This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why do you believe in God?

#11DarkContractorPosted 6/28/2013 3:15:13 PM
Polish_Crusader posted...
Because God has revealed himself to me and shown me the truth and the light.

My belief is 100% based off evidence.


what do you call it when someone perfectly healthly suddenly develops TMJ and someone with a car perfectly maintained suddenly breaks down?
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#12C_MatPosted 6/28/2013 4:00:44 PM
DarkContractor posted...
C_Mat post...
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. (yeah, CS Lewis quote)

^That would be the main reason for me. On a purely logical level, I'd still get there through the cosmological and historical arguments for Jesus, which have never been refuted. On a more emotional level, though, I find the moral argument for the Christian God's existence to be the most powerful (which also ties in to that Lewis quote above).


When you refuse to consider any rebuttals against those arguments and just take whatever apologists spoonfed you then yeah i can see how you would think that


Nobody has offered me a rebuttal to the cosmological or historical argument. For you in particular, you only supplied your own arguments in favor of Jesus being a legend instead of trying to refute my arguments against Jesus being the Son of God.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#13DarkContractorPosted 6/28/2013 4:36:54 PM(edited)
C_Mat posted...
DarkContractor posted...
C_Mat post...
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. (yeah, CS Lewis quote)

^That would be the main reason for me. On a purely logical level, I'd still get there through the cosmological and historical arguments for Jesus, which have never been refuted. On a more emotional level, though, I find the moral argument for the Christian God's existence to be the most powerful (which also ties in to that Lewis quote above).


When you refuse to consider any rebuttals against those arguments and just take whatever apologists spoonfed you then yeah i can see how you would think that


Nobody has offered me a rebuttal to the cosmological or historical argument. For you in particular, you only supplied your own arguments in favor of Jesus being a legend instead of trying to refute my arguments against Jesus being the Son of God.


i did both, I showed that the Gospels used each other as a source, meaning that they aren't independent accounts, I showed that the original authors were not the authors of the Bible, I demonstrated the authors willingness to make things up on the spot about what happened, your argument didn't consider all the evidence (gnostic accounts of what happened, for example), Paul's apparent ignorance on the details, the contradictions between the Gospel accounts of what happened, the lack of secular references to the miracles) etc. I commented specifically on "Would the apostles be willing to die for a lie?" It does not follow that the apostles lying about miracles (not to mention most of the lies were fabricated during the oral tradition phrase of the Gospel's origin) means they were lying about their belief that Jesus was the Son of God. I commented specifically on them not asking people claimed to be witnesses. In fact one of your arguments was entirely reversible, you ask why didn't the Romans simply prove the tomb to contain Jesus' body? Why didn't the Christians simply prove the tomb lacked his body?

you just didnt find my answers satisfying. Which that is your choice that you are free to make, but don't act like your arguments have stood the test of time.


---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#14DarkContractorPosted 6/28/2013 4:37:52 PM(edited)
also, cosmological argument has been debunked plenty of times. at most you can establish a first cause, and that has shaky grounds as well.

First Cause asserts itself as a predecessor event from which everything stems, but we have empirical data that time itself has a beginning, to put it in layman's terms time is nothing but differences in speed relative to the speed of light. So the idea of a First Cause creating everything contradicts itself as it then presumes that time is an eternal property. With time having a beginning, a "First" Cause is paradoxical.

WLC's argument for a sentient First Cause makes all sorts of fallacies. He asserts that because it is spaceless and timeless it must be metaphysical and abstract. The mental jump here is, while obvious only to the scientific literate, is that he is slightly re-defining spaceless to make his justification. The First Cause, as the way it is introduced, would make zero dent in the fabric of space. However, the particles in pre Big Bang conditions would still exist, they simply would not be stretching in relationship to one another.

