Is God... PG Version

[1048576]

I guess what I'm trying to hammer home is that the Bible cannot be true if the laws of physics are true.

And if we can break the laws of physics, then don't look now but I think your chair just became acidic.

 

[jaswa]

Then why does anyone continue to argue their point?

Because God can exist outside of the Bible, or if the Bible is credible then it shows God's existence.

I guess what I'm trying to hammer home is that the Bible cannot be true if the laws of physics are true.

And if we can break the laws of physics, then don't look now but I think your chair just became acidic.

Err...why?

 

[Dre89]

I'm saying you need to prove He exists without assuming His existence as a condition of the argument.

 

[1048576]

Because God can exist outside of the Bible, or if the Bible is credible then it shows God's existence.


Err...why?

Because Noah's arc story violates the laws of physics.

 

[Dre89]

Supernatural claims shouldn't be invalidated simply because they're supernatural.

If we take supernatural to be that which violates physical laws, then there's a difference between something intentionally violating those laws, and a violation of the laws which is claimed to be natural.

The former is more plausible, especially when the potential offender in question is omnipotent and was the one who made those laws in the first place.

Of course, none of what I said actually proves anything.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Then there's no point to arguing whether Noah's Flood happened or not, because the Biblical account says that God did it, and you can't just argue whether or not it happened without assuming that either God did it, or he didn't do it. But if you guys are going to demean and belittle the Noah's Ark account, don't. You're not debating.

Again, you can't prove the existence of the supernatural with the natural. It all starts with an assumption; an axiom.

 

[Grandeza]

I think a long time ago RDK made a post on it and it's probably somewhere in the archives. It was something along the lines of, even if you could disprove a global flood, you haven't necessarily discredited Noah's arc because in biblical times, that may have been just what their knowledge of the "whole world" was. So just cause the entire world wasn't covered, they weren't aware of the rest of the world anyways so to them it was a global flood.

 

[_Keno_]

I'm sure God knows what the whole world is, like when he promised never to do it again to the whole world.

Either way, the discussion of Noah's arc should already be over. Everyone has agree that you can't disprove the story (or many other stories) with reason or logic, seeing as God can manipulate the laws of physics or whatever.

What is really dumb about this is that Christians can say, "oh look, i think this is evidence that biblical event 23 might have occured," but if an atheist says "there is opposing evidence to event 23," it is thrown out because God can do anything.

 

[Mike]

Then there's no point to arguing whether Noah's Flood happened or not, because the Biblical account says that God did it, and you can't just argue whether or not it happened without assuming that either God did it, or he didn't do it. But if you guys are going to demean and belittle the Noah's Ark account, don't. You're not debating.

Again, you can't prove the existence of the supernatural with the natural. It all starts with an assumption; an axiom.

Clearly stating the premises of an argument does not guarantee a debate. I could just as easily say that the existence of wizardry is a premise you must accept when discussion with me about the history of Earth. But such an assumption is stupid and useless. It does not lead to a productive conversation at all. The same exact thing can be said about the existence of a god. Assuming that it must be true does not lead to a debate and is simply a big waste of time. Topics about the validity of religion shouldn't be allowed in the debate hall.

 

[GwJ]

Stop trying to debate God. It doesn't work; you can't argue with a God-believer.

post #2.
Way ahead of you.

 

[Dre89]

Yes you can argue with a theist, just make sure they're not ones who insists you assume their theology is hypothetically true before they provide their arguments.

This is the difference between theological explanations, which are non-rational (not irrational, non-rational as in saying "my favourite colour is blue") and philosophical argumentation, which is rational.

Saying that "Preists having wet dreams despite attempting to abstain from sexual activity makes sense if you accept the Fall of humanity" turns your argument into an explanation, which makes it immune to criticisms from reason. But this doesn't achieve anything, because firstly, you can do that with any religion, because no theological explanation can be flawed if you assume the theology is true. Secondly, you can't use the theology to prove the theology is true, so if your arguments apply theology, then you can't justify the inital assumption that the theology is true.

That's why to prove the validity of a religion, you need to use philosophical argumentation which assumes no theology at all. Theists do attempt to do that, in fact certain theists think only using this method is justification for faith. Those are the theists that are worth debating.

 

[Mike]

Philosophy alone cannot uncover reality. If your religion consists of unfalsifiable ideas, the is no room for it in a debate.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I'd disagree that you need philosophical arguments alone. I know for a fact that a big reason I believe in Christianity is because of the historical evidence I've looked up behind the new testament, and there are other people who have come to believe after looking up such evidence. For example, the author and journalist Lee Strobel of my often-used book "The Case for Christ" became a Christian after setting out to examine the truth behind the new testament.

@Mike
Christianity definitely has falsifiable ideas in them (For example, the story of Christ 2000 years ago), so therefore there is room for it in a debate.

 

[Mike]

No, Christianity is not falsifiable because a powerful god can change reality as he pleases. For every counterargument to the validity of the bible there is a "God is testing you" explanation. The entire religion is just ridiculous. There is no reason it should be taken seriously, which is why I don't believe topics about it should be allowed in the debate hall.

 

[jaswa]

I'll pull an Dre and say, you've just provided your conclusions without stating your premises.

 

[Dre89]

"God is just testing you" is only used by some people, not all biblical scholars.

I never said philosophy uncovers all reality, but it's the starting point of the investigation.

 

[Mike]

"God is just testing you" is only used by some people, not all biblical scholars.

That's beside the point. The fact that the existence of a powerful god is unfalsifiable means the whole idea is ridiculous.

I never said philosophy uncovers all reality, but it's the starting point of the investigation.

No, philosophy AND evidence is the starting point. You get nowhere with philosophy alone.

