Stump the Christian?

[robvalue]

I also want to give Randy credit for admitting the mistake about the paper.

[Longhorn]

Yea, have sum credit m8

[Fidel_Castronaut]

In the largest survey ever done, by David Bourget and David Chalmers, the majority of philosophers are atheists.


72.8% atheists, 14.6% theists, the rest are 'other'.

What about scientists? I bet the gap is even bigger.

Being engaged to a microbiologist, and being involved in the scientific community in one form or another, I want to say that nobody cares about investigating 'God'. People have research to do, with actual real world applications. People don't have time or money to investigate the imaginary, and neither do they care (even scientists who are theists).

[robvalue]

You literally can't investigate something that is defined in such a way that you can't investigate it. I'd have thought that is pretty clear.

It's not valid to complain that science can't get through the science proof barriers people hide God behind in order to bolster their argument from ignorance.

So, if the bible said 1+1=3, would that make it true?

[dyresand]

You literally can't investigate something that is defined in such a way that you can't investigate it. I'd have thought that is pretty clear.

It's not valid to complain that science can't get through the science proof barriers people hide God behind in order to bolster their argument from ignorance.

So, if the bible said 1+1=3, would that make it true?

Well you can test if a god is real. 

steps 

1. go outside 

2. look up at the sky

3. yell up at the sky

4. wait

5. document findings if any

6. research debunk everything.

7. release findings.

[Esquilax]

By the way, one of the world's leading cosmologists, Don Page, took issue with both William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll in an open letter found on Carroll's blog:

Guest Post: Don Page on God and Cosmology
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...cosmology/

You might find it interesting.

I did! What I found particularly fascinating is the difference in Page's approach when rebutting Craig, versus when rebutting Carroll. When addressing Craig, the corrections come on a strictly factual basis, pulling him up on errors of thinking regarding the science in some good detail. When addressing Carroll... there's actually not a lot there, content-wise. Page makes some good points about how the probabilities associated with various predictions changes according to the models used, but when it comes to his conclusion regarding god things get utterly nonsensical. He admits early on that he believes by faith, which means next to nothing to me, but when it comes to the actual evidence he provides for that conclusion, shit gets weird.

"Nevertheless," he says, after having dismissed Kalam's first premise as dubious (despite personally believing it to be true, because of another belief that he has, which isn't actually a reason), he believes that a view of the evidence shows that god exists. But his evidence is... not that? He says the elegance of the laws of physics is proof of god, but that's a matter of opinion, since elegance is a subjective criteria, making the argument there "it is my opinion that physics is elegant, therefore god." I've heard counter-arguments of equal weight that the laws of physics are deeply troubling:



Page goes on to assert that the existence of sentient beings is evidence for god, but he never says why that is, just that it is, and, well... no, it's not. That's begging the question, if you just point to things that you know exist and say they're evidence for god; we know those things evolved, we have no reason yet to expect that design is required.

He finishes with one of a series of vague references made throughout the piece to the "historical evidence" of the resurrection, to which my response is "oh? There's evidence that Jesus resurrected? Rather than just evidence that he may have existed? Where's that?"

Page never goes into any further detail.

Ultimately, what makes this all interesting is that it's another case study in how otherwise smart people will bend over backwards and lower their standards of evidence and discourse when it comes to their pet religions. That's not surprising, though it is disappointing.

[robvalue]

What I find interesting and telling is that apologist arguments aren't getting any more sophisticated, only more deeply wrapped up in bullshit. The presup garbage shows the desperate nature of the business now when they must resort to a tangle of word games and hopping in and out of solipsism like it's a pair of pants. "You're honest enough to admit fallibility. We're not. We win!"

For example, that stupid paper by WLC on miracles. You could cross out almost all of it, and replace it with "If God exists, God can do things that God can do." Except in all his waffle, he missed out the "if" at the start and just assumes it. Pathetic.

Apologetics is just like "Where's Wally/Waldo" with logical fallacies. They're just drawing more and more people in the picture to hide them.

[Randy Carson]

Jenny-

If you had met God, would you think differently?

---

 What do you mean met?  A burning bush that talks?  A voice in my head?  A booming voice from the sky?  An inner feeling?  An encounter with someone who appears to be able to walk on water or feed a multitude with a basket of bread?

None of those things would prove an omniscient, all powerful, creator of the universe.  But that's what the Bible suggests meeting god would be like.

Jenny-

I can't remember if I asked this of you or JuliaL...and the search feature in this forum is a bit limited, so I ask your patience in advance:

What evidence for God's existence could I provide that you would accept?

[abaris]

What evidence for God's existence could I provide that you would accept?

Well, you can question all of us. Jenny gave you some claims from the bible.

A  well observed supernatural event would be a start. Not an individual claim of one person, who I don't know and who could suffer from any kind of mental illness. Or simply be a fraud for that matter.

As some of us already said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And on a personal note, without knowing you, you probably would be quick to wave away any supernatural claim if it wasn't connected to your god image. Let's say having a talk with Bigfoot or, to stay in the god realm, Odin or Zeus.

[Jenny A]

Jenny-

I can't remember if I asked this of you or JuliaL...and the search feature in this forum is a bit limited, so I ask your patience in advance:

What evidence for God's existence could I provide that you would accept?

Asked and answered:

Oh, just about anything godly demonstrably happening in the present.  Suppose a booming voice announced from the sky that a second earth would be created tomorrow and be shown orbiting the sun?  And sure enough tomorrow there it was. That would do it for me. Of course it could be very clever aliens with very advanced tech, but at that point the difference between aliens and god would be pretty slim. 

I did mention the idea that Jesus might demonstrate resurrection repeatedly for the disbelieving.  Why not?  If he's god, he gave us the brains to demand that level of proof.  No need for the pain of crucifixion.  Just a living man demonstrably dead getting up and going about living over and over until the scientists are satisfied would do just fine.

Anything less is much to small for the enormity of the claim.