Challenge to theists

[laconicsax]

From NonStampCollector:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0RpMW2PlLQ
(3 min video)

The challenge to theists isn't to prove your god or even that there is a god. It is to prove that the universe, in all its complexity and fine tuning, was created by one god. Not two gods or three gods or a billion gods, but one god.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Beliefs are personal opinions.

Theists don't have to prove shit.
People have a right to believe what ever they want to believe.

[laconicsax]

2. If you make a claim in the public forum (eg there is a god) that claim is open to scrutiny

This isn't about proving beliefs, it's about proving factual claims that are made.

Private beliefs, as you state are not subject to proof. Claims are, and when you state your beliefs, you are making a claim about their truth.

When a birther says, "I don't believe that Obama is a citizen," they're making a statement about the truth of the birther argument, thereby opening their belief to scrutiny.

No one's saying that people can't believe what they like. The challenge is to prove the foundation of an argument for the existence of God.

[Realityhack]

86. I missed where anyone said otherwise. n/t

[cleanhippie]

99. Not so, when someone claims they have the "truth" and that we should all believe or be killed

then they DO have to prove shit.

[Zadoc]

117. Sure, they have the right...

But that doesn't make them right.

[Warpy]

3. Even Genesis called it a collaborative enterprise

because the first god word is "Elohim," or lords in the plural.

When Yahweh took over, his first formal commandment was to reject all the other gods who'd had a hand in creation. (well, there was that bit about the tree bearing the fruit of knowledge, but that one wasn't written in fire on a stone tablet, lacked formality)

That's not much of a recommendation for his character, IMO.

[laconicsax]

4. Using the Bible is circular.

That aside the use of Elohim is most likely the result of the myth being copied wholesale from a polytheist religion.

[Warpy]

6. The Elhoistic portion of Genesis, the creation myth before

the silly Adam and Eve story, was pretty much cribbed whole from the Sumerian creation myth, so you're correct there.

I'm just pointing out the fact that even using the bible leads you back to polytheism at the beginning.

[laconicsax]

11. The polytheism is sort of like bookends...

You have a polytheist creation myth at the beginning, and a polytheistic godhead at the end.

[Warpy]

12. Well, it's a bit different at the end, sort of a

three faces of god thingie, a multiple personality disorder, not separate gods.

The beginning is quite frankly polytheistic.

[laconicsax]

13. It's both.

A truly omnipotent god could be both 3 separate, distinct gods and one singular god. Omnipotence leads to all sorts of contradictions like that.

[Leontius]

24. There seems to be a constant "truth" the Bible cannot be

used to support any argument that is made by believers in Christianity outside of the theological. Could you expand on that line of argument without using the canard of 'well its supposed to be a "Holy Book" thefore...'.

[laconicsax]

37. Sure.

'God exists--it says so in the Bible, which was inspired by God.'

It's a circular argument and therefore invalid as a supporting source. The truth of the claim is never demonstrated, but assumed. Analogous examples follow:

Bilbo Baggins was a real historical figure--it says so in The Hobbit, which is a book inspired by Bilbo Baggins.

Winston Smith was a real person--it says so in 1984, which is a book about Winston Smith.

Both The Hobbit, and 1984 prove that Bilbo Baggins and Winston Smith exist exactly the same way that the Bible proves that God exists.

Imagine that you had never heard of Tolkien or Middle Earth and someone told you that Bilbo Baggins was a real historcal figure. Would you accept The Hobbit as proof?

[Leontius]

45. Your answer failed to address my question, try again if you wish.

But do try to avoid falling into the same trap that I referred to in my post. I would like to see something original to invalidate the use of the Bible as part of an argument not the same old worn out example.

[laconicsax]

47. That "worn out example" is all that's needed--circular argument isn't valid.

Either way, here's a different reason why the Bible isn't a good source:

It's notoriously unreliable. It contains numerous contradictions and factual errors. If you want to include the Bible as evidence, then the Bible needs to be examined to determine if it is a reliable source.

A common answer to this is to say that the contradictions and factual errors aren't meant to be taken literally, but that doesn't hold up as many of these weren't known to be factual errors until millennia after it was written. The creation narrative in Genesis chapter 1 is absolutely incorrect as a history of the universe, and the order of creation is contradicted in the very next chapter.

A text that is so self-contradictory and so completely unreliable when it comes to accurately describing the universe cannot be trusted as a source. Especially when you consider the history of how and when it was compiled.

[Leontius]

51. Failed again but do keep trying you may actually hit on

something original or at least worth considering.

[laconicsax]

52. Maybe you'd like to explain why you think the Bible is a reliable source.

Or why using it for prove the existence of God isn't a circular argument.

[cleanhippie]

85. Failed again? How so?

Two coherent, logical and reasonable arguments were presented and you dismissed them both out of hand for some unknown reason.

You must be looking for a certain argument that you feel you have the ability to knock down, so why dont you do us all a favor and just get to your point.


Or you can offer a coherent, logical and reasonable argument FOR the validity of the bible that is not the same old tired, worn out and debunked apologetic nonsense.

Ready, set, go!

