Total Posts:100|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Most convincing argument for God's existence

TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 4:31:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 4:16:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What do you think is the most convincing argument for God's existence, and why?

The Pantheist GOD is existence itself, and clearly existence exists and retains the highest level of proof we can possibly ever have of any supposed GOD's existence. So the question remains, are you all going to now suddenly convert to Pantheism because their GOD exists?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 5:33:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The immediate witness of the Holy Spirit once one desires to know God personally. A witness that's veridical for the person who truly has it, it's therefore a properly basic belief known wholly apart from external arguments and evidence.

But the second warrant does come through argument and evidence, so that the Christian (at least) can be said to enjoy a dual warrant for her belief.... however, recall that desire of knowledge by acquaintance trumps knowledge by description regarding Christianity.

Nevertheless, your question I take to mean "what is the most compelling argument for theism?" But this is a loaded question, for suppose there exists a cumulative case for theism leading to Christianity in particular?

Anyhow, for theism in general the new Kalam Cosmological argument from Koons has impressed me, he uses Grim Reaper paradox's as support. Against materialism / naturalism, I suggest reviewing Morland's argument from Consciousness. Then Repert's new Argument from Reason has impressed me as well.

Ultimately however I'm inclined to side with Pascal in that I think God wouldn't actively give reasons for knowledge by description of himself.. that wouldn't be relevant for his purpose for man, which is of course happiness sought on our own terms.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 5:38:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If one is willing to give a fair reading to the argument from miracles, then i think that's actually the most compelling of it's class (induction: inference to the best explanation).

Meaning, if one is open to theism, and if one is willing not to be bias about historical anti-realism, or treat the apostolic letters not as divine scripture, but as historical documents, then I think what we learn from it is that the best explanation of the established facts from history is simply the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his claims.

(Such is the nature of a cumulative case. I've noticed that as historical research has progressed, the argument from miracles has only become more supported, which is exactly what one would expect if Christianity were true.)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 5:42:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 4:31:23 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/22/2012 4:16:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What do you think is the most convincing argument for God's existence, and why?

The Pantheist GOD is existence itself, and clearly existence exists and retains the highest level of proof we can possibly ever have of any supposed GOD's existence. So the question remains, are you all going to now suddenly convert to Pantheism because their GOD exists?

Pantheism is easy to refute.

"Pantheism is sexed-up Atheism"
-- Richard Dawkins

Pantheism uses superfluous language to describe something that already exists.

Ironically my beliefs could be considered Pantheism.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 5:43:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You asked why I think that these arguments are compelling, but that would lead me into supporting each premise and that's a huge debate. That's why I refer you to the work if you're interested. There's responses to them and responses to those responses... and presuppositions argued, responses to those presuppositions and responses to those presuppositional responses... It gets exhausting if you're not a philosopher of religion (of whom have been experiencing a veritable renaissance in academia by the way, ever since the collapse of verificationism in the 50's).

That's why I said ultimately I don't think God would lend us to our own ingenuity to figure out a knowledge by description of him. He's made a way for a knowledge by acquaintance from which description is inherent. Thus is the nature of an immediate witness of the Holy Spirit if one would ask Christ into their lives and be saved.

The literature is out there and there are really good reasons for thinking it's true, whether you're convinced or not- so the question remains, does the desire for knowledge by acquaintance trump knowledge by description on our own ingenuity?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:02:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know but I've always found arguments from consciousness convincing.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:36:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 5:33:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
The immediate witness of the Holy Spirit once one desires to know God personally. A witness that's veridical for the person who truly has it, it's therefore a properly basic belief known wholly apart from external arguments and evidence.

You cannot demonstrate there is a holy spirit to be experienced, all you can do is claim that there are other people who believe the same thing, which means nothing. This is just a baseless assertion, basically. So, this argument is not very compelling at all. There are countless people who have cried out for God with no response, so, this "holy spirit that can be immediately witnessed" is nothing more than an insult to them, let alone a good argument.

But the second warrant does come through argument and evidence, so that the Christian (at least) can be said to enjoy a dual warrant for her belief.... however, recall that desire of knowledge by acquaintance trumps knowledge by description regarding Christianity.


