What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[ianb321red]

On what basis do you feel God is not real?

To be fair to SithDoughnut, he has already spelt this out in a number of previous posts in this thread.

His position is clear to me...

 

[ianb321red]

As does the Qur'an. Claiming that you are telling the truth does not mean that you are, even if you think you are.

The Biblical account of Jesus is demonstrably more accurate than the account in the Quran (see my previous post)
If The Biblical account of Jesus is truthful and accurate (versus any competing account), then it means that the claims that Jesus made must have been accurately recorded, and in turn are truthful.

Given that there is an abundance of independent and non-Christian evidence to support the very existence of Jesus, then the central issue we are concerned with is primarily regarding his claims with regards to divinity, and therefore evidence to support this.

The only way we can prove or disprove this is to demonstrate whether Jesus told the truth or not? To make this point, it would take evidence more convincing that what we already have to support the gospels accounts of Jesus to show that the opposite is true.
This would mean we would need multiple eye witness accounts from people who lived at the same time that Jesus did, and that these eye witness accounts would need to be corroborated by further independent evidence. All of this evidence would need to be well supported by manuscript copies that can be attested to have written around 15-35 years after the events they described.

This would only then equal the evidence that we do have to support the claims Jesus made.

If there is such evidence in existence, please point me in the direction of it.
If not, then until proven otherwise it can only hold that The Bible is accurate and that Jesus told the truth.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I don't have a position on God, but I do have a position on the argument that he exists. I think that there is little to no evidence or logical necessity to support such an argument

 

[SithDoughnut]

This would only then equal the evidence that we do have to support the claims Jesus made.

That all seems rather arbitrary and biased to me. Why are you giving Jesus' claims such credence? They're only claims; he doesn't give anything to back them up. The best he does is miracles, and even then that doesn't prove that he is God (there are plenty of characters in the Bible capable of miraculous events).

I'm afraid if this argument is going to work for anyone other than you, you're going to have to start from a far more neutral position than the only you currently occupy.

 

[ianb321red]

The problem is that events pertaining to the divinity of Jesus do not have mass witnesses, and the gospels are not first hand accounts. It's extremely unlikely that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses either (or at the very least, it's a massively minority opinion among Biblical scholars). When it comes to John, no one actually knows who wrote it.

Hmmm…. Depends on what your sources are...

What is your source(s) for this comment?
I obviously can quote sources to suggest otherwise…

Regarding John/ Johannine works – the authorship has been up for debate for the last 1800 years. Neither me nor you are in a position to build an argument on this either way, and in any case it is irrelevant to this particular discussion since it is not an eyewitness account..(although admittedly I did quote from The Gospel of John the other day… ).

On top of that, you have contradictions and historical errors within the Bible that also bring doubt upon the claims of divinity. The main example off of the top of my head is Jesus' birth. The claim is that Mary and Jospeh returned to Bethlehem for a census, but there is no historical evidence that this census ever occured, and even if there was a census it was never a requirement to return to your home town.

Which I personally think add to the authenticity.

There are alleged errors, and there are minor errors – but these don’t take away from the accuracy of the events they actually describe.

For example, if 4 people went on a holiday to France together for 2 weeks, and then 6 months after returning were each asked for their accounts of the holiday would their accounts match exactly on all levels of detail?

If not, does this mean the holiday they took never really happened?

To go back to your original example of the trial, I've got three witness, all equally dubious, claiming wildly different things and not a shred of physical evidence to support any of their claims. True, one of them claims to have hundreds of witnesses but none of these witnesses are available to question and I'm not even told who most of them are. On top of that, I've got people claiming the same thing as the Christian, but including claims that Jesus tamed dragons and the like. If I were a judge I'd throw this trial out of court, because none of the claims have a leg to stand on.

To be frank, all three claims are dubious at best. If forced to make a conclusion, numerical advantage is all there is to go on, and it's not in your favour.

Ok, and I’d like to reiterate my point regarding evidence that quality is better than quantity….

As I’ve said before, the counter claims regarding who Jesus was or wasn’t can easily be refuted on 3 simple tests:

-authorship and closeness to the event in question
-closeness to the event described both historically and geographically
-authenticity and reliability of the subsequent historical record of the event

And on top of this, is there any / some / the equivalent amount of credible evidence to demonstrate the opposite to The Biblical account?