[ZombieHorde]

53. What is wrong with the classics? nt

[humblebum]

87. that is a rather weak argument, but one bandied about as standard atheist

reasoning. So much so that it has come to no longer be questioned. The other books you use in comparison have known authorship and their characters are never claimed to be anything other Than fictitious. The Bible by contrast is really a collection of books and those authors do claim that their stories are true. While we are dealing with subjective interpretation here, that certainly does not disallow the Bible to be used as one piece of evidence, be it circumstantial. This argument is no more or less valid than someone who says, "If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something then it doesn't or cannot exist (empiricism)."

[darkstar3]

94. You're telling the rest of us you can't see outside the circle in that argument?

No surprise. Those walking the ring often fail to realize it is curved back upon itself.

[skepticscott]

96. And you know for certain what the authors of the Bible

claimed about their stories...how? Is every story, every account, every quote in the Bible intended to be taken as true? By what objective means do you accurately distinguish the true and factual from the figurative and the metaphorical..and how do you verify those distinctions?


And this: This argument is no more or less valid than someone who says, "If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something then it doesn't or cannot exist (empiricism)." Nothing short of laughable.

In the first place, show me an empirical scientist who says that in the first place. Or any rational thinker who claims that direct observation by the five senses is the only way to know anything. And even if it were, saying that until we can detect something directly with out senses, acceptance of its existence must be withheld is a far cry from saying that if we can't sense something then it doesn't and cannot possibly exist. No scientist has even seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt a neutrino. How many claim that it can't possibly exist for that reason?

What you've stated is about as idiotic and intellectually dishonest a characterization of empiricism as one could gin up.

[humblebum]

97. "...idiotic and intellectually dishonest a characterization of empiricism..."

My friend, that is the definition of empiricism. Something must be sensed by one or more of the five senses to be considered empirical (instruments or chemical testing, etc. are considered extensions of the senses). Anything beyond that is hypothetical.
About the Bible, nowhere did I claim total objectivity ("By what objective means")of events portrayed in it, but neither can they be automatically discounted simply because they are not fully understood. The Bible can most certainly be used as part of any research toward or attempt in understanding an issue.

[darkstar3]

98. Buzz! Wrong.

instruments or chemical testing, etc. are considered extensions of the senses
In bizarro world perhaps...

[cleanhippie]

100. "The Bible can most certainly be used as part of any research toward or attempt in understanding an"

The Bible can most certainly be used as part of any research toward or attempt in understanding an issue


Oh, please, do elaborate. I have got to know more.

[skepticscott]

104. What you said was

"The Bible by contrast is really a collection of books and those authors do claim that their stories are true." The question (which you ducked...surprise) was how you know what the authors claimed about their stories. Want to try again?

As far as empiricism, your characterization was (with specifics added): If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something (neutrinos) then it doesn't (neutrinos don't) or cannot exist (empiricism)."

You can detect neutrinos by filling a large tank with a chlorinated solvent, and periodically checking it for argon atoms that result from neutrino interaction with chlorine. Where in that process is a neutrino seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt?

And in any case, do you seriously claim that scientific naturalists are incapable of conceptualizing (and contemplating the possible existence of) anything outside the bounds of empiricism, or of taking account of such things in their inquiries?

[humblebum]

106. First question.

"...how you know what the authors claimed about their stories." One generally knows what an author claims about his story by reading the story. Now if you are asking how do I know their stories are true or not, then why did you not simply ask as such? Because there are so many stories in the Bible, I will address the gospels. Compared to the other author's you listed, the authors of the gospels actually claim them to be true, but certainly that alone proves nothing, especially 2000 years down the road. However, when 4 different books show 4 distinct styles and many of the facts are similar - that is an indication that there is probably some element of truth. And when you compare those events from the gospels which are mentioned in the epistles, a fifth author has obviously addressed some of the same events. Whether you agree or not is of no consequence to me. There is no total objectivity here, but there is too much to totally discount much of Scripture.
As far as empiricism goes, you have poor understanding of the term or the process. Empiricism requires observation, and observation requires the use of the senses. There are many things that cannot be detected directly by the senses, but with the use of instruments e.g. microscopes or telescopes, extremely small things or extremely distant things can be observed - empirically, by the eyes. As for your neutrinos, even if they cannot be seen with the naked eye, their existence can still be validated by the specific observation of certain markers - empirically. Hypotheses are proven by observation (either directly or through experimentation or by experience) and observation is only possible by the use of the senses.

Are "scientific naturalists incapable of conceptualizing (and contemplating the possible existence of) anything outside the bounds of empiricism, or of taking account of such things in their inquiries?" Of course not, but conceptualizing something is far different than empirically proving something. Empiricism excludes such processes as intuition. BTW, in my first post on this subject I never once referred to scientists. That was your invention. Empiricism is not exclusive to the domain of hard sciences.

[skepticscott]

109. Another non-answer

There are many stories in the gospels, and nowhere do you quote any of the authors claiming that they are true, or cite any evidence other than the fact that they wrote them down, as proof of what they thought. Unless you are implying that the mere fact that a story is included in a gospel means that the author thought it was true, you'll have to do better than that. Did you never consider the (well accepted) fact that the reason that some stories are repeated in more than one gospel is simply because the authors copied them from each other, or from some other source, not because all of the authors were able to independently verify their factual basis?