Nevertheless, your question I take to mean "what is the most compelling argument for theism?" But this is a loaded question, for suppose there exists a cumulative case for theism leading to Christianity in particular?

Muslims and Jews can use most of the same cumulative case, except for of course, the last step or two which specifically supports that particular religion. So, the whole cumulative case argument for a certain religion is fallacious.


Anyhow, for theism in general the new Kalam Cosmological argument from Koons has impressed me, he uses Grim Reaper paradox's as support. Against materialism / naturalism, I suggest reviewing Morland's argument from Consciousness. Then Repert's new Argument from Reason has impressed me as well.

These are extremely obscure arguments. I will have to look these up.


Ultimately however I'm inclined to side with Pascal in that I think God wouldn't actively give reasons for knowledge by description of himself.. that wouldn't be relevant for his purpose for man, which is of course happiness sought on our own terms.

Good escape rout.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:37:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 4:19:59 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Don't do it, guys! He just wants to argue!



This is a debate website... If you don't want to argue, then what the hell are you doing here kiddo?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 8:37:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/22/2012 4:19:59 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Don't do it, guys! He just wants to argue!



This is a debate website... If you don't want to argue, then what the hell are you doing here kiddo?

Post videos and crack jokes. I think I've made that pretty clear...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:41:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 5:33:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
The immediate witness of the Holy Spirit once one desires to know God personally. A witness that's veridical for the person who truly has it, it's therefore a properly basic belief known wholly apart from external arguments and evidence.

But the second warrant does come through argument and evidence, so that the Christian (at least) can be said to enjoy a dual warrant for her belief.... however, recall that desire of knowledge by acquaintance trumps knowledge by description regarding Christianity.

Nevertheless, your question I take to mean "what is the most compelling argument for theism?" But this is a loaded question, for suppose there exists a cumulative case for theism leading to Christianity in particular?

Anyhow, for theism in general the new Kalam Cosmological argument from Koons has impressed me, he uses Grim Reaper paradox's as support. Against materialism / naturalism, I suggest reviewing Morland's argument from Consciousness. Then Repert's new Argument from Reason has impressed me as well.

Ultimately however I'm inclined to side with Pascal in that I think God wouldn't actively give reasons for knowledge by description of himself.. that wouldn't be relevant for his purpose for man, which is of course happiness sought on our own terms.

The immaterial argument for consciousness can be made without materialism or physical processes. Sorry that argument is an utter fail ... And on "spirit" ect.. Again, that would have to be bound to the rules of existence itself, and governed by it. So again the Pantheist GOD concept is over ruling here.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:43:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The immaterial argument for consciousness *can't be made without materialism or physical processes.

Serious issues with keyboard lag here.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:50:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 5:38:17 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
If one is willing to give a fair reading to the argument from miracles, then i think that's actually the most compelling of it's class (induction: inference to the best explanation).

Define miracle? Do you mean, an extremely rare event?


Meaning, if one is open to theism, and if one is willing not to be bias about historical anti-realism, or treat the apostolic letters not as divine scripture, but as historical documents, then I think what we learn from it is that the best explanation of the established facts from history is simply the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his claims.

It makes me sick that people take supernatural aspects of the Bible seriously. A book filled with so much far-fetched mythology that it is staggering anybody in the 21st century believes it. What a sad state for humanity. We might as well still believe in the Easter bunny if we believe that a supernatural being can raise people from the dead.


(Such is the nature of a cumulative case. I've noticed that as historical research has progressed, the argument from miracles has only become more supported, which is exactly what one would expect if Christianity were true.)
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:50:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This might be a bit off topic..

But how is it that the number of theists in the world isn't evidence for God, but the number of scientists that support evolution versus those that don't is?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:55:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 8:50:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
This might be a bit off topic..

But how is it that the number of theists in the world isn't evidence for God, but the number of scientists that support evolution versus those that don't is?

