Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 8, 2015 at 11:08 am)Nope Wrote: Most of the reasons that Christians give for believing in god involves their feelings. "I've had a person experience with Jesus and felt him in my heart" which means that the person's good mood must be caused by Jesus.
I am surprised that more theists haven't taken you up on this challange
(January 8, 2015 at 11:16 am)robvalue Wrote: You have failed to define what God is. That is the first part of my challenge. You are using terms that don't mean anything.
If you can't define it, then you don't know anything about it.
The best they can offer is mystical nonsense or gibberish. Non-answers are their bread-and-butter so expect more of the same.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." ~ Benjamin Franklin
How exactly can I prove myself to God anyway? I'm right here you old fart knocker! What, need your eyes tested? I'm not the one playing hide-the-deity.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
January 8, 2015 at 11:22 am (This post was last modified: January 8, 2015 at 11:24 am by Nope.)
I thought that Christians were ordered by their bible to answer questions like this. It is a simple question and if they have ever tried to evangelize anyone, surely they have been asked a version of this question.
Quote:1 Peter 3:15 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
15 But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.
January 8, 2015 at 11:25 am (This post was last modified: January 8, 2015 at 11:26 am by Spooky.)
(January 8, 2015 at 11:12 am)strawdawg Wrote:
(January 8, 2015 at 10:32 am)robvalue Wrote: This is something I've been wibbling about recently so I thought it's time for another challenge, following the amazing success of the worship one. Here's my challenge to theists.
To my understanding, there are two factors of any claim which decide whether or not the claim is of any use at all. If it fails on any of these, it's pointless and not even worth addressing with argument or evidence. Here we go:
1) Coherent/consistent: The claim has to make sense. You have to define what you are talking about, in clear terms. It must be consistent with itself, and with the things we know about reality. If it's not coherent, there's nothing to test, I don't know what you are even claiming. If it's not consistent with itself, it's impossible. If it's not consistent with reality, it's also impossible, because we would have to throw out everything we think we know already just to consider this new claim. The reason for throwing out any conventional theory would have to be included to make this consistent.
2) Testable: The claim must be able to be investigated, in some way. If you are saying your claim is true, then you are saying you have reached that conclusion via some sort of method. So there must be some clear way in which the claim can be tested to find out whether it is true or not. If there is no way to test it, then that means the claim is either only true "for you" which makes it meaningless to anyone else, or it's just an assertion not backed by anything as you've refused to say how you even got to it in the first place. If there is no way to test your claim, no one can determine whether it is right or wrong. And if this is the case, no one can prove whether the opposite claim is right or wrong, either. So you are just arbitrarily choosing one of two positions, with no rational reason.
So my challenge is, can anyone come up with a non-trivial claim about God that meets these criteria? I have yet to see a single one. Only at that point does it make sense to even consider the evidence being presented, and to find out whether the claim is true, or most likely true.
Also, if you want to present a case that claims which don't meet these criteria are still of any value to people other than yourself, please do.
Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
God's not going to prove anything to you, it's the other way around, you have to prove something to him.
1st Kings
38 Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.
39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The Lord, he is the God; the Lord, he is the God.
40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
Elijah tells god to prove it, he does.
Judges 6
36 So Gideon said to God, “If You will save Israel by my hand as You have said— 37 look, I shall put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that You will save Israel by my hand, as You have said.” 38 And it was so. When he rose early the next morning and squeezed the fleece together, he wrung the dew out of the fleece, a bowlful of water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, “Do not be angry with me, but let me speak just once more: Let me test, I pray, just once more with the fleece; let it now be dry only on the fleece, but on all the ground let there be dew.” 40 And God did so that night. It was dry on the fleece only, but there was dew on all the ground.
January 8, 2015 at 11:58 am (This post was last modified: January 8, 2015 at 12:16 pm by robvalue.)
It's not as easy as it looks. I mean, if I was to try, I'd go with the simulation hypothesis. I could define "God" as a programmer in another reality. I could say that this reality doesn't literally exist, but is a representation of a program running in his computer.
This is consistent and coherent, although very vague.
But it's not testable. At least, I cannot think of any way it could be tested. And until anyone does, the claim is nothing more than speculation.
That's the nearest I can get, and I haven't met my own criteria. And by own admission, this is indeed speculation. It could be true, but we can't know if it is or not.
Abstract notions like pure mathematics are concepts, they exist only as ideas within the brains of living creatures. They are not entities in their own right. If you wanted a hard definition, you'd have to look at the way in which the brain processes logic and stores information. In that sense, the concepts exist as configurations within the brain.
They can represent reality in some way, but they don't have to.
With logical systems like mathematics, you start with axioms and you come to conclusions. No external evidence is required; if your logic is sound then the conclusion is as valid as your axioms, but only within the abstract system you have devised.
Someone stop me please if I'm talking bollocks hehe I'm saying all this like its fact, but I'm really expressing my understanding. There's two realms, the real and the abstract. Abstract things are conceptual and so don't themselves have a specific place in reality where you find them, only in the brains of the intelligence that creates them.
Often the abstract is used to model the real, and the results of logically manipulating the abstract can be applied back to the real. But almost always, an amount of simplification and assumption make this process imperfect. The abstract does not have to have any bearing on the real however, normally it just has to be internally consistent, and it can "work" within its own rules.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
I'm just getting attacks so far on why a claim isn't even necessary. Not a good start.