Still waiting for an answer to my question of where in the process I described a neutrino is seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt. Seems now that you're backpedaling to characterize empiricism as including anything that can be converted into anything that can be detected in any way whatsoever, not matter how indirectly, by the senses.

But even if you'd been honest and accurate from the beginning in that part of your description of empiricism, that still leaves unanswered (ducked again by you) my other, and more important point, that saying that until we can detect something empirically, acceptance of its objective existence should be withheld (the position of any rational thinker) is very different from your bogus characterization of empiricism meaning that if we can't sense something then we must conclude that it doesn't and cannot possibly exist.

And a lot of scientists would be surprised to learn that empirical inquiry never involves intuition (which is nothing magical or mystical, but is based on acquired knowledge, or the perception of it).

[humblebum]

110. I'm beginning to see that you are just rambling to give people

the impression you know what you are talking about.

John 21:24 "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."

Empiricism - American Heritage® Dictionary
NOUN: 1. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.


INTUITION a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.


I find it rather ironic that you should list science as an interest when you know so little about the Scientific Method itself.

[darkstar3]

111. There's that projection again...n/t

Tell us again how measurement devices are just extensions of the senses...:rofl:

[laconicsax]

112. Something tells me he has a bitter rivalry with a measurement device. n/t

[darkstar3]

113. Well done. n/t

[skepticscott]

115. Still more non-answers

I raised substantive points and you ignored most of them. And the responses you did give were ridiculous. Do you not even grasp that the definition you gave of empiricism directly contradicts what you've been arguing all along? Guess not, and I have no further time to waste on you here.

[RandomThoughts]

5. Why would someone think there is more then One True God?

Unless people create gods out of what ever they think of as above God. If someone thinks something is a god, it is because they worship it as a god. The term gods, does not define something worshiped, but the action of people that worship false gods.

Many comments about gods, are comments about what people put over the One True God in my view. It does not make them gods any more then when people say they are gods. But they can be a god to that person where they meaning is a verb based on the act of worshiping, even if the thing is false.

I personally do not respect false gods, they mostly are symbols of ideologies people think are more important then the One True God.

Although many people think differently on the topic.


There is only 1 One in my view, but there are many other things, but none are One, although many can be part of the One True God, by living in the spirit of goodness and kindness in my view. If someone interprets something else, that is, in my view, there problem.

Although love your enemy still applies in my view when things claim to be gods, but are false.



To the specific question. The spirit of God can be with many people, but I think everyone should decide when that is the case. So there is one true God, but it can also be seen that the One True God is with many people at many times. And from that, in spirit, God is in many places at once.

I also think there are many false Gods, and some have power, but not the spirit of love, mercy, and kindness, and I think people should use there heart to discern when something is of the One True God, and when it is false.

[laconicsax]

10. That has to be the most arrogant thing I've read in a while.

Since you've previously stated an unwillingness to discuss the subject or accept any criticism of it, I'll leave it at the subject line. If you want to know more, go ahead and ask, but be forewarned, your beliefs will be challenged.

[RandomThoughts]

14. I understand people have different views.

And I have no hard feelings towards them.

What you may call arrogance is an unwavering concept of what I consider to be the One True God. I agree my beliefs on that do not change, it is not a comment on other people, but a comment on how I think and believe on that topic.

I understand people believe differently.

Would not your post be a challenge to my beliefs?

Would not such a challenge be expected to be answered by sharing my beliefs, while saying others may think differently?


Did I say what others have to believe, or my own belief on the topic?

If someone believes in many Gods, that is there choice, and I will disrespect what they think to be a God if it is not part of spirit of goodness and kindness, from my best view of things. But also with as much kindness as I can. Why? Because in my experience and observations they are not gods, and should not be treated that way by me if not of love and kindness. If someone else thinks differently that is there choice.

I do not disrespect people that think such things, but only things that would claim to be God, but have not shown that they are. In my experience only One True God has shown itself to be True, Kind and Loving.

Note that I think the One True God shows himself to people in many ways, so I also do not worry about how people see God, since that would be a claim to know more then I can claim to know. However those that worship things that, in my view create many problems, I do not agree with.


Do I have problems with Buddhist? How could I? I don't know everything and it is possible they see God differently because he showed himself to them in a different way.

Many Muslims believe in peace love and kindness, maybe God showed himself to them in a different way, although some I disagree with when in things like violence or despair.

Many Christians see God as loving and kind also, some don't just like other religions. And in my view God's message of love was brought through his son Jesus Christ. Although you will think me to be like your view of Christians, not who I am when I say that. I am a Christian based on my view of what a Christian is. That is also true for people in every religion. There are many types of Buddhist, Muslims, etc.. that call themselves by the label for the different religions.

Jewish people, many of them teach and live in ideas of sharing and love also, some not so much.

Even some of the Norse traditions, the older pagen ones could be God showing himself in different ways, as could be Greek and Roman. I am not saying that, I am only saying it is not for me to judge that.

It would be arrogant if I claimed them wrong, I can't make that claim because it is not for me to judge, but I can share what I believe, and I can also choose to respect and disrespect based on my best thoughts and feelings on topics. I do not disrespect people that follow different thoughts, although things that would get them to follow them that are not of the better ideas would not deserve respect, and even occasionally I disrespect such claims.