The Bible I believe stands up to these 3 tests, and any competing account of Jesus, whether it be other religions, Christian sects/ cults or secular accounts clearly fail the 3 tests….

 

[SithDoughnut]

What is your source(s) for this comment?

Wikipedia generally. I'm not claiming anything I say as absolute fact, but that plus general articles and the like I've read suggest a whole range of potential authors, especially for John.

Which I personally think add to the authenticity.

So the less evidence there is for something, the more likely you think it is true?

There are alleged errors, and there are minor errors – but these don’t take away from the accuracy of the events they actually describe.

But they do throw other claims of accuracy into doubt.

For example, if 4 people went on a holiday to France together for 2 weeks, and then 6 months after returning were each asked for their accounts of the holiday would their accounts match exactly on all levels of detail?

If not, does this mean the holiday they took never really happened?

If they gave me false details, then I'd wonder. Especially if these details are completely inaccurate and are potentially there for the purposes of fitting an agenda (Jesus being born in Bethlehem is often pointed out as fulfilling a prophecy).

As I’ve said before, the counter claims regarding who Jesus was or wasn’t can easily be refuted on 3 simple tests

Here's the problem: you're expecting me to start from the position that you are correct and then you want me to disprove completely everything you say. That's not how logic or objective discussion works. You don't magically get to declare your position the winner and then expect everyone to tear it down completely in order to even be considered on an equal footing.

First, you need to demonstrate that the Biblical claims are correct, and then you can ask me to refute your points. Claims of eyewitnesses are not eyewitnesses, claims of authorship is not proof of authorship, and so on. The Bible is a series of claims; if you want your argument to have any weight you're going to need to demonstrate that these claims are factual. This is why we need evidence beyond the Bible, because if we were willing to accept claims from only one source, then I could equally claim that any other religion is correct. There is probably more historical evidence for the existence of the prophet Muhammed than there is for Jesus, so does that mean that all claims by Muhammed are automatically correct? Some details in the Qur'an may be wrong, but as you said: "There are alleged errors, and there are minor errors – but these don’t take away from the accuracy of the events they actually describe."

When all three texts are equally dubious and incorrect (and they are), quantity is all we have to work on. It's up to you to demonstrate otherwise; you can't just make an assertion and demand I refute it. I understand that you're a Christian, but you have to recognise that I and many other people are not, and we're not going to have the same bias towards the Bible that you hold. We have to look at this objectively, which you haven't been doing so far.

 

[ianb321red]

That all seems rather arbitrary and biased to me. Why are you giving Jesus' claims such credence? They're only claims; he doesn't give anything to back them up. The best he does is miracles, and even then that doesn't prove that he is God (there are plenty of characters in the Bible capable of miraculous events).

I agree that miracles alone do not prove that he is God.
The case for Jesus is based on several unique characteristics he possesses:

-Born of a virgin (immaculate conception) bypassing the curse of sin
-Lived a sinless life
-Is fully man and fully God (and therefore fully human and fully divine)
-The miracles he performed
-The claims he made
-That he conquered death

The case for Christ’s uniqueness is so great that absolutely no one can compare with Him.

This is why I give his claims such credence.

I'm afraid if this argument is going to work for anyone other than you, you're going to have to start from a far more neutral position than the only you currently occupy.

That sounds like Agnosticism to me….
In all seriousness though, would a NPOV involve compromising anything that I believe to be true?

I don’t want to stonewall any suggestions, and I’d like to think that I’m open minded enough to consider alternative POV’s..

Please indicate my areas of bias so that I can address them.

 

[ThankGod]

Genesis Conflict Videos from Walter Veith | Universal Flood | Bones in Stones | The Genes of Genesis

Watch all 8 videos.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The case for Christ’s uniqueness is so great that absolutely no one can compare with Him.

This is why I give his claims such credence.

You give the claims credence just because they are extraordinary? Do you also give people who claim to have been abducted by aliens the same credence?

In all seriousness though, would a NPOV involve compromising anything that I believe to be true?

Not at all, but it would involve starting from the position of "we don't know" instead of "the Bible is correct".