The random laymen having a consensus on faith (or logical arguments based on unfounded premises), is totally different that trained professional's having a consensus based on physical evidence and testing. You certainly know how to compare apples an oranges. Regardless, evolution has more support for it than The Big Bang. Any theist who denies evolution but accepts the Big Bang, nothing less short of biased. Evolution and The Big Bang happened, deal with it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 8:57:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 8:50:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
This might be a bit off topic..

But how is it that the number of theists in the world isn't evidence for God, but the number of scientists that support evolution versus those that don't is?

Most of the people would rather watch Numa Numa than science videos. So, using public consensus as evidence of anything, is laughable.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2012 11:34:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 8:50:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
This might be a bit off topic..

But how is it that the number of theists in the world isn't evidence for God, but the number of scientists that support evolution versus those that don't is?

The Fool: Because Holy Spirit has no Description, so no body can even know if they are talking about the same things. Its lacks any possible criteria.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 12:01:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 8:50:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
This might be a bit off topic..

But how is it that the number of theists in the world isn't evidence for God, but the number of scientists that support evolution versus those that don't is?

The Fool: Because the 'word' God doesn't describe anything in particular. There is not way for anybody to even tell if they are talking about the same thing.

Where science describes a specific process, evidence has to be something which can be demarcated. The "word" God can meaning anything to so many people so it doesn't describe anything in particular. AKA it has no communcatible meaning. We use language to communicate. A 'word' is as useful as it demarcates the something.
For example if I say "posfswerf" it is a useless 'word' if I have not set a critiera of what exactly I am referring too.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 4:51:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 11:34:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/22/2012 8:50:51 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
This might be a bit off topic..

But how is it that the number of theists in the world isn't evidence for God, but the number of scientists that support evolution versus those that don't is?

The Fool: Because Holy Spirit has no Description, so no body can even know if they are talking about the same things. Its lacks any possible criteria.

Well, if they read their bible they would have a description of the holy spirit:

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com...

See proverbs 1 and Acts 2
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:47:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 8:36:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/22/2012 5:33:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
The immediate witness of the Holy Spirit once one desires to know God personally. A witness that's veridical for the person who truly has it, it's therefore a properly basic belief known wholly apart from external arguments and evidence.

You cannot demonstrate there is a holy spirit to be experienced, all you can do is claim that there are other people who believe the same thing, which means nothing. This is just a baseless assertion, basically. So, this argument is not very compelling at all. There are countless people who have cried out for God with no response, so, this "holy spirit that can be immediately witnessed" is nothing more than an insult to them, let alone a good argument.

He's right you just wanted to argue. Listen I don't need to demonstrate my knowledge of God to know that I know it. Further, it doesn't follow that just because one person might falsly claim the experience of God, and that I actually experience God, that therefore both our claims are meaningless. Rather the reasonable approach is to establish common ground, and use our reason to decide which is the more probablly true claim. We do this with the project of natural theology, the argument from miracles (Which proves Christianity, for if God raised Christ from the dead, then his claims would be vindicated: God revealed through Christ), etc. You are simply asserting without argument that folks who actually have cried out to God, that they aren't witnessed to- indeed how would YOU personally know of this? An immediate witness is such that it's immediate internally, not externally. You mention there aren't any good arguments supporting this, but see the argument from religious experience by Kwan.

Again, just because other religions falsly claim that God is revealed through other people, doesn't mean that the whole cumulative case argument for a certain religion is fallacious. For suppose that by raising Christ from the dead, God chooses to vindicate everything he taught! ... Sure it's been said that Muhammad was raised, but is the evidence as compelling? It wouldn't seem so.

I doubt that my suggestions of arguments to you will be of any help with the state of mind that writes, "These are extremely obscure arguments. I will have to look these up." You're poisoning the well.

Then you assert that an existential preferece for theism is somehow an escape route? I'm not sure if you're aware of the reasons for this approach but if God left it to us to figure out a knowledge by despcription of him, then Im sorry that would simply be too much of a task for partial knowers. Rather an all-kower would reveal himself to pratial knowers in a more immediate way. If this is true, then though arguments and evidence if good for the intellectual, nevertheless knowledge of God ultimately doesn't rest upon external truths. But internal experience.

