RE: Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?
February 11, 2010 at 10:09 am
Why do you think any kind of experience no matter how miraculous, is evidence for God?
Surely the more ridiculous the experience, the more likely that you are delusion/hallucinating/mistaken somehow.
No matter how absurd something is I will believe it if there is enough evidence, but the more absurd and improbable the more evidence I will require.
You don't believe in an invisible man in the sky? Well that's all very well but personification is all over the Bible. God is considered to be a "he" and is personified in the Bible.
But whether he is a person in the sky or not makes no difference to the fact he's still a deity and still improbable either way. Where is the evidence?
Why do you think personal experience is valid evidence? Surely that evidence is incredibly weak considering we need much better evidence in that for science.... and even scientific evidence is not enough for God because he is unreachable for it. God - as in, any deity - or the Christian one in this case - is extremely complex with his attributes because they don't just come from nowhere and they're not just there right from the beginning. This requires insanely strong evidence - evidence so strong I can't think of any strong enough - as I said, even scientific evidence is insufficient for God. So if you don't have strong enough evidence why believe? Personal experience is very weak evidence, much to weak for science in and of itself (as in the anecdote of a scientist is not evidence...) at the very least. If personal experience is too weak a form of evidence for science then it's certainly too weak for The Supernatural. The natural world is already observed and understood by science somewhat... it is much more reasonable and yet that demands strong evidence. The supernatural - as in God, as in deities - as in anything 'miraculous' at all be it good or bad connotations - demands even stronger.
EvF
Surely the more ridiculous the experience, the more likely that you are delusion/hallucinating/mistaken somehow.
No matter how absurd something is I will believe it if there is enough evidence, but the more absurd and improbable the more evidence I will require.
You don't believe in an invisible man in the sky? Well that's all very well but personification is all over the Bible. God is considered to be a "he" and is personified in the Bible.
But whether he is a person in the sky or not makes no difference to the fact he's still a deity and still improbable either way. Where is the evidence?
Why do you think personal experience is valid evidence? Surely that evidence is incredibly weak considering we need much better evidence in that for science.... and even scientific evidence is not enough for God because he is unreachable for it. God - as in, any deity - or the Christian one in this case - is extremely complex with his attributes because they don't just come from nowhere and they're not just there right from the beginning. This requires insanely strong evidence - evidence so strong I can't think of any strong enough - as I said, even scientific evidence is insufficient for God. So if you don't have strong enough evidence why believe? Personal experience is very weak evidence, much to weak for science in and of itself (as in the anecdote of a scientist is not evidence...) at the very least. If personal experience is too weak a form of evidence for science then it's certainly too weak for The Supernatural. The natural world is already observed and understood by science somewhat... it is much more reasonable and yet that demands strong evidence. The supernatural - as in God, as in deities - as in anything 'miraculous' at all be it good or bad connotations - demands even stronger.
EvF