 

[SithDoughnut]

Genesis Conflict Videos from Walter Veith | Universal Flood | Bones in Stones | The Genes of Genesis

Watch all 8 videos.

I'm afraid I don't have 10 or 11 hours to spare. Care to summarise the parts you think are worth discussing?

 

[ThankGod]

I'm afraid I don't have 10 or 11 hours to spare. Care to summarise the parts you think are worth discussing?

Essentially disproving science, and proving God. In your spare time, watch all 8 of them. Spoken by an ex-evolutionist.

 

[ThankGod]

And I certainly have to thank my King for the brother on this site whom has given me this information.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Essentially disproving science, and proving God. In your spare time, watch all 8 of them. Spoken by an ex-evolutionist.

All of science? Including the bits that demonstrably work on a day to day basis?

Which bit of science that they "disproved" would you like to discuss further? As I said, I don't have a spare 11 hours to watch Youtube videos that are dragged on far more than they should be.

 

[ianb321red]

First, you need to demonstrate that the Biblical claims are correct, and then you can ask me to refute your points. Claims of eyewitnesses are not eyewitnesses, claims of authorship is not proof of authorship, and so on. The Bible is a series of claims; if you want your argument to have any weight you're going to need to demonstrate that these claims are factual.

I believe this can be done – but unfortunately not within the confines of an online discussion forum. It’s a fairly complicated process to go through all the different lines of internal and external evidence. It’s also quite a long-winded process, and the amount of effort required just to deal with one gospel’s authorship on my part to research it, and for you to read it would consume a great deal of time.

I expect that you realise that entire books and thesis are written on gospel authorship?

So in reality I can’t practically go beyond pointing at the evidence to support my argument. There are clearly limits to how far a discussion of this nature can be taken using an online forum.

This is why we need evidence beyond the Bible, because if we were willing to accept claims from only one source, then I could equally claim that any other religion is correct. There is probably more historical evidence for the existence of the prophet Muhammed than there is for Jesus, so does that mean that all claims by Muhammed are automatically correct? Some details in the Qur'an may be wrong, but as you said: "There are alleged errors, and there are minor errors – but these don’t take away from the accuracy of the events they actually describe."

I personally would call the account of Jesus in the Quran a major error. This alone is enough to tell me that because it is included in the Quran, that accuracy of the Quran as a whole can be questioned. Furthermore, there is no independent or non-religious evidence to support the Islamic account of Jesus versus the Christian one (which does have independent/ non-religious evidence, that I have previously mentioned).

When all three texts are equally dubious and incorrect (and they are), quantity is all we have to work on. It's up to you to demonstrate otherwise; you can't just make an assertion and demand I refute it. I understand that you're a Christian, but you have to recognise that I and many other people are not, and we're not going to have the same bias towards the Bible that you hold. We have to look at this objectively, which you haven't been doing so far.

I understand your point here, but in one sense I’m in an impossible position. I believe that The Bible is objective in the sense that which is true for all people at all times, not contingent upon one's individual opinions.

If I don’t hold this to be true, then through subjectivity there is no way for any other person to prove or disprove it.

So this works just as much in your favour as it does in mine.
I’ve haven’t been subjective because the views I’ve used in my arguments are on the whole shared by other Bible believing Christians (I hope!).
Furthermore, as far as I’m concerned The Bible is objective evidence. It contains historical references, genealogy, lineage and so on – all of which can be tested objectively.

This is the objectivity the Bible claims. The message of Scripture is embedded in historical facts. Its claims are claims of objective truth. The Bible is not an experience, impression or impulse in one's head. It is the record or report of what God has actually done in history. The fact that Jesus died on the Cross may be debated by some, but his death is a fact of history rather than the invention of a few Christian's minds.

I am Christian, not because I’ve got too much spare time on a Sunday and need a hobby or an excuse to get out. Being a Christian is really very difficult at times. I’m a Christian because I’ve compared religions and beliefs (and no-beliefs) and have concluded that Christianity is true – true in an objective and historical sense.

I don’t need a religion to believe in – all I want to do is believe in something that is true. Therefore, what I’ve simply done is looked for the historical facts and accepted what is the true version. It’s really as simple as that. No hidden agendas, indoctrination, secret handshakes.

 

[ThankGod]

All of science? Including the bits that demonstrably work on a day to day basis?