It's not an escape route for existentialism, indeed existentialism, the whole movement taught that the starting point of philosophical thinking must be the individual and the experiences of the individual, that moral thinking and scientific thinking together do not suffice to understand human existence, and, therefore, that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to understand human existence. Most people don't have the time nor the rigor to come up with a robust defense for what they believe, but that doesn't mean they can't live reasonably an authentic life.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:48:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 8:41:09 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/22/2012 5:33:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
The immediate witness of the Holy Spirit once one desires to know God personally. A witness that's veridical for the person who truly has it, it's therefore a properly basic belief known wholly apart from external arguments and evidence.

But the second warrant does come through argument and evidence, so that the Christian (at least) can be said to enjoy a dual warrant for her belief.... however, recall that desire of knowledge by acquaintance trumps knowledge by description regarding Christianity.

Nevertheless, your question I take to mean "what is the most compelling argument for theism?" But this is a loaded question, for suppose there exists a cumulative case for theism leading to Christianity in particular?

Anyhow, for theism in general the new Kalam Cosmological argument from Koons has impressed me, he uses Grim Reaper paradox's as support. Against materialism / naturalism, I suggest reviewing Morland's argument from Consciousness. Then Repert's new Argument from Reason has impressed me as well.

Ultimately however I'm inclined to side with Pascal in that I think God wouldn't actively give reasons for knowledge by description of himself.. that wouldn't be relevant for his purpose for man, which is of course happiness sought on our own terms.

The immaterial argument for consciousness can be made without materialism or physical processes. Sorry that argument is an utter fail ... And on "spirit" ect.. Again, that would have to be bound to the rules of existence itself, and governed by it. So again the Pantheist GOD concept is over ruling here.

More bare assertions. You must show that the argument is an utter fail, not just say it. I for one am convinced, what reason would you have not to be?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 6:51:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 8:50:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/22/2012 5:38:17 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
If one is willing to give a fair reading to the argument from miracles, then i think that's actually the most compelling of it's class (induction: inference to the best explanation).

Define miracle? Do you mean, an extremely rare event?

A witnessed act of God.

Meaning, if one is open to theism, and if one is willing not to be bias about historical anti-realism, or treat the apostolic letters not as divine scripture, but as historical documents, then I think what we learn from it is that the best explanation of the established facts from history is simply the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his claims.

It makes me sick that people take supernatural aspects of the Bible seriously. A book filled with so much far-fetched mythology that it is staggering anybody in the 21st century believes it. What a sad state for humanity. We might as well still believe in the Easter bunny if we believe that a supernatural being can raise people from the dead.

How does this in any way show my approach unreasonable? Again, all you're doing is sneering- not arguing.

(Such is the nature of a cumulative case. I've noticed that as historical research has progressed, the argument from miracles has only become more supported, which is exactly what one would expect if Christianity were true.)

^speak of this.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:34:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/22/2012 4:31:23 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/22/2012 4:16:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
What do you think is the most convincing argument for God's existence, and why?

The Pantheist GOD is existence itself, and clearly existence exists and retains the highest level of proof we can possibly ever have of any supposed GOD's existence. So the question remains, are you all going to now suddenly convert to Pantheism because their GOD exists?

Why do you beleive that the only god that can exist is one which can be empirically proven by man?? That would mean that our god would change throughout time, as our knowledge base changes. If a god is dependant on man's scientific abilities, is it really a god?? I would argue that if something can be empirically proven, then it must be subject to the same laws that man is, and thus doesn't qualify to be considered a god. Existence can be empirically proven, thus does not qualify as being a god. The pantheist god can be ruled out.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 3:34:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:47:29 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/22/2012 8:36:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/22/2012 5:33:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
The immediate witness of the Holy Spirit once one desires to know God personally. A witness that's veridical for the person who truly has it, it's therefore a properly basic belief known wholly apart from external arguments and evidence.

You cannot demonstrate there is a holy spirit to be experienced, all you can do is claim that there are other people who believe the same thing, which means nothing. This is just a baseless assertion, basically. So, this argument is not very compelling at all. There are countless people who have cried out for God with no response, so, this "holy spirit that can be immediately witnessed" is nothing more than an insult to them, let alone a good argument.

