells containing only a few hundred gene products must transition to cells containing several thousand gene products.
2. Respiration systems must transition from anaerobic to aerobic.
3. Cells must develop nuclei.
4. Cells must develop mitochondria.
5. Cells must transition from free-floating to colony life.
6. Single-celled organisms must transition into multicellular organisms.
7. Asexual organisms must transition into sexual organisms.
8. Organisms must develop eyes or eye precursors.
9. Organisms must evolve differentiated organs and appendages.
10. Organisms with ectoskeletons must evolve into organisms with endoskeletons.
11. Very-small-bodied organisms must become large-bodied organisms
12. Non-animal life must transition into animal life
13. Non-vascular plants must transition into vascular plants
14. Non-chordate animals must evolve into chordate animals
15. Animals must develop a mind, free will, and emotions.
16. Advanced animals must develop a spirit, symbolic cognition, and symbolic relational capability—in other words, they must become human.

Miniscule Probabilities

That’s quite a list for undirected natural processes to complete. Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala notes that, from a Darwinian perspective, each step is highly improbable. Taking into account just a few of these steps, Ayala determined that the probability of intelligent life arising from bacteria to be less than one chance in 101,000,000.1

Physicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler calculated the probability of all 16 steps occurring to be less than one chance in 1024,000,000.2 To get a feel for how miniscule this probability is, it is roughly equivalent to someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where that individual purchases just one lottery ticket each time. Realistically, this probability is indistinguishable from someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where the individual purchases no tickets at all.

The probability determination of one chance in 1024,000,000 presumes that each of the 16 steps is at least naturalistically possible, even if it is extremely improbable. But the last two steps present a problem for a naturalistic model. Consciousness, the mind, and the spirit are not reducible to physics and chemistry. In other words, the mindless, the spiritless, and that which lacks consciousness (undirected evolutionary processes) cannot create that which is mindful, spiritual, and conscious. Barrow, Carter, and Tipler merely considered the origin of the genes that govern some of the mind’s and spirit’s operations.

Their probability determination also fails to consider that no naturalistic explanation for the origin of physical life exists; naturalistic explanations aren’t even possible. All naturalistic models for life’s origin require a supply of building block molecules and time for those building block molecules to self assemble. Yet overwhelming evidence now demonstrates that neither the time nor the building blocks were present for the origin of life on Earth.3

Moreover, the 16 steps imply that no category of life has permanently disappeared in spite of the fact that mass extinctions have occurred throughout life’s history. The steps are additions to life, not replacements. If life appeared on Earth without a plan, purpose, or goal, then why have all categories remained?

It makes better sense that the Creator would act to ensure that no category of life permanently disappears. A Creator could intend that all life fulfill a role in equipping humanity to carry out our purpose and destiny. Psalm 104:24 provides an apt two-sentence summary of the origin of life and the 16 steps: “How many are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.”


16 Steps to Generating Advanced Life | Dr Hugh Ross




His testimony probably gives the best reasons why a skeptic might consider Christianity.

PS - Use the link to read the original text for the actual number of bacteria to man calculations because superscript does not work right when copy and paste is used. It comes out as a straight number that is much smaller (only in the hundred Billions and later a Trillion compared to the ridiculously astronomical number)

 

[xianghua]

Every so often I feel the need to have a discussion with Christians

do you think that a robot with DNA is evidencne for design or evolution?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Why dis-believe ?

Thousands of years of consistently reported Contact events, communications from, and interventions on earth by, heavenly powers

even if you are a skeptic, un-confirmed reports are not dis-confirmed

logic does not allow "cast doubt, then throw it all out"

the reports themselves are direct witness testimonies = evidence at Law, admissible in court
archaeology corroborates many of the historical reports
as for the rest, even if you are a skeptic, un-confirmed reports are not dis-confirmed

you do in fact have zero grounds for summarily dismissing them, and etiquette demand some reasonable proof of perjury before libeling someone as a liar

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've examined Pascals wager before, but found it unconvincing, and I think I've been open enough to the possibility that God exists for years. I just don't believe in the existence of God.
If there is a God, then I'm not one of the elect, whom God has chosen, because he hasn't shown up.

Argument 3, then: God showing up has little or nothing to do with any one of us being "elect." So, I would seriously urge you to dump that imported assumption. In fact, drop kick it into the next trashcan you find.

God hasn't shown up for me either! Am I not "saved," then? You might want to just reconsider the brand of denominational interpretation you've been given that served as your form of Christian faith and start again ...

 

[gaara4158]

Only if we allow ourselves to engage in a dialectical loop. One can believe square circles exist, even though they are incoherent and form a loop of their own. Rational thought puts you in the loop and saves you from square circles. I can imagine someone lacking the meta-rationality to form the last parts of the loop, and I can imagine cognitive bias overcoming a piece of the loop (living in denial). I'm not fully convinced what I imagine is possible, just that it seems like one could. Are you no longer a pragmatist?

This is still a pragmatist angle, it’s just a new approach. I’ve acknowledged that you could overcome the last parts of the dialectical loop by being incoherent or irrational, but that’s its own problem. Isn’t the point of this question for you to conclude that there’s no way we can rationally trust our faculties without invoking the design of God? It’s my argument that trusting one’s faculties is the only live option one has, regardless of whether they’re actually reliable or not. God need not enter the equation.

I'm not sure this is true, actually. I've run into people in the hard Kantian camp who do seem to take it on faith that reality is utterly unknowable to the human mind. There are postmodernists out there who'd probably laugh at you if you suggested that rational faculties were reliable in any meaningful way, so the rabbit hole really does go all the way down.

I don’t see any way out of trusting one’s rational faculties that doesn’t appeal to either themselves or to something irrational, neither of which can be argued rationally. Taking it on faith that everything our faculties tell us is wrong (as opposed to some psychedelic representation that’s based on reality) seems kind of pointless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is still a pragmatist angle, it’s just a new approach. I’ve acknowledged that you could overcome the last parts of the dialectical loop by being incoherent or irrational, but that’s its own problem. Isn’t the point of this question for you to conclude that there’s no way we can rationally trust our faculties without invoking the design of God? It’s my argument that trusting one’s faculties is the only live option one has, regardless of whether they’re actually reliable or not. God need not enter the equation.


I don’t see any way out of trusting one’s rational faculties that doesn’t appeal to either themselves or to something irrational, neither of which can be argued rationally. Taking it on faith that everything our faculties tell us is wrong (as opposed to some psychedelic representation that’s based on reality) seems kind of pointless.

...here's another consideration. It could be that our human senses and brains work just fine (most of the time): but it's the World around us that screws things up for us.

 

[Silmarien]

Every so often I feel the need to have a discussion with Christians, to ascertain whether there is any vestige of truth in Christian claims. Not for the benefit of the other participants in the discussion, but for my own benefit as a seeker after the truth. I lived 30ish years as a Christian, and I guess I sometimes get the desire to find out if I've made a mistake in not being a Christian.

What happened to make you change your mind after 30 years?

I don’t see any way out of trusting one’s rational faculties that doesn’t appeal to either themselves or to something irrational, neither of which can be argued rationally. Taking it on faith that everything our faculties tell us is wrong (as opposed to some psychedelic representation that’s based on reality) seems kind of pointless.

Oh, I agree, but you seemed to be implying that this was an impossible belief, and that people had to at some point trust their rational faculties. Given the wilder side of modern philosophy, I don't think that's actually true.