 

[Dre89]

I don't think you get it. What we consider to be evidence is based on philosophical assumptions.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I don't understand you Dre. Could you please just make it easier for all of us and spit out what you mean by "based on philosophical assumptions."

There's a reason why we don't "get it," and it's that you are being extremely vague and barely making a coherent point, mentioning something about philosophy here or there but never directly linking it to the point at hand.

Please, have some mercy and just SPIT IT OUT.

 

[ballin4life]

I guess this is why having 2 threads is confusing because I explained this in the other thread, but I'll say it again.

Science assumes that results generalize. It assumes that the future will resemble the past and that it is valid to use inductive reasoning about the universe. For example, if I have an experiment that shows that a ball falls every time I drop it, I can use inductive reasoning to conclude two things:

1) That the ball in the experiment will always fall when dropped
2) That other objects will fall when dropped

This is inductive reasoning and is the basis of science. However, it is NOT the same as deductive proof. It is possible that the future won't resemble the past, that the laws of the universe aren't consistent, or that there exist objects that don't follow the general rule (i.e. helium balloon).

 

[Mike]

I don't think you get it. What we consider to be evidence is based on philosophical assumptions.

And you don't understand that without evidence you are left with ONLY logic. A system of reasoning by itself is USELESS in uncovering reality! And that is why theology is stupid.

 

[Ganonsburg]

And you don't understand that without evidence you are left with ONLY logic. A system of reasoning by itself is USELESS in uncovering reality!

Hm...a system of reasoning by itself, based solely upon logic? You couldn't be talking about math now, could you? You couldn't be, because math, despite being a completely independent system from reality, still holds truths (even if those truths have little bearing on reality, at least until you start applying it in reality).

And that is why theology is stupid.

Oh wait, you weren't. You were just trying to make yourself look like the cool kid and hate on religion.

But looking at how math, a field of logic that does not depend on reality at all, and seeing how it has truths in and of itself as well as applications and truths in the real world, what can we say now? Is it the exception, the rule, or somewhere in between? In any case, it certainly opens up the possibility for other systems, independent of observation, to be true.

 

[Mike]

You completely misunderstood my post. Math is ABSTRACT. Observational evidence is not.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Math is ABSTRACT. Observational evidence is not.

Right. Where did I imply otherwise? I was likening math to theology in that neither require basis in reality, and my point was that if math can have truths then it's possible that theology has truths as well.

I know you said "uncovering reality," but math doesn't do that and still is incredibly important to us. Just because theology may not uncover reality (in your opinion) doesn't mean it's still false or not important.

 

[Mike]

Exactly! Math, by itself does not tell us anything about reality. Math MUST cooperate with observational evidence for it to be useful. Anything about god, however, goes against the use of evidence so it has no authority in explaining things as they are.

 

[ballin4life]

Math doesn't have to cooperate with anything. There are people who do Math with no "useful" applications to the real world just like there are artists who make paintings with no "useful" applications. Both are done for fun and for the enjoyment of others.

The difference between theology and math is that theology makes actual claims about the universe - and that's where evidence comes in. Math makes no claims about the universe; it is just logic.

 

[Dre89]

And you don't understand that without evidence you are left with ONLY logic. A system of reasoning by itself is USELESS in uncovering reality! And that is why theology is stupid.

I never said logic alone uncovers reality, where did you get that from?

Everything stems from logic, so if you're going to discredit theology as a whole, you have to discredit science as a whole too.

You can discredit individual theologies by exposing their specific flaws.

 

[Mike]

Everything stems from logic, so if you're going to discredit theology as a whole, you have to discredit science as a whole too.

No because again, scientific claims are based on evidence. Theology is not.

You can discredit individual theologies by exposing their specific flaws.

All of them assume the existence of a deity. That is already enough of a flaw.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Hey Mike, just wondering, but is there any particular reason that you're absolutely confident that God doesn't exist? You've constantly been using "There is no God" as part of your assumptions, but I'm not really sure what reasoning you have behind that.

 

[Mike]

I never claim the god does NOT exist, only that because of the lack of evidence, there is no reason to believe in them just as there's no reason to believe in the FSM or leprechauns.

 

[GwJ]

Don't be hatin' on my flying spaghetti monster Mike. As an Italian, I really hope he's real.

 

[Dre89]

Too bad he's only logically possible in atheist framework.

 

[Mr.-0]

I really wish all the christains who can't admit they're wrong and are supporting something really illogical should just get off this... it makes it so much harder for us monotheists to debate and be taken seriously.

Actual Worth-beans edit: Going back to the whole noah's ark debate, It's been proven physical impossible, and it's logically improbable that god made it physically possible. Therefore, it's fake.

 

[Ganonsburg]

It'd be nice if people started giving sources when they said Noah's Ark is physically impossible. Someone did a few pages back, but I didn't see any credentials or anything, so for all I know it was just some blogger making stuff up.

@Mike, I'd argue that the existence of the universe is evidence enough for God. Something can not come from nothing, not within the universe anyway.

 

[Mr.-0]

The sources that numbers gave you were all credible and sensible if you read them.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Yeah, I tried to find the site's credentials, but couldn't. That tells me...nothing. You're talking about the truth-saves website, right? Yeah, I read the article and looked about the site.

 

[GwJ]

Ganon, don't bring up the something from nothing deal. It's already been proven it has and does still happen.

 

[Mike]

@Mike, I'd argue that the existence of the universe is evidence enough for God. Something can not come from nothing, not within the universe anyway.

Again, that is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Whatever happened to conservation of energy/mass then? Or does that go out the window when talking about the origins of the universe?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

That is not an argument for God, only an argument against the Big Bang (not an entirely valid one either).

Just because you don't know how the universe was created, it does not mean God did it.

That's an argument from ignorance.