He's right you just wanted to argue.

Of course. Would you go to a restaurant if you did not want to eat? If not, then why would you sign up for a debate website if you did not want to argue?

Listen I don't need to demonstrate my knowledge of God to know that I know it.

I have knowledge of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. See how easy it is to make baseless claims?

Further, it doesn't follow that just because one person might falsly claim the experience of God, and that I actually experience God, that therefore both our claims are meaningless.

Can you demonstrate that you actually experience God? Or, are you just spewing more baseless nonsense?

Rather the reasonable approach is to establish common ground, and use our reason to decide which is the more probablly true claim. We do this with the project of natural theology, the argument from miracles (Which proves Christianity, for if God raised Christ from the dead, then his claims would be vindicated: God revealed through Christ), etc. You are simply asserting without argument that folks who actually have cried out to God, that they aren't witnessed to- indeed how would YOU personally know of this?

What evidence to you have of miracles? How do you define "miracle"?

Anyway, a supernatural being raising people from the dead is as childish as believing in a fat man who delivers presents to every kid in the world in one night. You do realize the difference between reality, and a delusional fantasy, right? The world we actually live in is nothing like the world you read about in The Bible.

What do you mean by experiencing God, anyway? You mean, simply feeling happy, or, does he say words to you? You are being completely vague here with regards to "witnessing a holy spirit". What is a "holy spirit"? Is it just something Christians made up? I've read definitions, but they are all too vague to be taken seriously.

An immediate witness is such that it's immediate internally, not externally. You mention there aren't any good arguments supporting this, but see the argument from religious experience by Kwan.

I looked it up. It's is about as convincing as most theistic arguments (not very much), and the first premise is baseless.


Again, just because other religions falsly claim that God is revealed through other people, doesn't mean that the whole cumulative case argument for a certain religion is fallacious. For suppose that by raising Christ from the dead, God chooses to vindicate everything he taught! ... Sure it's been said that Muhammad was raised, but is the evidence as compelling? It wouldn't seem so.

What evidence is there that Christ was raised from the dead? I've never encountered any. Enlighten me.

I doubt that my suggestions of arguments to you will be of any help with the state of mind that writes, "These are extremely obscure arguments. I will have to look these up." You're poisoning the well.

Not really, I did not try to discredit the arguments. I just said I would have to look them up, because they seem obscure to me (either that, or there are more theistic arguments than previously thought).


Then you assert that an existential preferece for theism is somehow an escape route? I'm not sure if you're aware of the reasons for this approach but if God left it to us to figure out a knowledge by despcription of him, then Im sorry that would simply be too much of a task for partial knowers. Rather an all-kower would reveal himself to pratial knowers in a more immediate way. If this is true, then though arguments and evidence if good for the intellectual, nevertheless knowledge of God ultimately doesn't rest upon external truths. But internal experience.

One can say anything is true, if they don't have to argue for it and claim they just "know" it is true internally. You do realize, that to anybody not already deluded by these supernatural myths, what you are saying sounds completely ridiculous, right?


It's not an escape route for existentialism, indeed existentialism, the whole movement taught that the starting point of philosophical thinking must be the individual and the experiences of the individual, that moral thinking and scientific thinking together do not suffice to understand human existence, and, therefore, that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to understand human existence. Most people don't have the time nor the rigor to come up with a robust defense for what they believe, but that doesn't mean they can't live reasonably an authentic life.

Fair enough. However, don't say something is true unless you can demonstrate it. You can say you "personally believe" something is true out of faith, but to say you have actual knowledge entails a huge burden of proof that no religious person has been able to meet (as far as I have seen, anyway).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 3:38:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 6:51:37 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/22/2012 8:50:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/22/2012 5:38:17 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
If one is willing to give a fair reading to the argument from miracles, then i think that's actually the most compelling of it's class (induction: inference to the best explanation).

Define miracle? Do you mean, an extremely rare event?

A witnessed act of God.

How could one prove that it was an act of God, if you cannot see God? How do you know this action didn't have another source? How do you know the action took place? Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence when it comes to things worthy of belief.