Which bit of science that they "disproved" would you like to discuss further? As I said, I don't have a spare 11 hours to watch Youtube videos that are dragged on far more than they should be.

It talks about a lot of things. But, what I took from it was there being verifiable evidence that validates a universal flood, causing us to start over from 3000-4000 years ago-- which science does not and will not ever admit.

You need to take a day off from work, and watch these videos. Because salvation is more important than whatever you have going on in your life.

 

[Genersis]

Genesis Conflict Videos from Walter Veith | Universal Flood | Bones in Stones | The Genes of Genesis

Watch all 8 videos.

I skimmed through the first one.
I don't trust nor feel bothered to watch a video by any guy who thinks that planets not all spinning is the same direction is a point against the big bang theory.
Or that the fact the planets and stars aren't evenly spaced out in the universe(Because explosions/rapid expansions spread things out evenly apparently) is also a point against the big bang theory.
When these things could be explained by gravity(Which he doesn't believe could form a star as gravity doesn't really work on gasses apparently, so he obviously doesn't know what a nebula is...) the formation of the individual planets and probably other things i'm not aware of.

He also seems to think the big bang has something to do with evolution and that dust magically became the first life forms.

Essentially disproving science, and proving God. In your spare time, watch all 8 of them. Spoken by an ex-evolutionist.

Not sure what an evolutionist is. And i doubt it disproves all of science...

Sorry, but it seems like a waste of time to me...

 

[theFijian]

But, what I took from it was there being verifiable evidence that validates a universal flood, causing us to start over from 3000-4000 years ago-- which science does not and will not ever admit.

Great. So the last 3000-4000 years (strangely vague) worth of science is bunkum. How is it we have the technology enabling you to post this on the internet is beyond me.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So in reality I can’t practically go beyond pointing at the evidence to support my argument. There are clearly limits to how far a discussion of this nature can be taken using an online forum.

I agree. We're also heading into truly subjective territory, so this discussion is winding down, I think.

I personally would call the account of Jesus in the Quran a major error.

What about it particularly is in error? Bear in mind that comparing it against the Bible doesn't work yet, because we haven't established the truth beyond your personal opinion.

I understand your point here, but in one sense I’m in an impossible position. I believe that The Bible is objective in the sense that which is true for all people at all times, not contingent upon one's individual opinions.

If I don’t hold this to be true, then through subjectivity there is no way for any other person to prove or disprove it.

True, but it is possible to provide evidence to back it up. If it is objectively true then we might expect other documents and physical evidence to back it up. The problem is that right now, you're saying that the Bible is true because the Bible is true. It's a circular argument.

I don’t need a religion to believe in – all I want to do is believe in something that is true. Therefore, what I’ve simply done is looked for the historical facts and accepted what is the true version. It’s really as simple as that. No hidden agendas, indoctrination, secret handshakes.

Thing is, I've done exactly the same thing (just with slightly less unfounded certainty ). In the end the only evidence you've put forward is your faith, which is justification for a personal belief, but not for a claim of truth.

 

[ianb321red]

True, but it is possible to provide evidence to back it up.

Antony Flew's conversion to theism - YouTube

This is only 5 minutes in length.
Anthony Flew renounced atheism because of the evidence in the complexity of of life (DNA)..

Interested in other views on this case study...??

If evidence is what is needed, then surely this is it??

 

[SithDoughnut]

This is only 5 minutes in length.
Anthony Flew renounced atheism because of the evidence in the complexity of of life (DNA)..

If evidence is what is needed, then surely this is it??

It boils down to another subjective opinion. He's decided that because life is complex, it has to be created. Plenty of other scientists disagree with him; in fact more disagree than agree, as far as I know.

Note his use of "look(s) to me" and similar phrases. It's just personal opinion, nothing more. Personal opinion is not evidence. If personal opinion is evidence, then I can easily accept the claims of Hindu scientists as equal to his in weight, meaning that there is a large amount of evidence for Hinduism in the form of people who believe it. No, evidence is objective, such as something physical or logical. For example, there are certain historical records that back up what is said in parts of the Bible, so we have reason to believe that those parts of the Bible are at least partially correct.

It's also important to note that Flew is a deist. His god is very dissimilar to yours.