Theistic Arguments: Claims and proof

[Voltair]

Of course there is always a bed of uncertainty. However people will even say "How do you know that this is all not just a dream?" I can simply say "How do you know that this is just not a spaghetti noodle?" Since we cannot know anything is my statement equally as valid?

I do agree with you that absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is unknowable that is not the point of this post. The point of this post is that someone cannot validate their own claims simply by attacking everyone else's.

They have to provide evidence for THEIR claims and without that they do not have support. Those examples above were made to prove that point and not any other. I don't have a problem with someone saying "We do not know for certain there is a God." I do have a problem with someone saying that they do know there is a God for certain and instead of providing evidence they attack other people's worldviews as if this was proof.

I don't think that this post is really referencing you Wooters but rather people coming in here who commit the fallacy I just stated above.

[fr0d0]

The point of this post is that someone cannot validate their own claims simply by attacking everyone else's.

You've just rendered the atheist position impotent.

[Minimalist]

Which is why it is important to remind the jesus freaks that there is no fucking evidence for their fairy tales and quite a bit against it.

People can believe any fool thing they want, frods.

Just look at the libertarians for proof of that.

[Adjusted Sanity]

Which is why it is important to remind the jesus freaks that there is no fucking evidence for their fairy tales and quite a bit against it.

People can believe any fool thing they want, frods.

Just look at the libertarians for proof of that.

Meh. I've always liked the idea that people should mostly govern themselves with government there only for what's necessary. But I'm not the person to go to when asking about politics. It's all too circumstantial. Any system that sounds good in theory can horribly fail in practice.

Also I'm horribly off topic right now. Shame on me.

[Minimalist]

I've always liked the idea that people should mostly govern themselves with government there only for what's necessary.

Dangerous.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1059281

You have a far higher opinion of people than I do.

[Adjusted Sanity]

I've always liked the idea that people should mostly govern themselves with government there only for what's necessary.

Dangerous.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1059281

You have a far higher opinion of people than I do.

Couldn't read the article but I get what you're saying. That's why government is a necessity. We need enough regulation and enforcement so we don't kill each other. It's hard to figure where to draw the line though.

[Voltair]

Fr0d0!!!!!

If by invalidate the atheist position you mean I have invalidated the claim "I can prove for certain there is no such thing as deity" then I agree with you.

However if you can't prove it either then that still meets with my worldview :p

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You have a far higher opinion of people than I do.

Probably,but then he is a romantic rather than a misanthrope (realist)

I think Libertarians, along all other idealogues are naive at best and downright dangerous at worst. People who trust party politics also bother me; EG currently in the US there is a lame duck Democratic president who has changed nothing.

It matters not for whom one votes,one still ends up with a fucking politician (Tarquin St John Shagnasty)

[FallentoReason]

We should respect the idea that each person has to decide for themselves what degree of evidence is needed to move forward with whatever they use for their working hypothesis. I recall one post that said something like, "provide any evidence outside the NT that Jesus even existed." That's not even reasonable. It's like saying, "provide evidence outside the Platonic dialogs that Socrates existed." Just because I am willing to accept the Gospel accounts as acceptible evidence that a Jewish carpenter named Jesus once walked the earth does not make me any less rational than anyone else on this forum.

I think that was my post, or it's something that I would say anyways. I'll clarify why I think it's reasonable to expect credible sources beyond the NT.

Jesus was portrayed as a miracle worker. He would heal people on the streets i.e. in public meaning that there were witnesses left and right of him. The people that he healed 'in private' he told afterwards to keep quiet about his identity. What are we told that the person would do after? Run out with joy spreading the news. There wasn't a shortage of people that knew Jesus.

What are we left with today as a consequence of his existence? The same amount of credible evidence as a philosopher's [imaginary] friend. Yes, it's debatable whether Socrates existed but how is it possible that Jesus gets about the same degree of evidence for his existence? People had no more to say about God incarnate than Socrates. Now what is the probability that Jesus was the Son of God but his impact missed all the historians of the time? Low I would think.. Which is why I would have expected religious and secular texts alike to mention him.

I think it's reasonable to expect more from the Son of God than a philosopher's friend. Maybe I'm commiting some sort of fallacy, I'm not sure to be honest.

[Faith No More]

I recall one post that said something like, "provide any evidence outside the NT that Jesus even existed." That's not even reasonable. It's like saying, "provide evidence outside the Platonic dialogs that Socrates existed."

Both of those of those requests for evidence are perfectly reasonable. The difference between Socrates and Jesus is that everything we take away from the Socrates stories holds true whether he existed or not. If Jesus did not exist then the whole point of the bible that our sins have been absolved through his sacrifice is completely worthless and no attention need to be paid to the message. Sure, Jesus' moral teachings can stand on their own, but there are earlier and better sources for such things.

Here's a quote I stumbled upon...
"If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen – nothing else matters." - Jaroslav Pelikan (2006),