A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

And you don't think it's a little dishonest of you to list generic characteristics for a deistic god in order to co-opt any alternative we propose (alternatives, I might add, that are rhetorical in nature, designed to show just how unjustified your own beliefs are) while you actually believe in a specific christian god that has more characteristics than just that basic set, of which our hypothetical alternatives can differ and wouldn't just be another name for your god specifically?

I listed only qualities needed to be the first cause and creator of the universe--which is all that the cosmological/ontological/design arguments deal with. You tell me which characteristics are superfluous or which I might need to add.

---

Why would a god have to avoid infinite regression?
If it can't infinitely regress, it's omnipotence would have to come under serious question.

Huh??

[FatAndFaithless]

Hey Steve, mind giving me a response to this post:

How is it dishonest to think another religion is wrong? They cannot be all right. Because of the very definition of a miracle requiring the supernatural, it is very much related to what religion is true.

No shit. The fact is, you're using reasoning the any adherent of any other religion could use to prove that Christianity is actually the false one, and yet you still bluster about how you've "shown us the miracle evidence" or "demonstrated that it's rational" to believe that Christianity is correct.


If a Muslim put together a similar paragraph to yours, saying that Jesus' miracles weren't as impressive as Mohammed's (though Jesus had a handful of cool ones), saying that many of Jesus' miracles were just "improbable", and saying that many of Jesus' major miracles have "debate on whether or not they happened", and then summed it up by saying "I don't think they were miracles because I don't believe that Christianity is true, and obviously God wouldn't perform miracles to deceive us of what is true, which is Islam."

What could you say against him? He would be using the exact same reasoning you have been using this entire time.

[Esquilax]

I listed only qualities needed to be the first cause and creator of the universe--which is all that the cosmological/ontological/design arguments deal with. You tell me which characteristics are superfluous or which I might need to add.

The actual issue is twofold: my first problem is that you're a christian arguing for the existence of the christian god, and it's more than a little irritating to see you- and you're hardly the first apologist to do this- flip between the god you actually believe in and a vague deistic one whenever it's convenient. I thought I was having a discussion with you, about the things you believe in, not a discussion with you about whatever needs to be on hand for you to win, whether you believe it or not. Perhaps that's just a pet peeve of mine, but it's still there.

The much more relevant issue is that none of the five characteristics that you listed, either taken together or as individual parts, are exclusively characteristics of a god, the god, whatever. I can't tell you how many fictional narratives contain beings of immense power that satisfy all of the criteria you list, but are not god. What you're actually doing here is co-opting whatever we happen to think of, by assertion alone, in order to make it fit with your argument. If you want to say that any being that has the criteria you listed would be so close to your conception of god that you might as well just call it that, then that's fine, but don't forget that in doing so you're winning a word game, and not the actual question under debate here, and also that you're doing so by taking whatever concept is introduced to you and saying "no, that's not X. I'm going to call it god." I can't imagine why you'd find that compelling.

Additionally, we're here discussing your beliefs, and specifically you've said that you'd like to demonstrate that it's rational to hold such beliefs. Given that, you arguing for a concept of god that you don't believe in both does not address the topic of the debate, and also kinda hurts the core of your argument, because you're having to reach for things you don't believe in, rather than defending the things that you do.

[SteveII]

Hey Steve, mind giving me a response to this post:

No shit. The fact is, you're using reasoning the any adherent of any other religion could use to prove that Christianity is actually the false one, and yet you still bluster about how you've "shown us the miracle evidence" or "demonstrated that it's rational" to believe that Christianity is correct.


If a Muslim put together a similar paragraph to yours, saying that Jesus' miracles weren't as impressive as Mohammed's (though Jesus had a handful of cool ones), saying that many of Jesus' miracles were just "improbable", and saying that many of Jesus' major miracles have "debate on whether or not they happened", and then summed it up by saying "I don't think they were miracles because I don't believe that Christianity is true, and obviously God wouldn't perform miracles to deceive us of what is true, which is Islam."

What could you say against him? He would be using the exact same reasoning you have been using this entire time.

The attestation of the crucifixion. Without that portion, it ALL unravels. Perhaps you are unaware of its importance. That God took on the form of a man to be a final sacrifice to bridge the gap so that man can have a relationship with his creator.

[The Valkyrie]

Hey Steve, mind giving me a response to this post:

The attestation of the crucifixion. Without that portion, it ALL unravels. Perhaps you are unaware of its importance. That God took on the form of a man to be a final sacrifice to bridge the gap so that man can have a relationship with his creator.

Important addition, " . . . according to myth . . ."

[SteveII]

@Esquilax - I will answer. Just got to get some real work done first.

[FatAndFaithless]

Hey Steve, mind giving me a response to this post:

The attestation of the crucifixion. Without that portion, it ALL unravels. Perhaps you are unaware of its importance. That God took on the form of a man to be a final sacrifice to bridge the gap so that man can have a relationship with his creator.

But according to Islam, Jesus was never crucified, nor was he the son of god. How can you prove them wrong?


You're using ideas that are only persuasive if you already believe in Christianity. The crucifiction doesn't mean jack shit to either an unbeliever or this hypothetical muslim. How can it be persuasive to either of us?

I'm asking you to refute this muslim's reasoning, but you're just responding with "well their religion doesn't have X, so it's wrong" (X being the crucifixion), while the crucifiction is totally irrelevant to islam, and says nothing about the justification for this muslim's beliefs.

In the same vein, the muslim could simply reply that since you don't have the most important pillar of islam in your faith (The Shahada), your faith just unravels. Would that be at all convincing to you?

I'm imploring you to look at this issue from something other than your own viewpoint for one second.

[Cyberman]

The attestation of the crucifixion. Without that portion, it ALL unravels. Perhaps you are unaware of its importance. That God took on the form of a man to be a final sacrifice to bridge the gap so that man can have a relationship with his creator.

So, what would it take to falsify this attestation? In other words, to borrow a popular phrase: what evidence would convince you otherwise?

[Chas]

Hey Steve, mind giving me a response to this post:

The attestation of the crucifixion. Without that portion, it ALL unravels. Perhaps you are unaware of its importance. That God took on the form of a man to be a final sacrifice to bridge the gap so that man can have a relationship with his creator.

So, the other stuff in the Gospels is true because the resurrection confirms it. That would be the resurrection that is only described in those self-same Gospels?

Do you understand what a circular argument is? Not to mention presupposition.

[Tonus]

The attestation of the crucifixion. Without that portion, it ALL unravels. Perhaps you are unaware of its importance. That God took on the form of a man to be a final sacrifice to bridge the gap so that man can have a relationship with his creator.

Which he could just as easily have done without having to fake his own death. This is the almighty god you're talking about, right? Apparently his only weaknesses are iron chariots and bureaucracy.