What a dumbass video. Aren't Christian apologetics tired already of using the special pleading fallacy to say that their particular god doesn't apply, when there is nothing factual to show that to be the case? How convenient. Your circular logic has no place in a real debate. Leave that to those who use actual facts and logic, instead of starting with blind faith, and using whatever one can find to try to justify that blind faith. It's preposterous.
10.) Actually Christians are supposed to put non-believers to death for our wicked non-belief.
11.) See above
12) Crusades? Oh, and of course there was that little holocaust thing a few decades ago...
13.) That's because you are delusional.
14.) So, then you must believe that everything exists including all the other gods of all the other religions... What makes you think you got the right one?
15.) I can show you science, you can't show me god.
7.) HA! You don't know anything of the characteristics of god! God is a smallish fellow who smells like marmalade... I know because my invisible friend Steve created him. Prove me wrong.
8.) almost all wars have something to do with religion... And I hope you weren't counting Nazi Germany as atheistic... cause you'll have to do your math again if you were.
9.) All I can do is laugh at this one... Atheists can't call oppression immoral because we don't believe in god?
I am probably going to get blasted on this forum for this, but I agree with momoseth that religions and philosopihies DON'T start wars, rather, wars start by dictators and the like hijacking them for their own political purposes. (Good example would be the Militarist Japanese Government hijacking Bushido and Shinto for there own nefarious purposes)
In fact, shadywolf, there is. The kalam cosmological, teleological, ontological, axiological, Christological, transcendental, and Leibnizian cosmological argument are just a few, not to mention the argument from consciousness, argument from reason, the Plantigian argument from a proper basis, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, and Pascal's Wager.
@momoseth2 Leibnizian cosmological argument and Plantigian argument are nonexistent according to Google so I would like for you to explain them to me. Argument from consciousness is subjective and quite frankly seems like circular reasoning. Evolutionary argument against naturalism is the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes. So that actually goes against any deity. Pascal's wager is a narrow-minded joke of circular reasoning.
@shadywolf91 Discrediting Ontology Cont... 5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
@momoseth2 Last, Pascal's wager. You're right; it isn't circular reasoning I got it confused with the free will argument. Anyway it's still narrow-minded in the fact that it ignores all other religion's hells and punishments. For Example, Christianity and Islam. Both say you must believe in the teachings of Joshua or Muhammad respectively, and both say that you will be punishing believing in the other.
@momoseth2 The argument from a proper basis, is referring to fideism which states that faith and reason are separate. This is one of the weakest straw man's I have ever heard. Faith is the belief in a supernatural power, and no amount of belief makes something a fact. I would say this is your weakest argument, but it isn't even an argument. To say that faith provides evidence of your God is a fallacy because faith only exists in the imagination of people.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
@momoseth2 And yes I am aware that the evolutionary argument against naturalism is against metaphysical naturalism, how does this give evidence to the existence of your god?
@momoseth2 In the Kalama cosmological argument, the first point is questionable and a “cause” doesn't have to be a god, so that doesn't work. Teleology is once again speaking about "ends and purposes" which is subjective to human perspective. I would like you to explain your position on ontology to me because it doesn't mention a deity. Axiology is a study of ethics which has nothing to do with any deity. Christology is a joke. Transcendental arguments cannot be backed up with evidence.
Kalam: The first point is perhaps the most well verified principle within metaphysics. Could you give one counterexample? The cause must be immaterial, timeless, spaceless, powerful, and personal.
Teleology: Does not rely on ends and purposes, but on fine tuning.
Ontology: Look up the modal ontological argument
Moral: God is the foundation of objective moral values. Since they exist, so does He.
@momoseth2 As to the Kalam, you say it is the most well verified principle within metaphysics. However according to physicists Victor Stenger, quantum mechanics disconfirms the first premise of the argument, that is, that something can not come into being from nothing. I'm not saying metaphysicians are wrong, I'm saying that the Kalam is. You never explained how Teleology gives evidence to the existence of a god you just said it did.
@momoseth2 Morals aren't objective so by the logic of "Since they exists, so does he" God do not exists. I shouldn't have referred to Christology as a joke however I did refer to Christology as a joke because it does not give evidence for the existence of the Christian God, only if Joshua existed or not. Then it would have to give evidence that he is the son of god witch is currently impossible. How does logic require God's existence? By definition it does not.
I can live my whole life without praying once to God, and live a perfectly healthy and good life.
This means that God, even though if really was there, is completely useless. If he knows that you won't pray to him, then he won't do anything for you, yet you are capable of creating a successful life filled with joy.
