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!
Quote:I do not like the theology of the calvinists, but I must accept they do a good job with apologetics. To quote a post of a site named "CARM":
This article is titled: "Atheists err when asking for material evidence for God's existence".
"Atheists often ask for evidence to prove that God exists. They say that they want tangible, testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method. Unfortunately for them, such a request is the wrong approach. Instead, they should look for evidence consistent with a Transcendent God. Let me show you why.
First of all, the scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties.
With you so far.
Quote:Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence--that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can't detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.
And here you have the start of the con. Make the claim untestable my son and the gullible will lap it up.
Quote:Third, the Christian worldview proclaims a transcendent God who exists outside of and independent of the material universe. In other words, the Christian God is not dependent upon the material universe or its properties for His existence.
Basically this boils down to there is no evidence for a god so they have invented a bullshit reason why.
Quote:Therefore, to ask for scienfically testable, material, non-transcendent based evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake--explained below.
So they got nothing and wonder why that is not satisfying.
Quote:But, this is not to say that there are not material evidence is for God's existence. For example, Jesus walked on the earth 2,000 years ago as a physical man who, according to Scripture, is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14, Colossians 2:9) and who rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). He showed Thomas the wounds of His crucifixion ordeal that had led to that death (John 20:25-28), thereby demonstrating His resurrection. This is material evidence. But, of course, we don't have access to it.
Really using the bible to support the bible is like saying there is a discworld because it says so in the colour of magic.
Quote:Category Mistake
Quote:A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of a thing is presented as belonging to another category. For example, to say that "the rock is alive" assigns the category of life to an inanimate object. Another example would be to judge the beauty of a painting based on how much it weighs. This is a category error since the category of beauty is not determined by the category of weight.
So, for the atheist to work from inside his materialistic, non-transcendent worldview and require evidence for the non-material, transcendent God (which necessarily exists outside his perceived worldview) risks being a category mistake because it is asking for the non-transcendent evidence of the transcendent in a form that is restricted to testable, material form. It is like asking to have a thought placed on a scale. It doesn't work because they are different categories.
But, some will assert that it is fair to ask for some sort of demonstration that such a Transcendent Being exists. After all, if there is no evidence of Him, how can we know He exists? For that, see What kind of evidence should we expect from a transcendent God?
What is left for the materialist atheist to do?
This means that the materialist atheist cannot logically require material-based evidence for the immaterial without committing a category mistake, so he is left with the option of trying to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is internally incoherent. After all, if he cannot show that Christian theism is false, then how can he rationally retain his atheism?
But, to step into the Christian worldview and attempt to show that it is not true, the atheist must use logic. This requires the use of the Laws of Logic. The problem is that these Laws are transcendent in that they are not dependent on the physical universe or its properties for their validity (See, The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, points 5-8). But for the materialist atheist to presuppose the validity of transcendental Logical Truths--in order to argue against a Transcendental God--is inherently self-contradictory since he would be using transcendentals to argue against a Transcendental God.
Furthermore, it would mean that the materialist atheist is presupposing the validity of the transcendental Laws of Logic--without being able to justify them from within his materialistic worldview. To presuppose their validity is to commit the logically fallacy of begging the question.
This seems to be written by someone who really REALLY wants to believe but knows there is no evidence. Sad really.
Quote:Conclusion
Quote:The materialist atheist is left without a valid means in falsifying Christian Theism, which means his atheism cannot be validated as being true.
1. He cannot rightfully require material, non-transcendent evidence for a non-material, transcendent God without committing a category mistake. He must abandon his materialistic worldview, but this is incompatible with his atheist worldview.
2. He cannot enter into the Christian worldview, which is based on a Transcendent God, and use the transcendent laws of logic without being self-contradictory in his approach."
That must be the weakest argument for anything I have ever seen. It failed in paragraph two then kept digging.
(May 3, 2016 at 11:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Ladies and gentlemen, how Wryetui responds to the person who has treated him with the most respect and courtesy.
That's why its best to shit on them from the start. Makes it easier at the end.
May 3, 2016 at 1:46 pm (This post was last modified: May 3, 2016 at 1:47 pm by Redbeard The Pink.)
(May 3, 2016 at 11:40 am)Wryetui Wrote: ""God" always refers to a character from religion that is demonstrably non-existent (due to having contradictory qualities, not being in the expected location, etc.)", any examples that can back up these empty claims?
Gladly.
Jehovah, for instance, has the mutually contradictory qualities of omniscience and omnipotence. He is also described as a perfectly loving and moral god, which can't be possible if he, as an all-powerful being, created our Universe with advance knowledge of how badly his plan would go (sin, suffering, Hell, etc.). It means that either he wanted us to sin, die, and suffer (meaning he is not all-loving), or he could not prevent these things from being a part of his plan (meaning he is not all-powerful). For this and many more reasons, Jehovah cannot possibly have all the qualities attributed to him, therefore he cannot exist.
The Olympian gods, as another example, were said to live on top of Mount Olympus. They don't, though. There's basically nothing on top of Mount Olympus, or at least there was when we first achieved the summit.
The list goes on, but you get the idea (or probably not, actually).
There's also the problem of virtually all of these gods having traceable origins to human conception for a practical reason (need to explain, need to control, need to survive even if at others' expense, etc.). If you can trace a fiction back to the author(s) and/or reason it was contrived, it is asinine to then assert that the authors were receiving divine revelation and were unique in this regard. To acknowledge that it's "technically possible" for god to exist the way most soft atheists, do, I would have to also acknowledge that it's "technically possible" for Santa Claus and Gandalf to exist, but that's ridiculous. Those things are made up and don't exist. Don't be dense.
Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
(May 3, 2016 at 4:51 am)Wryetui Wrote: I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:
If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.
(May 3, 2016 at 4:51 am)Wryetui Wrote: If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.
Magic Universe Creating Pixies created the earth. Obviously the evidence is in their name. I mean "Universe Creating" it says it all.
Wryetui Wrote:Look at what explanation gives St. Basil the Great in his famous "Hexaemeron" (Homily 5.1) to exactly the question you asked: "Let the earth bring forth green grass. Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error. If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude? He, who provided pasture for horses and cattle, thought before all of your riches and pleasures. If he fed your cattle, it was to provide for all the needs of your life. And what object was there in the bringing forth of grain, if not for your subsistence? Moreover, many grasses and vegetables serve for the food of man."
Quote:Conclusion
The materialist atheist is left without a valid means in falsifying Christian Theism, which means his atheism cannot be validated as being true.
Thanks for the courteous response, though I am unclear on why you felt I deserved courtesy when others equally polite didn't.
We don't have an atheist cosmology.
Atheists don't agree on cosmology, especially the atheists that follow religions. Rational skeptics accept the findings of science provisionally, understanding that new evidence may require them to be revised; and are willing to accept that wanting answers doesn't mean we get them. When something isn't known, the most honest and valid thing you can say regarding your knowledge of it is 'I don't know'.
I don't rule out divinity, if the divine exists, there is always the chance that it will actually do something, and if it does, that can be studied.
Naturalistic claims would have been the best choice to use. Rational skeptics are usually methodological naturalists, not metaphysical naturalists. A supernatural plane is not ruled out beforehand, but unless there is a good reason to believe it exists and it's existence is relevant to how the subject under investigation is understood; it remains beyond the bounds of science and observation. Unless a claim can be backed up, it is just a claim.
But I see you're getting it, and I hope that you're going to turn out to be one of our better contributors once you get your forum 'sea legs'. You're always as good as your last post with me.
(May 3, 2016 at 12:21 pm)Wryetui Wrote:
(May 3, 2016 at 12:09 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:
I’m not trying to convince you of anything, so whether or not you approve of, understand, are satisfied with or otherwise accept my lack of belief, is of no consequence. If you have a specific question, I will answer, because unlike Christians I can answer.
The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in. If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you.
"The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in. If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you." you are talking about my field of work and I am interested. First of all I need to know on what do you rely for saying that "The Church has known for over 500 years that the creation story in the bible bears not the slightest resemblance to the universe we live in" since I haven't heard it from anyone in the Church, really, where did you get this from?
"If you don’t have a problem with the biblical claim that god created the grass and trees before he created the sun and moon, then there’s nothing that I can say to you.", this kind of problems appear when a person reads the Sacred Scriptures without any theological support and are no interested in knowing what they actually say.
Look at what explanation gives St. Basil the Great in his famous "Hexaemeron" (Homily 5.1) to exactly the question you asked: "Let the earth bring forth green grass. Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without. Some consider the sun as the source of all productiveness on the earth. It is, they say, the action of the sun's heat which attracts the vital force from the centre of the earth to the surface. The reason why the adornment of the earth was before the sun is the following; that those who worship the sun, as the source of life, may renounce their error.
If they be well persuaded that the earth was adorned before the genesis of the sun, they will retract their unbounded admiration for it, because they see grass and plants vegetate before it rose. If then the food for the flocks was prepared, did our race appear less worthy of a like solicitude? He, who provided pasture for horses and cattle, thought before all of your riches and pleasures. If he fed your cattle, it was to provide for all the needs of your life. And what object was there in the bringing forth of grain, if not for your subsistence? Moreover, many grasses and vegetables serve for the food of man."
I was also puzzled by the term "cosmology". Here is the definition: "the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics." But apparently, there is a metaphysical definition of cosmology that includes all of the imaginary deities that we don't believe exist.
St. Basil the Great. So, you're copy pasting from the Hexaemeron to discuss the creation of the earth? From a guy who still thought the earth was flat? From a guy whose point is obviously to tell Sun-god worshipers "YOU'RE WRONG and I'M RIGHT and my imaginary friend can make plants without the sun? From a guy who had no knowledge of the workings of chlorophyll, and of just HOW LONG plants had to exist on the earth to make enough oxygen to create a breathable atmosphere for the planet? (one billion years, give or take a few thousand) http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...tmosphere/
You started off like you might actually want to debate, even though your first post in my thread was extremely insulting. Then you moved from "maybe truly curious" to pompous, egotistical, and offensive. Now you're just a whiny and ignorant infant, and you have my pity.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
(May 3, 2016 at 4:51 am)Wryetui Wrote: I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:
If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.
Your question implies a claim that no one has actually made. What god didn't create earth?
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
(May 3, 2016 at 4:51 am)Wryetui Wrote: I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:
I'm late to the party, but I'll respond nonetheless.
The only claim I am making, is that no theist has ever met their burden of proof for the god or gods they believe exist.
That is the reason for my atheism. I am not making the claim that gods do not exist, therefore, I have no need to present my evidence.
My atheism is entirely a provisional position. It will continue as long as the evidence for the existence of a god remain lacking.
Quote:If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.
Classical "argument from ignorance" fallacy.
Even if we had no evidence based explanation for how the earth here, that does not make your explanation any more likely. And just because you have no idea how the earth got here, does not mean that there are plenty of people, who dedicate their lives to science, who do.
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.
