Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 24, 2024, 6:53 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Evidence and causes for doubt
#11
RE: Evidence and causes for doubt
"I'm right even when proven wrong. Checkmate, atheists!"
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Reply
#12
RE: Evidence and causes for doubt
Another quote from WLC -

"I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel.... Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter"

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
#13
RE: Evidence and causes for doubt
That's legitimately frightening. The old "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" meme is supposed to be a joke, dammit.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Reply
#14
RE: Evidence and causes for doubt
(March 7, 2016 at 5:00 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: That's legitimately frightening.  The old "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" meme is supposed to be a joke, dammit.


Yep!

And William Lane Craig is supposed to be among the strongest of the modern Christian philosophers!

And yet, all his arguments are no different than what have been submitted by theists for centuries. Still flawed.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
#15
RE: Evidence and causes for doubt
I think the question shouldn't even be taken seriously for starters.
All you'll do is encourage the delusion.

We've got 100% proof that God doesn't exist.
It's called no sign or the slightest bit of evidence ever in the history of the world that such a "thing" has existed in reality.

Does he exist outside of our reliality?
Theists, repeat after us: We don't know! We don't even know if there even is an "outside" of reality.
But someone convinced us that there's a boogy man called God, so we're going to hide him where science can never disprove him. Because, because , because life is sad if this is all there is, OK?!
We're more special than that!
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
#16
RE: Evidence and causes for doubt
I never really understood the argument that God must be supernatural or he's not God.

How many phenomena were once believed to be supernatural before they were properly understood?

When I believed, I thought that God was natural but beyond human comprehension. I've read that scientists believe there may be more than 10 dimensions, despite the fact that we humans can only function in three. I just assumed that God could function in every dimension, making him natural but too complex for us to understand.

To this day I have no problem imagining that an infinitely more complex being could exist who would be to us like we are to the single celled organism. I just don't find any compelling reason to believe that any particular world religion knows anything about him or that he could be known or that he is a "he".
Reply
#17
RE: Evidence and causes for doubt
(March 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm)Old Baby Wrote: I never really understood the argument that God must be supernatural or he's not God.

How many phenomena were once believed to be supernatural before they were properly understood?

When I believed, I thought that God was natural but beyond human comprehension.  I've read that scientists believe there may be more than 10 dimensions, despite the fact that we humans can only function in three.  I just assumed that God could function in every dimension, making him natural but too complex for us to understand.

To this day I have no problem imagining that an infinitely more complex being could exist who would be to us like we are to the single celled organism.  I just don't find any compelling reason to believe that any particular world religion knows anything about him or that he could be known or that he is a "he".

same here.  You nailed my position on topic.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
Reply
#18
RE: Evidence and causes for doubt
(March 7, 2016 at 4:57 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Another quote from WLC -

"I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel.... Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter"

An example of this in action:

"If somewhere within the Bible I were to find a passage that says 2+2=5, I wouldn't question what I'm reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and to understand it." - Pastor Peter LaRuffa

You can see it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXBLCEKWJUk (about 5 minutes into the video)

A scarier one that - although it involves a moral question - is along the same lines:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressive...ays-right/
Reply
#19
Evidence and causes for doubt
(March 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm)Old Baby Wrote: I never really understood the argument that God must be supernatural or he's not God.

How many phenomena were once believed to be supernatural before they were properly understood?

When I believed, I thought that God was natural but beyond human comprehension. I've read that scientists believe there may be more than 10 dimensions, despite the fact that we humans can only function in three. I just assumed that God could function in every dimension, making him natural but too complex for us to understand.

To this day I have no problem imagining that an infinitely more complex being could exist who would be to us like we are to the single celled organism. I just don't find any compelling reason to believe that any particular world religion knows anything about him or that he could be known or that he is a "he".

I think it depends on how you are defining God.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”

Wiser words were never spoken. 
Reply
#20
Evidence and causes for doubt
(March 7, 2016 at 6:34 pm)ignoramus Wrote: I think the question shouldn't even be taken seriously for starters.
All you'll do is encourage the delusion.

We've got 100% proof that God doesn't exist.
It's called no sign or the slightest bit of evidence ever in the history of the world that such a "thing" has existed in reality.

Does he exist outside of our reliality?
Theists, repeat after us: We don't know! We don't even know if there even is an "outside" of reality.
But someone convinced us that there's a boogy man called God, so we're going to hide him where science can never disprove him. Because, because , because life is sad if this is all there is, OK?!
We're more special than that!

Sorry for hoping maybe one or two theists might take a few moments for self-reflection...I mean I was a theist once, and others posing questions like these to me is what got me wondering about other possibilities in the first place. I guess I'm still a newbie here in a lot of ways...
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”

Wiser words were never spoken. 
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nishant Xavier 38 2476 August 7, 2023 at 10:24 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  When were the Gospels Written? The External and Internal Evidence. Nishant Xavier 62 3257 August 6, 2023 at 10:25 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Veridical NDEs: Evidence/Proof of the Soul and the After-Life? Nishant Xavier 32 1653 August 6, 2023 at 5:36 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience. Nishant Xavier 91 4756 August 6, 2023 at 2:19 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God. Nishant Xavier 162 8056 July 9, 2023 at 7:53 am
Last Post: Deesse23
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 2856 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Why the resurrection accounts are not evidence LinuxGal 5 1047 October 29, 2022 at 2:01 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Legal evidence of atheism Interaktive 16 2589 February 9, 2020 at 8:44 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Search for Causes Lek 202 14842 January 9, 2020 at 2:47 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Evidence for Believing Lek 368 50343 November 14, 2019 at 5:39 pm
Last Post: GrandizerII



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)