Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It very much can be. But at the same time no one here is claiming it is. Read the OPs question again. He has asked us why belief in a god is any more warranted than a belief in the other things he has listed. And it is the absence of evidence for ANY of these things that answers his question for him. The level of substantiation for the things in question, gods included, is percisely and exactly the same:
None. Squat. Diddly. Nichts. Nadda. Bugger all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
Besides, I believe there is plenty of evidence to support the Judeo-Christian God.
Then now is your time to shine. Present some of it. No one else has yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
The question you need to ask yourself is if God truly created the world and set in motion the events leading up to the crucifixion and ressurection of Christ, what evidence would convince you of its historicity?
No that is the question YOU need to ask, not anyone else. Because the onus of finding and presenting the evidence lies solely at the feet of the person making the claim.
All I have to do is remain open to considering the evidence you present. And in fact me defining the evidence parameters FOR YOU is the opposite of open mindedness. As I would risk pre-declining the real evidence when it arrives because it did not fit my expectations. And I am too open minded to risk that.
I can, by all means, explain to you what the evidence CAN NOT be and why. But for the reasons laid out above I will not tell you what it CAN be. That is your job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
The vast majority of historians agree that the figure of Jesus lived
Argumentum ad populum fail there. It does not matter how many of them believe it or agree on it. What solely matters is what their evidence for the claim is. Even then you have not actually established that the "Vast majority" of them agree on this. You have just asserted it. In fact the reality you hide from is that there is quite some level of contention on the issue, there is anything BUT majority agreement on it, and even the main go to source quoted by most Theists I have spoken with on the subject has oft been declared to be forgery and fakery.
So yes, by all means show us the substantiation that this person existed. And in doing so realize that that is only step one of a LONG line of steps you would have to make to establish the character in question was anything more than an unemployed bronze aged carpenters son turned preacher, the likes of which history has seen many of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
I believe in God because I believe in Jesus Christ.
A sentence that would be very well placed under "circular reasoning" in any philosophical dictionary or 101 course book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
God created this Universe with a purpose. Humanity was not a byproduct or a happy accident.
Two claims you have just asserted, once again, without the remotest form of substantiation of even the smallest type.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
I am speaking of Christian doctrine, which assumes the validity of Scripture.
It would indeed be interesting therefore to see if you could validate either. Rather than assuming one any time you are asked to substantiate the other. Otherwise we are not going to get past circular reasoning on your claims here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
I welcome any and all refutations that you would like to postulate. So far all I see is a bunch of schoolyard bullies verbally degrading someone with which they disagree. This does not diminish my arguments, but rather says a lot about you.
You will notice however that my post does not fit this description _at all_ so you will find mine a lot less easy to simply dismiss. Mine contains no bullying, no verbal degrading of you or anyone else, and it diminishes your "arguments" greatly. So let us see the actual substance of your reply, and we will leave the ad hominem to the others.
There is? That would certainly be refreshing to see. But the problem as I see it is that I have asked time and time again for ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support the claim that a non-human intelligent intentional agency is responsible in any way for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe, and none has been forthcoming, least of all from you.
So that this evidence exists, let alone that it is "solid", is certainly news to me. Perhaps you can adumbrate it for us as it would certainly answer the OPs question as to why belief in a god is in any way distinguishable from the other nonsense he listed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
There just isn't any physical evidence, as in, I cannot point over there, and say "That's God." I can point to the countless species of life, the countless stars in the sky, the existence of you and me, and say "All of these things are the result of God." You can deny this, and that's your right. But to say there is no evidence is wrong.
Yet you have not presented any. You have offered an assertion of the issue as evidence for the issue. Begging the question in the extreme to the point of building a house of assertion. So I see nothing "wrong" about saying there is no evidence. And certainly nothing "wrong" about pointing out the simple fact you certainly have not provided any here, ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
For that matter, we have no idea whether other such beings exist or not. We have a pretty narrow visible spectrum. We could conceivably believe, rightly or wrongly as in the above case, that faeries and unicorns exist because natural events they are in charge of happen
This is the opposite of answering the OPs question. All you are doing is arguing that ANY of these things COULD conceivably exist. Yet I see no one, least of all me or the OP, denying that. Quite the opposite, I see the OPs question as AFFIRMING this fact. That is to say: GIVEN that any and/or all of the things listed COULD exist.... is there any basis for why belief in one is more warranted than any other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
You get what I'm saying here? There is evidence all around, but because you don't know God you will only see god
Oh yes I "get what you are saying" because I have heard that canard said in one form or another multiple times before. Basically "what you are saying here" boils down to "You do not believe me, because you do not believe me". Which _at best_ is simply stating the complete obvious.
But at worst.... and I have as I said seen this canard often enough to judge it at it's worst.... it is a crass attempt to explain away your failure to substantiate your claims on some intellectual lack on the part of the mark.
That is to say, you are essentially copping out of substantiating a single thing you say by simply declaring that you have something (in this case the "knowing" of your god) that the other person lacks.
So you are simply using your belief in an unsubstantiated notion as a narrative through which to parse and explain away anyone who does not also believe your unsubstantiated notion. A circular argument narrative that is as transparent as it is crass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Because you have no proof, you are actively forming a wall against it.