Yet, let's give him his 'spaceless and timeless.' Even with that premise, it still doesn't hold up. He argues that the only abstract things that we know of is numbers and the personal mind, numbers cannot create the universe, so therefore, it must be the personal mind! Despite this just being a juvenile attempt to demonstrate an illusion of a null hypothesis to make the alternative look more plausible , despite the complete non-seqitir of a personal mind having the ability to create an universe, it completely ignores the fact that nueroscientists are mostly in agreement that the mind has a physical bottom up. Even if you reject that, at most the proper approach is neutrality on the subject.

However, even MORESO, it is an argument from ignorance. You still have zero evidence that the personal mind, even if completely metaphysical, created the universe! WLC basically says " 1) The universe must be created by something metaphysical. 2) The only metaphysical thing that we know of are numbers and the personal mind 3) Therefore, one of them must have birthed it

conclusion: The Cosmological argument is flawed in every assertion it makes, and its conclusions can be philosophically falsified (it should be noteworthy that my argument against a sentient first cause should not be taken as a disproof for God - just as it is silly to accept God without empirical data, it silly to reject God without empirical data)


However, let's give all the premises and test them. Since none of this was found on scientific data, we can philosophically test it the same way WLC does, so I present to you my article on why the First Cause could not be sentient. http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-sentient-first-cause-is-impossibe-and.html

Might I recommend reading Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe?
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#15C_MatPosted 6/28/2013 5:29:58 PM
Saying, "It could have happened my way instead of your way" does not disprove my argument whatsoever. And you already admitted you have a personal bias when you said nothing could possibly convince you Jesus is the Son of God. Which means I could have dismantled every single one of your arguments and it still couldn't have changed your mind. That's not the reason I ended the debate with you, but it's obviously futile to debate someone who has already stated they're unwilling to admit defeat.

And I'm probably more familiar with WLC's arguments than you are, so when you misrepresent them like that, it's not going to convince me he's wrong.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#16DarkContractorPosted 6/28/2013 6:34:52 PM
C_Mat posted...
Saying, "It could have happened my way instead of your way" does not disprove my argument whatsoever. And you already admitted you have a personal bias when you said nothing could possibly convince you Jesus is the Son of God. Which means I could have dismantled every single one of your arguments and it still couldn't have changed your mind. That's not the reason I ended the debate with you, but it's obviously futile to debate someone who has already stated they're unwilling to admit defeat.


Actually, I gave you evidence of tons of textual alterations, I gave you evidence of the betrayal of Judas being a myth, I gave you evidence of Jesus being fallible, I gave you evidence that Matthew and Mark did not write the Gospels. And the fact that you still talk about proofs in historical debate shows you have zero clue what you're talking about (really, none of us needed any convincing) because history doesn't proof anything, it tells us what probably happened (on an aside, any supernatural event is defaulted automatically to be one of the most unlikely answers to a historical question, but I didn't argue that since I suspect you would falsely accuse me of a naturalism bias).


Well, I didn't necessarily say you couldn't convince me, but that I don't think there would be evidence that would convince. However, if certain evidences were presented (such as multiple cross referencing testimonies from eyewitnesses soon after the Gospels, with a discovery of Jesus's empty tomb, for example) I might just be convinced. What I said is that I don't think this will happen (the discovery of such evidence) because the antecedent of that is Jesus picked his apostles to be apostles who would willingly make things up about him. It's, of course, not impossible that Jesus would do such a thing, but I have a hard time imagining that Jesus would do this.

The fact that you handwave these arguments as unevidenced alternatives means you're handwaving a large chunk of both secular and nonsecular Biblical scholarship, btw.