How is it arrogant to believe that the One true God of love kindness and mercy to be the only One true God?



And saying I will be challenged, is a form that I really don't worry about, first I think the concepts of challenging to be more the fighting type stuff. Second, who is to say I have not already had years of challenge that I try to respond with best feelings, although I don't always achieve that.


A funny disrespecting of false little boy mars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ubDq-gxlso

And if I have 'challenges' I like what Picard said. "I will think of you as a little boy."
I try not to follow things that lie.

[Angry Dragon]

116. And what is the One True God??

I think you need to clarify that a little better

[TreasonousBastard]

7. He can stick his challenge back up his atheistic ass...

Such "challenges" are puerile nonsense and serve no purpose.

I say I believe in God. You say you don't. So what?

Is this a contest? Is there a prize for who wins the debate?

How does one win this anyway? Are there judges, or does one side have to bow and scrape and admit the shallow errors of its thought and belief?

I've adopted a cosmology that includes a deity and works for me. It doesn't in the least affect my understanding of astrophysics or stop me from marveling at the pictures from Hubble. And I am under absolutely no obligation to anyone to "prove" my beliefs.

Now, if someone wants to inquire politely about what I believe and my thought processes getting there, I am perfectly happy to oblige as long as it remains a discussion and does not become a debate or "challenge."

[laconicsax]

8. I'll make sure to PM you with links to each and every instance I find...

...where someone makes a truth claim out of their "private" belief.

I BTW: when you publicly state your beliefs, they are no longer private. Religious beliefs deserve no more deference than political beliefs. Political beliefs are openly attacked all the time with far more vitriol and yet we tolerate that.

[RandomThoughts]

17. By definition faith is not making a true or false claim.

It is making a belief claim.


You could be interpreting some of that, for someone to say it is their truth, does not mean they are saying they know all the mysteries.

When asked, I share my beliefs, no reason not to. Although I agree with you people should not claim to have complete knowledge of all things, hence why it is faith.



when you publicly state your beliefs, they are no longer private

If you ask someone there beliefs, or comments on beliefs, why wouldn't someone share what they believe? And why would beliefs have to be private. Although I do understand the concepts of "beware the scribes that say long prayers. And want the best seats in the temple" However that is when people say such things for justification with man, not for reason of thoughts on the spiritual. The point is not to be private, but to not use some thoughts on how someone believes for gaining approval with people. That verse is warning against some Machiavellian uses of religion. Although prayers in the secret place make much sense also, but discussing a persons beliefs and prayers are different things.

Either ask someone or don't, but don't ask and then say it is wrong when someone shares there beliefs, that is pretty silly.


I try to share beliefs when the topic comes up, and sometimes at other points.

When you use the word Truth, something can be a truth to one person, and not another, and each can ponder what is the real truth. That is a one existence model. It is easier to see people as living in their own worlds of what they believe to be truths, since that is closer to the truth of society.

[laconicsax]

20. A couple things.

First you may have missed the basis for this challenge, and the whole reason why atheists often speak out against the religious beliefs of others. That reason is the fact that certain types of religious individuals have a compulsion to evangelize and to do their best to get their beliefs accepted as empirical truth, taught as fact, and a significant influence onpublic policy. If that weren't a persistent problem, there wouldn't be the same response from non believers. The sharing of belief here isn't invited, but is uninvited. It is done deliberately and as a truth claim.

(People who don't believe that Abraham Lincoln was a time-traveling alien from the future don't write books and speak out agains those who do because there isn't an organized group pushing that belief on schools and trying to incorporate into governmental policy.)

The other thing is that epistemological relativism may be true for you, but it isnt true for everyone.

[darkstar3]

9. Shall we genuflect and call you "master" as well?

I'll "inquire politely" when your roughshod horse is put out to pasture...

[RandomThoughts]

15. I try not to worry about it either.

If God wanted everyone to know exactly what was what, they would.

So by it requiring faith, in my belief, he wants people to think and feel what is right and wrong.

I think that is part of the gift of existing and free will.


It seems the comment on challenge was to advocate against a belief. Interestingly if someone was to challenge a belief, then they are making a claim to what someone should belief based on their belief.

[laconicsax]

16. The challenge is to prove the foundation of an argument.

An argument frequently made to "prove" the existence of God is along the lines of, "Look at how complex the universe is--it could have only been created by God."

The challenge is to prove that was created by a singular deity. If the universe is proof of divine origins, then it must be shown why that divine origin must be a single god, rather than multiple ones.

If that can't be demonstrated, then it can no more be said that a divine origin of the universe is the result of one god acting alone than it was the act of seven gods acting in concert.

If it's no more likely to be one rather than many, then it can't be definitively asserted that it was the Abrahamc god, completely refuting the original argument.

[RandomThoughts]

18. Oh you want proof of what the supernatural is.

One of my goals was to prove that the supernatural exist, however I do not think it would be best to go as far as to prove the exact form for many reasons. Although having that goal is not the same as claiming to be capable of doing that.