But for doing that, according to Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT, I should be killed by his followers, and that I'm a sinner that will go to Hell
1. Of course you can live a long and happy life with or without God! You can die a happy, old atheist!
But what about after you die? If atheism is true, that's it. You die. You'll never know you were correct about God's existence or not. But if you're wrong...
2. Funny you should quote the Pentateuch. Who was it addressed to? Has anything happened since then?
Joshua? Led a Christian army? 1400 years before Christ's birth and the first Christians? Isn't that logically contradictory?
Again, you claim that God's judgement (with the use of the PAGAN Persians) upon wickedness is immoral. First off, wow. Second off, by what standard is God to be judged if He is the foundation of morality?
You show a complete ignorance of Biblical history. He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.
whats sad is "god", is incapable of defending himself almost as if... wait wait... ding!!! HE WASNT THERE!!!! his "word", (i.e. the bible) does nothing but show how bronzed-age idiots go about slavery, war, hallucinations, and magic. havent you seen all the blatant evil, slavery, war, and contradictions are in the bible? search quizshow (bible contradictions)its just a few of the many that are out there...
I am not a "criag junkie". I am not even a classical apologist. But I did try to find the channel anyway. I was unable to.
Even if I was, unless the man has at least a Ph.D. in philosophy, I should expect him to be like all the others on youtube who try to refute Craig. Their arguments are filled with logical fallacies and just plain ridiculous claims.
I have seen this video, actually. Where I disagree is that Andromeda presupposes that Craig assumes mereological nihilism in his first premise, but Craig does no such thing. I could go farther but the reply to the video by exposed2000 does an admirable job.
thats precisely what prompted my dis-belief. i discern winning in war but feeling joyus or happy for slaughtering "infants", against a crag. is i think even less moral then stalin... wait no nvmind he got the idea from that verse thats right:) anyway yea k/d ratio numbers from theist and atheist are fine and dandy but when its "god", from his own holy book saying you'll be happy to slaughter infants, then your ass cant debunk shit!!!
What Psalm 137 represents is an emotional appeal by David to God. Instead of taking revenge himself (read his accounts Samuel and Chronicles), he honestly expresses his rage to God. God never ordained such rage. These Psalms accurately tell of the coming destruction of Babylon in hopes that in the face of such punishment, the nation will repent. A loving God wouldn't provide such a warning!
@momoseth2 really? thats not the message the rest of the world got... hmm
my proof was biblical, yours was??? self-explanatory? opinionative at best? and if some rationalism was applied here i think anyone would agree it goes along with "death penalty! for everything", (old testament) god were talking about here:)
No offense, but trying to understand your last post was a daunting task. I think you mess up in the same place where most atheists mess up. They search the Bible for some morally abominable act and then immediately equate it to God with any notice of its context. If it's in the Bible, it must be permissible. This is a horrific eisegetical method of interpretation that will always lead to misreadings of the text.
@momoseth2 nope you kinda get the picture in the very 1st book of the bible, where god says to adam "dont eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge".... its an impossible taskm seeing that adam in his (then) current state blatantly doesnt have knowledge. so how would he determine if its bad??? for all we know of his mental perspective at that instance he could think disobeying is about the same as obeying.... but damn when you read the whole bible, geewiz its horrific.
When the serpent tempts Eve, she displays a clear understanding that disobedience to God is wrong. When we call Adam and Eve innocent, what is meant is that they had no knowledge of the consequences of sin (the worst of which is death). Adam and Eve are provided with only one rule, do not eat from one tree in the garden. The narrative of the fall shows clearly that both understood that disobedience to God was wrong and would have drastic consequences.
Isaiah 45:7? It is talking about how God will allow disaster to befall wicked nations and people. It is part of God's morally good character to judge wickedness.
When it is said that God is omnipotent and all powerful, what is meant is that God can do anything that is logically possible. So no, God cannot create any square circles, or married bachelors, nor can He create a boulder so big that an all powerful being could not lift it. That is because these ideas are logically contradictory ideas. They are just absurdities dreamt up in the human mind, not logically coherent possibilities.
There is one thing Epicurus didn't consider. God is willing and able to prevent evil, but has a morally good reason for allowing the existence of evil. This drives the argument into a debate about the near infinite amount of possible morally good reasons for the proliferation of evil. In the end, though, the logical problem of evil is a dead argument used only by atheists who are not updated on current philosophical developments.
Through all your emotion rhetoric lies absolute no logical argument. Show me that a loving God cannot be possible in the presence of evil logically and I will disbelieve.
Oh, and by the way, in the presence of an Almighty God, you (as will I) will be too busy bowing and shivering in fear to do anything else
First off, what law? God is the foundation for moral values. If there is no God, wars, rape, and murder would not be objectively wrong in any sense.