Also to use your snidy condescending attitude, you never responded to contradicting accounts on the Resurrection. You never responded to Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source. You treat Matthew and Luke as using Mark as a source as just some alternative theory, but really there is sooo much evidence of this, the word for word agreement in some passages, the whole Mark 14 situation I briefed you on, the fact that early Church letters dated Mark before the other two, the fact that Matthew and Luke often have embellished narratives, whereas the inverse where Mark has the embellished account is never true, the fact that accounts such as the virgin birth prove that, even if the Gospels are 100% true, that Matthew and Luke used other sources to compile their gospels, Luke confesses it right there in Luke 1:1, you never responded to my argument that Mark didn't write his Gospel, you don't think one of the most prominent textual critics, Bart Ehrman, counts as a reliable source (WLC even cites him on numerous occasions throughout his website... one of the citations, that Ehrman agreeing with WLC's "4 facts" that Craig uses to prove the Resurrection, is completely false and something that Ehrman nothing said, but none the less you get the point) and refused to even research to test what Ehrman's claim was, instead you just had reactionary skepticism then extrapolated that onto what you did with Ehrman's argument that Mark did not write the Gospel named after him.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#17DarkContractorPosted 6/28/2013 6:35:00 PM
I gave you a similar list in the debate which you handwaved with a big "why does any of that matter?". Yeah, contradictions, Jesus making falsified claims, TONS of contradictory accounts of the Resurrection, alternatives to what happened that have MORE explanatory power and a higher probability of happening (See my argument concerning the Gospel of Mary Magdalene: http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-growth-of-legend-of-resurrection.html). There's so much more content I could have delved into, much more examples of textual variants and evidences of two source hypothesis), hell there's the whole virgin birth where Mary is visited by an angel saying that God will impregnant her and she will deliver the Messiah, the Son of God, then a few chapters later when Jesus is a little boy she is utterly bewildered by the things Jesus says and does and has no clue what he's talking about when he refers to his father. The Virgin Birth being a myth accounts for these facts better than it being an actual thing, because we would expect very contrary

And I'm probably more familiar with WLC's arguments than you are, so when you misrepresent them like that, it's not going to convince me he's wrong.


I would like you to tell me what I misrepresented.

Also, here's a former Pastor and student of Craig's in philosophy and apologetics arguing the invalidity of Kalaam: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/04/kalam-argument.html

I've also not only seen WLC debate Kalaam multiple times and read his articles on his websites, I've also read up on many other philosophers, ancient and modern, who use Kalaam.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#18JonWood007Posted 6/28/2013 11:37:30 PM
There are ton of refutations of the cosmological and historical arguments out there. If you believe there are none, you're either blind or willingly ignoring them.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#19gamesrgreatPosted 6/29/2013 1:33:04 AM
During my apostasy/deconversion I asked most of my in real life Christian friends that question. Not many good answers. TRJ at least had the prophecy answer for a bit of his answer
---
D-Jesus aka Flash aka 3, Christ Bosh aka the Prophet aka Raptor Jesus, King James 3:16 The Miami Heat 2012 and 2013 Champs
#20Moorish_IdolPosted 6/29/2013 1:45:49 AM(edited)
To simplify by beliefs: I believe in god because I find pure naturalism to be misguided when applied to everything. I have no qualms with supposing the existence of supernatural things. I think there's a strong link between the material and immaterial, and I think this coexistence can be determined by looking at the universe without preconceptions. I believe an entity exists because something had to come first, and it had to have qualities of a creator, lest our existence had no reason to occur nor would the principles dictating our existence have had a reason to exist. I believe in a sentient creator because it would have to be aware of being and of what is, otherwise it couldn't have done anything.

Also, to respond to the last few posts, the cosmological argument hasn't been "debunked". It's not possible to debunk. It can be and has been challenged, but it still can't be said to be true or false either way. Also WLC's version is stupid. I'm probably the biggest proponent of the cosmological argument here but I'd agree WLC's argument largely lacks proper definitions, and for some reason he jumps from "cause" to "Christian God" (I know I say this every time this topic comes up, but I really don't like the term "cosmological argument" being used exclusively for WLC's version).

As of yet I haven't heard a solid challenge of the "normal" cosmological argument. Most arguments suffer from applying a materialistic understanding to the immaterial (e.g. the whole "who created god?" thing) or from refusing to consider the proposition at all (e.g. the whole "prove causality" thing).