First off if the exact form is known, then people can not do for selfless reason, since many could do things for self gain by pleasing God. So it has to be faith to have any value anyways. If you knew for sure, and could not doubt, there would be no way for you to choose to do what you think is best.

So proving the exact form of the supernatural was never really one of my goals, I think faith is enough for that, at least for me, and actually think for many reasons faith is better then knowing for sure.

Although knowing there is a supernatural in some form could get people to think on the topics a bit more, yet they would still be making choices of what they believe the supernatural to be.


Funny thing, it is possible to look at the supernatural from many different ways, but each is incomplete, and seems to have some mistakes.

I think that is because of metaphors. They make something easier to understand, but miss some parts.

I like the metaphor for a metaphor.

When you take a 2d picture of a 3d object, you miss some parts, and can miss some of the depth. But with many pictures from different angles you can get a better idea, but any one picture is not completely correct.



Edit: I think I understand your post better, you wanted something like a mathematical proof for your question, and I shared my beliefs. You wanted me to prove my beliefs, not share what I believe.

[laconicsax]

19. That's not at all what I said, nor is it what I meant.

I'll try again.

There is an argument given for the existence of the Abrahamic god.
That argument is based on a single claim.
That claim is that the complexity of the universe, the 'tuning' of the fundamental forces, etc. prove a divine origin of the universe and the creator deity is the Abrahamic god.

The challenge is to prove an underlying assumption necessary for the argument to work. That assumption is that the universe was created by one god and one god only.

If it cannot be proven that the universe was created by one god acting alone, then it certainly couldn't be the act of one specific god, namely the Abrahamic one.

The proof would have to demonstrate why it is necessary for a divine origin of the universe to have been the work of one god acting alone. The challenge is not the result of people holding this belief, but the result of people making an empirical claim and using it as an argument to support their theological positions. If no one made the claim or trotted it out to "prove" the existence of God, there would be no challenge.

[RandomThoughts]

21. Ok you might be missing my point.

People do not prove their beliefs, they have faith.

Although proof that the supernatural exist in some form is not difficult.

You may be missing the point, such a proof would do more harm then good. Faith is not some thing that is required because proof is not possible, proof is not given so that faith is required.


Your whole concept is meaningless. You are asking for proof of something outside of your observational awareness.

Prove to me some place you have never been exist? You will rely on what people have said, and the idea that it exist from forms of evidence you consider credible, not because you really can prove it.


Something proved is really saying that a consensus of opinions you find credible by repeatability shows that it is correct.

You can't even prove 2 + 2 equals 4 without axioms or observations.


Your whole argument is relying on the importance of proof when all proof is subjective.


Really you are saying, prove it to you in a way that you feel comfortable believing. I am pretty sure I have had this conversation before also. 3-4 years ago. (conversation on topic of proof)

[laconicsax]

30. No, I got your point. It just happens to be completely off the mark from what I'm saying.

The challenge isn't to prove someone's beliefs. The challenge is to validate an argument.

Everything you said has no relevance to the challenge. If the challenge were about proving beliefs, it would be completely relevant, but since the challenge is about validating an argument, your post is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

[RandomThoughts]

22. Can you agree that proof is subjective.

Based on assumed rules of existence from observation?

[laconicsax]

31. Only for some things.

Things that are directly observable/testable can be objectively shown to exist/be true/be real.

We put astronauts on the moon because of objective truths. The moon objectively exists, as do the laws of physics. Because of this, we could be confident in our ability to put an astronaut on the moon without having done it before.

[ironbark]

25. The persuasion of probability is not and cannot be proof.

And yet people can be and are reasonably persuaded by assessments of probability.

“There is an argument given.
That argument is based on a single claim.
That claim is that the complexity of the universe, the 'tuning' of the fundamental forces, etc. prove a divine origin of the universe and the creator deity is the Abrahamic god. ”

No.
The argument for “for the existence of the Abrahamic god” is not based on a “single claim” relating to the creation of the universe.

The arguments for and beliefs in the existence of the Abrahamic god are extremely numerous/diverse.

The linked video debars any circular referencing of particular scripture….and yet comparative religious examination of all scriptures is one of the legitimate means by which the Abrahamic god can be examined and potentially deemed to be probable or improbable.


“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47

“Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were joined together,
then I clove them asunder and I made every living thing out of water. Will they still not believe?” Qur’an, 21:30


;-)

[laconicsax]

29. I never said it was the argument...I said it was an argument.

A single argument among many.

That you believe circular reasoning to be a legitimate means of examination speaks volumes about your integrity.

Holy scriptures reveal the existence of the deity they promote exactly as well as The Hobbit reveals the existence of Bilbo Baggins. Clearly, Bilbo exists because it says so in the book inspired by his adventures. Much of it may be a metaphor, but the one immutable truth revealed by The Hobbit is the existence and character of Bilbo Baggins.

[ironbark]

43. “The” or “an”, the parameters are too limited to be any kind of “argument”.

I don’t know or know of any theist who has or would argue “the existence of the Abrahamic god” on the “single claim” you present….it is a non argument/non starter.


“That you believe circular reasoning to be a legitimate means of examination speaks volumes about your integrity.”

