Theistic Arguments: Claims and proof

[FallentoReason]

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),

That is well put. Personally I think the Christian-Atheist debates are all pointless and trivial except for the one debate that would practically settle everything and that is the existence of the Biblical Jesus.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

...I think it's reasonable to expect more from the Son of God than a philosopher's friend.

Okay, point taken. You both provided reasonable questions. I did overstate my case while trying to respond to the OP. So getting back to the discussion at hand...

..perhaps someone [theist] will read this and MAYBE not create another pointless "Let's play make the atheist explain everything about reality" game...Even if you could prove that no one knew the answer to a lot of questions about our universe you still would not make God more likely...Do not turn all of the discussions about God vs. Atheism into a pointless bullet storm of questions about every single facet of reality which doesn't address the likelihood of God's existence AT ALL

What my post unsuccessfully expressed was my agreement that most of us, including this heretic, want to avoid pointless 'bullet storms'. The point I hoped to make was this. The flip side of 'let's make the atheist explain everything about reality game' is the 'make the theist address every conceiveable objection the existence of God'. While it is normal, and even somewhat desirable, to explore tangential points when talking about something specific like 'freewill', I hate to see a good conversation soured with yet another 'biblical inerrency' vs 'flying spagetti monster' war. I see threads titled to invite those kinds of debate. And that's okay for those who want to have fun playing pin-the-tail on a fundie jackass. But not every thread is the appropriate place for such bullshit.

[Adjusted Sanity]

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

Nope. I'm somewhere in the middle leaning towards realism. I hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Watered down libertarian views may be the ideal in my mind, but I'm not one. I'm in the center. I don't forget the fact that people are stupid.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

The atheist position is 'I don't believe in a God'. That shouldn't be a matter for debate any more than the theist position of 'I believe in a God'. For 'gnostic' atheists (there is no God) and 'gnostic' theists (there is a God), their positions do appear to be equally impotent, provided no particular God is specified: many specific definitions of God can be eliminated as containing contradictions. The gnostic atheist can often justify claiming a specific version of God is not real. However, agnostic atheists (I don't know for sure that there is no God, but I don't know of any convincing reasons to believe there is) and agnostic theists (I don't know for sure there is a God, and I don't know of any convincing reasons to believe there is, but I do anyway) share a position that gnostic theists cannot support their position, and that claim is, and can only be, validated by critiquing the arguments and evidence presented by theists who assert God is real.

That is, Voltaire is mistaken in the case where the position being validated is that another position isn't adequately supported by evidence and logic.

[The Grand Nudger]

If "free will" is offered as a justification for any god claim then it becomes central, not ancillary, to the main point. "Good conversation" isn't likely to involve invoking fantasy and then supporting it with fantasy (unless the subject is fantasy). Nor is it likely to involve a game of philosophical scrabble. Nor is it likely to involve any sort of control or guidance on the part of those who would assert nonsense and then get pissy when bullshit is called, demanding that those who do not swallow the koolaid refrain from approaching their bullshit from every possible angle.

"Good conversation" isn't likely to invoke god as an actual entity at all, but that's just my two cents.

[fr0d0]

I think you miss the point Mr A. It being that attack without reason is pervasive.

Where do we fall then? Us Christians who cannot by any stretch of the imagination prove using the scientific method any aspect of God, yet do know compelling reasons to believe.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Where do we fall then? ...Christians who cannot...prove using the scientific method any aspect of God, yet do know compelling reasons to believe.

I'd like to hear your response to the OP because I think it's a really good question. What would it take to convince you that God did not exist? What evidence or proof would undermine your compelling reasons to believe?

[fr0d0]

Greetings Chad.

Well the OP is an argument from ignorance IMO. Lacking knowledge in something isn't proof of its failure to be valid, which is what appears to be being suggested.

What would convince me to abandon my belief would be valid opposition to proofs/ Evidence and proofs would have to be appropriate to the subject.
.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What would convince me to abandon my belief would be valid opposition to proofs/ Evidence and proofs would have to be appropriate to the subject.

I understand but give me an example of something that would 'seal the deal' for you.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

make the theist address every conceiveable objection the existence of God'.

I have no interest in making a theist do anything. I'm quite happy to ridicule and snipe at the dropkicks we have here.

I'll be happy if any theist addresses just one objection: "I do not believe in god(s) due to the lack of credible evidence". Arguing with believers about their personal superstitions can be fun,but accomplishes nothing. (apart from giving one that smug glow of superiority or apoplexy and a deep concern for the future of humanity)