RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 4:49 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 4:55 am by Light of Truth.)
(June 30, 2012 at 4:12 am)Tempus Wrote:(June 30, 2012 at 2:52 am)Micah Wrote: How is asserting that their god is eternal a problem? Many atheists have no problem asserting that the universe has always existed, or that the universe happened out of nothing. Why could the same not be true for god(s)? Why couldn't a god have always existed or happened out of nothing? If it can be said for the universe, why could it not be said for god(s)? There is no way you can prove that it cannot. You might say something about Occam's Razor, and that the simpler answer is that the universe has always existed/happened out of nothing, but that doesn't really mean anything. Occam's Razor is just an idea and is not something that proves truth. Therefore, it is entirely possible, though, in my opinion, not likely, that god(s) exist, and there is nothing that can be said to prove that god(s) do not.
Pointing out that something is unable to be disproven is not the same as making a compelling case for it. You can't disprove I'm an alien, for example. The fact that you can't disprove it isn't a compelling reason to believe it. The reason all their assertions are problematic is because they haven't proven any of them. While I do think a negative can be reasonably proven, it's usually more difficult and most god concepts are formulated in such a way as to be practically unfalsifiable. That being said, I think there's certain gods which can be reasonably said to not exist, including, but not limited to, specific formulations of the Christian god.
Not all things that cannot be disproved are on the same level. Fairies and the Christian god are not on the same level. I know you didn't reference fairies; I was just using them as an example. The person Jesus almost certainly existed. We find out about him not only in Christian texts, but also non-Christian texts. For instance, the writings of Tacitus and Josephus. As to the divinity of Jesus, let us take the Gospel of Mark into consideration. We know that Mark was the author of this gospel because of the writings of Papias, which we get from Irenaeus. He says that Mark was linked to Peter and upon Peter's death there was the dire need to write down the knowledge that Peter possessed. Mark, who would have been familiar with what Peter knew, wrote this down into his gospel. Peter died around 67 C.E. and the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 C.E. It is perfectly possible that Mark adequately wrote down what Peter (an eye witness) knew. This is an adequate argument for the veracity of the gospels, since the other two of the synoptic gospels were clearly derived from Mark. And John, which was written independently of the synoptic gospels, corroborates their accounts. If the gospels are reliable, then their account of Jesus is.
I am a soft atheist, so I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus for various reasons, but how can the above argument not be seen as a good one?
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