That you believe and present what I said to be belief in “circular reasoning” speaks volumes about your capacity to read and comprehend. (Assessment of “integrity” comes into play after repetition of such misrepresentation).
I said-
The linked video debars any circular referencing of particular scripture….and yet comparative religious examination of all scriptures is one of the legitimate means by which the Abrahamic god can be examined and potentially deemed to be probable or improbable.

That is, “proof” is not available from any “single claim” or from “numerous/diverse” arguments…but “comparative religious examination of all scriptures is one of the legitimate means by which the Abrahamic god can be examined and potentially deemed to be probable or improbable.”

If examination/referencing of the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions is debarred as “circular reasoning” then you >don’t have even a description/outline< of an Abrahamic god to discuss.

“Holy scriptures reveal the existence of the deity they promote exactly as well as The Hobbit reveals the existence of Bilbo Baggins”

The “existence” of >either< cannot be determined or even a description ascertained if examination of the very referencing material/source is debarred.

Human beings get the option of examining the source material and determining the probability (or belief) of either god or Bilbo Baggins existing.
Thus far billions of human beings have come to believe in the existence of an Abrahamic god and a handful of drug induced schizophrenics have come to believe in the existence of one Bilbo Baggins.

Mug punter humanity isn’t mad, nor does it get or require >proof< before laying a probability bet based on assessment of a whole range of factors- the track, the conditions, prior form….and the form guides.

“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47

“Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were joined together,
then I clove them asunder and I made every living thing out of water. Will they still not believe?” Qur’an, 21:30

How "Much of it may be a metaphor" can only be assessed by examining how much referances the real world, how much of the referances regard "Turtles, all the way down", and how much is compatible with science and looking at the percentage mix.

http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

[laconicsax]

49. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, arugumentum ad populum, circular argument.

*yawn* Come back when you have something substantive to say.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

58. Ad hominem. n/t

[cleanhippie]

101. "If God wanted everyone to know exactly what was what, they would."

How do you know that?

[laconicsax]

114. That actually follows logically from omnipotence.

Assuming an omnipotent deity wanted everyone to know something specific, the only explanation for that knowledge not being universal is said deity not wanting that specific something known.

That or the premise of an omnipotent deity is flawed.

[rug]

23. The second god would not be god.

[rrneck]

26. For you or for everybody? nt

[rug]

27. If there is a god it is for everybody.

[rrneck]

28. If your god is for everybody,

would it supersede any other collection of gods that other people have?

[rug]

32. It's not "my" god and if there is one there are no others to supersede.

[rrneck]

34. Whose god if not yours? nt

[rug]

35. Ours.

[rrneck]

36. Then whatever gods

we choose to add would also be legitimate. No?

[rug]

39. No, whether god does or does not exist does not depend on belief or disbelief.

Adding does nothing since god ny definition cannot be created.

[rrneck]

40. Then how'd you get the first one

if not through belief?

[rug]

41. Belief no more makes a god than disbelief destroys it.

Religion is based on revelation and belief is based on acceptance of that.

What is disbelief based on?

[rrneck]

42. Revelation of what exactly?

Can you define it?

[rug]

44. I can't but he does

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1947&C=1797

from a Christian perspective.

[rrneck]

46. Can you not describe your own god?

I mean, it's not like one's deity isn't at least a little more important than the wallpaper in the bathroom.

Why should I or anybody else accept your understanding of god if you can't even describe it since you have already asserted that there is only one and you seem to be the only one that knows what it is?

Can you not describe what has been revealed to you?

[rug]

57. For one thing, you don't have to accept it.

For another thing, it's not my god or my invention, strive as you will to make it so.

For a third thing, nothing has been revealed to me but I have listened to what has been propounded for centuries.

For a final thing, what has been called the attributes of God are quite well known. In the slim hope that this is a sincere question, google cataphatic theology compared to apophatic theology.

[rrneck]

59. According to you I have to accept it.

rug Sun Aug-08-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. It's not "my" god and if there is one there are no others to supersede.

According to you there is only one god possible. That lets out polytheism altogether.

"For another thing, it's not my god or my invention, strive as you will to make it so."

And yet...

rug Sun Aug-08-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. No, whether god does or does not exist does not depend on belief or disbelief. Adding does nothing since god (b)y definition cannot be created.

So, somewhere within you is a definition of god. I think you probably believe in a god that exists apart from all else. You are happy to refer me to any number of outside sources that little more than refer to the way language is used regarding god, but you are unwilling to simply describe, in your own words, what you understand god to be. Why? Why can you not simply describe your experience of the divine? Especially since you are so well versed in the language of that description?

[rug]

60. You don't have to accept global warming either.

Perhaps after you read some of those references we can have a conversation.

[rrneck]

63. Is god as real as global warming?

Are you asserting a god as a physical phenomenon?

Perhaps when you stop throwing chaff and trying to frame the issue around something between semantics and hubris you will be able to have a candid discussion.

[rug]

64. Yes. No.

Ignored.

[rrneck]

66. *sigh* It happens all the time.

When I ask people to simply describe their god I get referred to a flurry of stuff written by other people as if the person I asked is ashamed to come clean about what he or she thinks god is or doesn't really know because they never really thought about it. The material that gets thrown at me is invariably a pile of word salad that further obfuscates what the author thinks god is.

