Arguments for God Fail Specific Religions

[athoughtfulman]

I was thinking about this after a conversation with a christian I had yesterday, and after finishing a book called "Irreligion" by a mathematician about how there are no persuasive arguments for the existence of god.

Here's what I discovered :p

There are many arguments for the existence of a god, such as:

- the argument from first cause.
- the argument from design.
- the argument from the anthropic principle.
- the ontological argument.
- the argument from coincidence.

And so on...

What I realised is that not one of these arguments is relevant when discussing a specific religion, for example Christianity.

Take the argument from first cause. Even if one is persuaded by the argument and concludes that god exists, he is still left with the problem of the identity of this god. All these arguments can only conclude that a god exists; they do nothing as to identifying which specific god it is of which specific religion.

When a christian uses one of these arguments (or any member of a specific religion with a specific god), he is in the end doing absolutely nothing to back up his faith in his specific god. He is making a rather different argument, simply that god exists, but that in the end, he is unknowable.

For christianity to be true, there are only two arguments which can be made:

First Argument - Jesus

1. Jesus really existed and he lived, died and rose from the dead.
   
2. Only god could rise from the dead.
   
3. Therefore Jesus was god.
   

Second Argument - The Bible

1. By way of demonstrable proof, the bible is 100% consistent, reliable and relevant and is undeniably the greatest book ever written.
   
2. Therefore the bible is divinely inspired.
   
3. The bible says god exists.
   
4. Therefore god exists.
   

If it can be proven that Jesus did not exist or at the very least, did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is proven wrong. Likewise, if it can be proven that the bible is inconsistent, unreliable, irrelevant or not the greatest book ever written, then Christianity is proven wrong.

Any other arguments are inconclusive when it comes to Christianity or any other religion.

[Giff]

If it can be proven that Jesus did not exist or at the very least, did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is proven wrong. Likewise, if it can be proven that the bible is inconsistent, unreliable, irrelevant or not the greatest book ever written, then Christianity is proven wrong.

Any other arguments are inconclusive when it comes to Christianity or any other religion.

You are right, it should be that simple. But it seems like it doesn't work that way. Christians and theist overall is always modifying their religion so it can't be dissproved. That's why many say nowdays that the bible shouldn't be taken litterally and it all comes to interputations and so on.

So for them can this not prove their religion wrong.

[athoughtfulman]

Ah but that's where you start asking the question that if it's all interpretation, why is your one correct?

Eventually, I think there are two options for the christian.

1. They eventually take a stand on some issue which means you've backed them into a corner, and can then easily show them their inconsistencies.
2. They'll keep taking flight, never giving you a clear answer, at which point I'd write them off completely.

Of course, their arguments are easy to refute, but the religious are certainly not easily persuaded, no matter how rational the refutation.

[Giff]

Ah but that's where you start asking the question that if it's all interpretation, why is your one correct?

Very good, I've asked that myself to a priest. But all he answered was that it no one are right and no one is wrong. That it's not about truth or who's right it's about interputating life thru religion. He also say you can't believe in a objective God or religion. God is, according to him, life itself that is experienced thru others and religion is also something you experience and use as a tool to experience life. That's what I've understand from his not very clear answers.

When I asked him why he think his opnion is right wrong does he said like I said before that no one is right and no one is wrong. It's not about that and so on.

I have contact with him thru mail so if you would like to make an good argument or ask a good question, then I could write that to him. Would be helpful for me acctually.

[athoughtfulman]

The priest's belief is non-sensical.

If no one is right and no one is wrong, then how can he be right about believing that no one is right or wrong? His belief is self-refuting. How can he be right in believing that life itself that is experienced thru others and religion is also something you experience and use as a tool to experience life if no one is right or wrong?

[g-mark]

They are just thoughts. What is a right thought? Is there a definition?

[LukeMC]

A thought which reflects that which is?

[fr0d0]

None of those arguments for the existence of God work. I don't think your requirements for Christianity work either.

First Argument - Jesus

1. Jesus really existed and he lived, died and rose from the dead.
2. Only god could rise from the dead.
3. Therefore Jesus was god.

Is it really essential for Jesus to have lived? I don't think so ...so it doesn't apply to all Christians. Plus that's way too simplistic when there are very many other factors from the Bible to prove Jesus was God. The point of Jesus rising from the dead was not to prove he was God, it was about our connection with God. The idea transcends the realty of the situation. People saw people brought back to life supposedly, but they only saw Jesus die and then appear alive. You could easily discount the facts as magic tricks. The underlying truth of the message extends far wider.

Second Argument - The Bible

1. By way of demonstrable proof, the bible is 100% consistent, reliable and relevant and is undeniably the greatest book ever written.
2. Therefore the bible is divinely inspired.
3. The bible says god exists.
4. Therefore god exists.

I've never heard it suggested that the Bible has to be consistent. I think you just made a straw man. We know how the Bible came to be. Christians accept certain books are included.

The Bible contains observations about a specific god. People reading the Bible reason it out for themselves. That the Bible talks about God isn't Christianity. What people believe is Christianity. The Bible doesn't prove that God exists, but it gives solid reasoning why belief matters.

[Dotard]

....or ask a good question, then I could write that to him. Would be helpful for me acctually.

Please ask him if he has a good spell checker to send you. That would be even more helpful for you.



frOdO said:

"....but it gives solid reasoning why belief matters.


Please lay out some of this "solid reasoning" for me. I've read the book myself and found none.

[athoughtfulman]

Is it really essential for Jesus to have lived? I don't think so ...so it doesn't apply to all Christians. Plus that's way too simplistic when there are very many other factors from the Bible to prove Jesus was God. The point of Jesus rising from the dead was not to prove he was God, it was about our connection with God. The idea transcends the realty of the situation. People saw people brought back to life supposedly, but they only saw Jesus die and then appear alive. You could easily discount the facts as magic tricks. The underlying truth of the message extends far wider.

Sure is essential. A Christ-ian is a follower of Christ. If Jesus didn't live, then he's not god. Why did he have to live? Because one of the most basic Christian doctrines is that we are sinful, and that because we are sinful, we need forgiveness. However, since the penalty for sin is death, Jesus had to defeat death, by dying and then rising. If he did not rise, then sin still exists, and we are left with nothing more than a nice philosophy, much less than the esteemed religion "Christianity".

If your idea of Christianity works with the idea of Jesus not existing, then I would not call you a Christian. If your idea of Christianity works with the idea of Jesus not rising from the dead, then you fail to understand the basic Christian doctrine of sin.

As nice as the message might be, you're left with nothing but a moral system.

I've never heard it suggested that the Bible has to be consistent. I think you just made a straw man. We know how the Bible came to be. Christians accept certain books are included.

The Bible contains observations about a specific god. People reading the Bible reason it out for themselves. That the Bible talks about God isn't Christianity. What people believe is Christianity. The Bible doesn't prove that God exists, but it gives solid reasoning why belief matters.

Maybe for you, with your unorthodox beliefs, it's a strawman. But the majority of Christians will vouch for their "divinely-inspired" bible. For them at least, it is 100% true. And if it weren't, then their religion is in tatters.

If the bible is inconsistent, why take any of it as true? Sure, other books are inconsistent yet we still read them and believe them. However, since the bible is written on the assumption that god exists, that Jesus died and rose, that humans are 6000 years old, etc, it's inconsistency is very, VERY damaging to it's integrity.