Meaning, if one is open to theism, and if one is willing not to be bias about historical anti-realism, or treat the apostolic letters not as divine scripture, but as historical documents, then I think what we learn from it is that the best explanation of the established facts from history is simply the proposition, "God raised Christ from the dead" thereby vindicating his claims.

It makes me sick that people take supernatural aspects of the Bible seriously. A book filled with so much far-fetched mythology that it is staggering anybody in the 21st century believes it. What a sad state for humanity. We might as well still believe in the Easter bunny if we believe that a supernatural being can raise people from the dead.

How does this in any way show my approach unreasonable? Again, all you're doing is sneering- not arguing.

You only get what you put in. You never argued for anything either, you just named arguments and bare asserted things without reasoning.


(Such is the nature of a cumulative case. I've noticed that as historical research has progressed, the argument from miracles has only become more supported, which is exactly what one would expect if Christianity were true.)

^speak of this.

Like I said, you just bare asserted your position has become more supported, without reasoning. You only get what you put in. If you are just going to name arguments and claim that they are compelling, without actually providing the syllogism and the support for each premise, then what do you really expect in return?
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 4:00:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
He's right you just wanted to argue.
This is a debating forum.. Did you just come here to preach?

Listen I don't need to demonstrate my knowledge of God to know that I know it.

Translation:

You can't demonstrate it and you know it.. You know you are resting your argument on an absolute negative that must remain as such. It's why the rest of your argument is essentially an appeal to ignorance or in the context of "I believe".. :/ And it's doubtful that you have any knowledge of a GOD greater than what is written in the book. I have had a lot of discussions with Christians who claim and make the same arguments. But ask them what their GOD's favorite color is, and you either get their favorite colors, or you get all sorts of answers that demonstrate they don't know a damn thing other than what they want to believe and imagine.. They self-invent stuff, believe it, lie, and then espouse it as fact. And I can understand that crack in the sidewalk to which you are clearly trying to avoid. Hence take from this video (not the creationist part, but more importantly the analogy of avoiding the cracks).. And then watch video 2..


unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 4:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Definitely some form of the cosmological argument (not Kalam) is probably the hardest to refute. My favourite argument has to be TAG though. It's definitely far more refreshing than the usual humdrum arguments.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 4:27:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Again, just because other religions falsly claim that God is revealed through other :people, doesn't mean that the whole cumulative case argument for a certain religion :is fallacious. For suppose that by raising Christ from the dead, God chooses to :vindicate everything he taught! ... Sure it's been said that Muhammad was raised, :but is the evidence as compelling? It wouldn't seem so.

How do you think we know those others are nonsense? And worse yet, Christianity is taken FROM those mythologies and preexisting cultures. You argument is understood conceptually like this:

We atheists understand and know that:
1. Maze War, development of which began in 1973, was the first FPS game. and 1974's Spasim. 1987's MIDI Maze for the Atari ST was one of the first network multiplayer action games. This to where genre evolved to 1992's Wolfenstein 3D and beyond.. This would be like tracing religion back to Africa.. But we start from Doom 1 and 2 as a common regional polytheistic belief and oral tradition ect in a specific era and time period before monotheism..Call Doom1 and 2 a representative place card of polytheism before the existence of monotheism (doom 3) in a certain region of the world.. (say the middle east)

2. We understand today that the worshiped games are made up. This includes as the fantasy stuff, powers, ect.

3. Now we speed ahead in time as to come to Doom 3, and all the monotheistic Doom3 people are preaching it as gospel truth and that the characters are real, and the FPS gender and all it's mechanics and ideas came from DOOM3. It some how has nothing to do with all the previous worshiped games it ripped off from according to these monotheistic worshipers regardless of the fact it was. And unlike those previously supposed claimed fake idols, Doom3 is magically not a fantasy, or taken from the previous games..

And you think we should take you seriously that your version of ancient mythology is suddenly now true even though is was directly taken from ancient mythology that preexisted it? Seriously? .. Sorry, but no! We come to the same conclusion it's as much of a mythology as that which it stole from to make a new religion (FS game)