1. One god.

2. Obvious emotional investment in that one god.

3. Other gods not possible.

4. Ignored.

I guess it beats being roasted alive.

[ironbark]

48. Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

"We are now living at such an exciting time for religions. World history is bringing the various traditions together into such mutual proximity that they can no longer ignore one another. Simply thickening their protective membranes and emphasizing doctrinal constraints, or the normative superiority of one deposit of faith over the others, now leads only to an obstruction of informational flow. In the final analysis, sheer defensiveness becomes an impediment to the communication of revelation.(As we shall see later, the openness of authentic Christian faith to the future, to novelty, and surprise invites it therefore to undergo considerable transformation in its encounter with other traditions. Christianity, following Jesus and Jesus’ God, should be expected to be somewhat vulnerable and "defenseless" in any relational encounter with other faiths. If it defends anything vigorously it should be its own defenselessness and inclusiveness. Informationally speaking, this would entail a willingness to allow its boundaries to shift in response to new information in its encounters. In this way it preserves its identity instead of losing it. Like persons, a religion must "die" in order to live.)"

............................

[rug]

56. Glad you found it interesting.

There are many texts at that site.

[cleanhippie]

102. "What is disbelief based on?" - Are you serious?

AT risk of being insulting, that has got to be one of the most disingenuous statements I have seen.

[rrneck]

103. Witnessing cognitive dissonance

is like seeing a dog with his tail caught in a screen door. Sad. And you want to help. But you might get bitten when you turn him loose.

[rug]

105. Deadly serious.

Often the criterion is this: this belief does not meet the test of (science) (reason) (other).

Therefore the disbelief is based on a reliance on something else.

At the risk of being insulting, what is your disbelief based on?

[cleanhippie]

107. Lack of evidence.

pretty simple, huh? no proof, no belief.

[rug]

108. What do you use to weigh the evidence?

Nothing is simple.

[laconicsax]

50. So monotheism is the only possibility?

Why?

[rug]

61. There really is no true polytheism. Even Hinduism has Svayam Bhagavan.

[laconicsax]

65. So the limits of polytheism must be defined by what has already been imagined?

You're ruling out an infinite number of possibilities.

Why can't there be two co-equal creator deities? Three? What about five gods in two tiers of rank?

[rug]

67. Convince me.

[rrneck]

68. Why would anybody want to do that

when you refuse to try to convince anyone of your own understanding of the divine?

[laconicsax]

69. Of what? I asked you a question.

[ZombieHorde]

54. Why not? nt

[rug]

62. A god that is second is, ipso facto, limited.

[ZombieHorde]

70. Why would the second god be limited, why couldn't they be equal?

Why can't a god be limited?

[rug]

74. If something is limited it cannot be god.

The essence of God is that it is limitless.

Surely this cannot be news to you.

[ZombieHorde]

78. The Greek and Roman gods were limited and the Old Testament portrays god as limited.

The idea of a limitless god seems like a modern concept.

[rug]

79. The classical gods were more conceits than divinities.

The historical books notwithstanding, Judaism has consistently held the limitlessness of YHWH.

[ZombieHorde]

83. The Greek gods were worshiped, especially Demeter and Dionysus.

The gods were as real to the greeks as god is real to Christians. eta: Seems like you are using the No True Scotsman Fallacy here.

Many Jews may believe their god is limitless, but the god described in the OT is clearly limited. The god in the OT is not omniscient.

[rug]

89. The OT is as much a description of human nature as it is of God's.

BTW, do you ever get tired of invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy? Even puppies tire of their bones.

[ZombieHorde]

91. Creating gods is an aspect of human behavior (nature).

BTW, do you ever get tired of invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy? Even puppies tire of their bones.

Actually no, other posters usually beat me to the invocation, so getting to be the first one one to point out the fallacy is a rare treat. ;-)

[laconicsax]

84. Too bad the Bible doesn't agree.

Judges 1:19--the "limitless" god couldn't stand up to iron chariots.

[rug]

90. Yes that's exactly what that one line means.

[laconicsax]

92. It's exactly what that one line says.

Judges 1:19

And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

But maybe the context of the entire chapter will reveal a different meaning...

Judges

Chapter 1

¹Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them? ²And the Lord said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand. ³And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him. ⁴And Judah went up; and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men. ⁵And they found Adonibezek in Bezek: and they fought against him, and they slew the Canaanites and the Perizzites. ⁶But Adonibezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. ⁷And Adonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.

⁸Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire. ⁹And afterward the children of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites, that dwelt in the mountain, and in the south, and in the valley. ¹⁰And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron: (now the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba:) and they slew Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai. ¹¹And from thence he went against the inhabitants of Debir: and the name of Debir before was Kirjathsepher: ¹²And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjathsepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. ¹³And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. ¹⁴And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou? ¹⁵And she said unto him, Give me a blessing: for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the nether springs. ¹⁶And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people.