Except no one is doing any such thing. That is just a narrative, as I said, by which you can explain away any resistance to simply swallowing your assertions wholesale. There is no mental block or wall forming behind the world view of "If someone makes a claim without a SHRED of substantiation for the claim, I will not buy into the claim".
It is because YOU have no substantiation for your claim that some people fail to buy your claim. That is all. But there is a theistic need, time and time again, to project that onto the mark as if it is a failing with them, and not you. When the exact opposite is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
I'm a religious philosopher.
One of the conditions for me to identify someone as a philosopher is a person who has learned the fallacies and how best to avoid them. Someone who does not know them (or worse does know them) and ends up EMPLOYING them, as you have done, in their rhetoric.... is the exact opposite of a philosopher to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
It is impossible to disprove that something exists anywhere in the universe.
Not always, as a "philosopher" would know. One can disprove the existence of many things, depending on the definition of that thing. For example I can tell you right now there is no such thing as a married bachelor. You will not find one anywhere in the universe. Why? Because the very definition of it disproves it's existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
The mentally weak person either accepts literally what the Bible says (fundamentalist), no thought required. Or rejects it without proof (atheist), no thought required.
Except you have simply invented your own entirely false definition of atheist here. In fact the exact opposite is true. In fact many have rejected it because they have thought about it, and found the claims to be lacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
People like jeffbase just annoy me, whether atheist or fundamentalist.
if that this is something that you have experienced first hand and it has improved the quality of your life, and helped to answer the "big questions" in life for you, then start a thread for discussion and see what responses you get, people would be interested to hear and share
•a creator of some sort
•a cosmic accident
•what else?
Imagine two kids sitting together, quite young, discussing where babies come from.
Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork brings them
Boy1: How do you know that?
Boy2: Well what other answer is there?
Boy1: I do not know.
Boy2: Aha, so the stork brings them.
The failure of the boys here is clear to see, because we have more knowledge than them. There is knowledge there to be had, which they simply do not have. They assume the "options" have to be one they are currently aware of. But there is no reason why this should be so.
So the answer to your "what else" answers itself in a way. The answer is that this is not a multiple choice exam in the first place. There are any number of answers, many we have thought of, many we have not, and it is one of them.
The only thing we can say with any certainty at this point is that OF the knowledge, arguments, evidence, data and reasoning we have at this point 0% of it suggests an intelligent intentional consciousness is the answer. Does that mean it is NOT the answer? No, not at all. It just means we have no legitimate reason at this time to think it IS the answer.
Imagine two kids sitting together, quite young, discussing where babies come from.
Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork brings them
Boy1: How do you know that?
Boy2: Well what other answer is there?
Boy1: I do not know.
Boy2: Aha, so the stork brings them.
The failure of the boys here is clear to see, because we have more knowledge than them. There is knowledge there to be had, which they simply do not have. They assume the "options" have to be one they are currently aware of. But there is no reason why this should be so.
So the answer to your "what else" answers itself in a way. The answer is that this is not a multiple choice exam in the first place. There are any number of answers, many we have thought of, many we have not, and it is one of them.
The only thing we can say with any certainty at this point is that OF the knowledge, arguments, evidence, data and reasoning we have at this point 0% of it suggests an intelligent intentional consciousness is the answer. Does that mean it is NOT the answer? No, not at all. It just means we have no legitimate reason at this time to think it IS the answer.
I have to say not no. No one has yet offered me anything to give me pause. Most theists just tell me "look around you, everything is evidence of god" and "To find god you have to believe" which essentially just tells me you will believe if you believe, which is rather stating the obvious. Others simply offer personal testimony to some vision they had or voice they heard in their head. While the rest of those theists simply make threats against my well being in an attempt to emotionally cajole me into belief.... concepts like "hell" and other such eternal damnation.
So no I have genuinely and 100% honestly, in my entire life, not seen a single shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend credence to the notion that our universe was created by a non-human intelligent intentional agent. I simply haven't. Least of all from anyone on this forum.
I have to say not no. No one has yet offered me anything to give me pause. Most theists just tell me "look around you, everything is evidence of god" and "To find god you have to believe" which essentially just tells me you will believe if you believe, which is rather stating the obvious. Others simply offer personal testimony to some vision they had or voice they heard in their head. While the rest of those theists simply make threats against my well being in an attempt to emotionally cajole me into belief.... concepts like "hell" and other such eternal damnation.
So no I have genuinely and 100% honestly, in my entire life, not seen a single shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend credence to the notion that our universe was created by a non-human intelligent intentional agent. I simply haven't. Least of all from anyone on this forum.
That's hard to believe. Everyone has doubts to some degree. I wonder if your bias has any influence on your answer.
The only thing we can say with any certainty at this point is that OF the knowledge, arguments, evidence, data and reasoning we have at this point 0% of it suggests an intelligent intentional consciousness is the answer. Does that mean it is NOT the answer? No, not at all. It just means we have no legitimate reason at this time to think it IS the answer.
What you say here hints at less than 100% certainty. There's no such thing as partial certainty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