¹⁷And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And the name of the city was called Hormah. ¹⁸Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof. ¹⁹And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. ²⁰And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak. ²¹And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. ²²And the house of Joseph, they also went up against Bethel: and the Lord was with them. ²³And the house of Joseph sent to descry Bethel. (Now the name of the city before was Luz.) ²⁴And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Shew us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and we will shew thee mercy. ²⁵And when he shewed them the entrance into the city, they smote the city with the edge of the sword; but they let go the man and all his family. ²⁶And the man went into the land of the Hittites, and built a city, and called the name thereof Luz: which is the name thereof unto this day. ²⁷Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.

²⁸And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out. ²⁹Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. ³⁰Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. ³¹Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: ³²But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. ³³Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Bethshemesh, nor the inhabitants of Bethanath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Bethshemesh and of Bethanath became tributaries unto them. ³⁴And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley: ³⁵But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries. ³⁶And the coast of the Amorites was from the going up to Akrabbim, from the rock, and upward.

So tell me rug, what's it really mean?

[rug]

93. He was waiting for Sisera

obviously.

[laconicsax]

95. I accept your apology. n/t

[frogmarch]

33. I watched the long version too. Excellent!

A one-act play by froggie:

Person 1: "What a great patch of vegetables growing there!"

Person 2: "The wonderful variety and the exceptionally fine quality of each vegetable means that someone planted them. They couldn't be wild."

Person 1: "My invisible gardener, Joe, planted them."

Person 2: "No, my invisible gardener, Steve, did."

Person 3: "Maybe Joe and Steve planted the vegetables together. Who knows, maybe other invisible gardeners pitched in and helped them. Or maybe the vegetables are wild."

Persons 1 & 2: "Heathen!"

The End

Thank you (bows) thank you.

[laconicsax]

38. Nice. n/t

[WolverineDG]

71. Why? Scientists can't agree on how the universe was formed

and besides which, you would automatically reject any proof any theist provided.

dg

[rrneck]

72. Try it and see. Maybe you both will learn somenting. nt

[WolverineDG]

73. Again, why? Nothing I say will be accepted anyway nt

[rrneck]

75. Does acceptance matter?

Nobody can take away your inner life. Nobody.

It is true that when you test your understanding of your inner life against everything around you it may have to change. Is that bad?

Edited for clarity.

[WolverineDG]

76. Yes, it does

Because what I've seen here on DU, & in this forum repeatedly, is the constant bashing of anyone's statements about why they believe in God. Such statements are rejected out of hand, belittled, mocked, you name it. For example, someone in an earlier post asked how "moderate" Christians rationalized Genesis with Evolution & I was one of the ones who foolishly responded (thinking someone actually wanted to know this as opposed to getting fresh ammunition for bashing). Turns out it was only someone looking for fresh ammo.

So no, I'm not going to post my "proof." I already know what's going to happen.

dg

[rrneck]

77. Suit yourself. No hard feelings.

If you have time, maybe you could post a link to the earlier thread to which you referred?

[laconicsax]

80. No one's asking you to prove your beliefs.

The challenge is that if the universe was necessarily designed/created, then prove/demonstrate why it had to have been designed/created by a single god acting alone.

You don't even have to believe that a god exists, let alone created the universe. The challenge is simply to show why a designed/created universe could only have been designed/created by one god and one god only.

[WolverineDG]

81. Oh please stop being disingenuous

you're just wanting more ammo to bash believers with.

If those who worship at the Altar of Science can't do it, why should I or any other believer? Especially since anything we say will be immediately rejected & mocked.

dg

[laconicsax]

82. You couldn't be further from the truth.

If I wanted more "ammo to bash believers with" I'd crack open the Bible, or just go with what you've already given me.

On this topic, there are two groups--those who claim that the universe began by supernatural means, and those who don't. Which group should have to prove that the universe began by supernatural means? (I'll give you a hint: it has to do with burden of proof. Stumped? Ok, here's another hint: it's the side claiming supernatural creation.)

That's what this challenge is all about--saying "Ok, let's say you're right and the universe was intentionally created. Can you prove that it was done so by a single god?" It's one thing if you can't...it's another entirely if you refuse to even try for fear that you might be mocked. After all, what would there to mock if you adequately answer the question? Is this fear the result of wanting to hide that you have no answer?

I would think that if you have the omnipotent creator of the universe on your side, it should be easy to come up with an answer, or at least not be terrified of an atheist mocking you on the Internet. But that's just it--you don't have an answer, and don't want anyone to know. I would hazard a guess that even if one god was accepted as given, you wouldn't be able to show why it should be any particular god over another because you don't have any real answers, but just want people to respect your intentional ignorance and allow it to be taught in schools under the banner, "teach the controversy." That's a bit arrogant, don't you think--that someone would make a claim and insist that others accept it, but refuse to give any reason why and hide behind "faith" when asked to substantiate the claim itself?

There is no "Altar of Science," and that you use the term as a kind of epithet really says more about you than those you want so desperately to villify. It's funny, really, that people who view faith and religion as a good thing are often the same ones to try to insult something by calling it a religion or built on faith.

See, you gave me more than enough in just that one comment. If you wanted to avoid this kind of response, you should have just tried to respond to the challenge (or at least not posted a whiny passive-aggressive comment about why you wouldn't). I tend to have a lot more respect for those who try, than those who throw rocks while running away.

[ironbark]

88. The evidence supports your pov. nt