Secondly, let me make it easier for you. Show me that the following two propositions are contradictory.
1. God exists
2. Evil exists
There is no explicit contradiction between them. So if you are to maintain that they are mutually exclusive, please, show me the implicit contradiction.
If God really is there, If God really is good, if God really is all powerful and all knowing, why must we humans take a test of Faith, if he already knows the outcome?
Does that mean there are things even God cannot predict? And if so, How can he predict the end of the world? How can he judge us for us actions if he already knows what we are doing and will do?
He is our creator. He gave us free will, yet he punishes us for that free will.
God shouldn't punish us for our free choices? Make sure and tell a parent that about their rebellious child next time you see one.
God knows the outcome of our choices beforehand, but He is not going to judge us for choices we would have made. That would be immoral and outside His nature. Instead, He allows us to freely rebel against Him.
Question: Besides failing to provide a single implicit contradictions between the two terms, you make another logical error. You judge God by a standard that doesn't exist. What moral standard is higher than God? God gave us our lives. He has full ownership over it. Remember, also, that in Christian theology, death is not the end, so death is not the worst thing possible! We are told to rejoice at the death of saints because being absent from the body is being present with God.
God is a morally perfect agent. It is logically contradictory for Him to will evil. What you are asking is a logically nonsensical question.
So is it moral for a parent to chain a child up because they know there is a possibility that the child will rebel? Of course not! Part of love is the allowance of free choice, even if that choice is rebellion.
There are multiple arguments in favor of God's existence and not a single logically valid one against His existence.
Please do present the multiple arguments that is in favor of God's existence.
I would love to have a read on it.
As for the rest of your rabble: If a child is rebelling in dangerous ways, it's GOOD for a parent to put said child in house arrest until the child can calm down and think clearly.
You do not let a child do whatever he or she wants, because that would be dangerous. You are supposed to protect your child from dangers, not allow the child to become danger.
Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological, Axiological, Christological, Argument from consciousness, Argument from contingency, Transcendental, etc.
I noticed that you used the words " You are supposed..." Based on what objective moral code are you basing this judgment on? Objective moral standards assume God's existence. Without knowing it, you are presupposing God's existence to make your argument.
God already knows everything, so he will know that a man will take the life of another someday. He KNOWS it will happen. He created us, he has the power to stop the man from taking that life, but he doesn't.
So by your logic, if I take the life of someone, it's God's will. He already knew I would do it, and he did nothing to try and stop me. That would mean he would want me to do it.
If there is even a possibility that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing the existence of evil, then the logical problem of evil is defeated. Plantinga drove home this point. Now, thanks largely to him, the atheistic philosophical community has largely abandoned the logical problem of evil.
Miracles: Really? You're being highly presumptuous of God. I agree with Bacon when he said that God doesn't wrought miracles to convince atheism as His ordinary works should do that.
Genocide: Ah! So it is morally good for God to wipe out humanity? Why complain about war then? Remember that God is all merciful along with being all just
Striking you down: It's a good thing God doesn't take orders from humans.
For being a omnipotent being, he sure is a evil little son of a bitch.
Instead of using his powers to quell the Egyptians to let the Hebrews go free, he killed their first born sons.
Instead of allowing people to use their "free will", he says kill everyone who believes in anything else but him.
Instead of proving that he really is there, he let's people like you go rampant saying that he is there, that we only have to believe without any evidence what so ever.
Francis Bacon once said that God never wrong miracles to convince atheism because His ordinary works should do that. God wants a personal relationship, not simple belief.
Again, I am still waiting for my logical argument.
Instead, you simply seem to think that humans in their finite knowledge, time, and space are more knowledgeable than an omniscient being, which is logically invalid
I think, that humans who have the capability of actually proving that we exist rather than a so called "smartass" in the sky who is incapable of solving problems other than Genocide, murder and plague, are smarter than this so called omnipotent being.
He isn't smart when he thinks humans will change for the better believing in him, crime rates prove otherwise.
He isn't smart when he, himself says: Kill all those who do not believe in my name.
First off, you cannot prove we exist. To do so, you assume human logic, which already assumes you exist, which is a circular argument. You simply accept it on faith.
Tell me this, if God wanted me to kill off all nonbelievers, why would he send Jesus into the world to save their lives? Why did Jesus tell us to love our enemy? Why did He command us to go and spread the Gospel to these lost nations? Why are you purposefully ignoring these facts you know full well?
@momoseth2 This is a straw man argument. It is impossible to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt. However I can give you a very large amount of evidence supporting the existence of humans. You cannot give a lot of evidence supporting your deity. I can point, see, slap, lick, smell, hear, and even have sexual intercourse with another human. These are all evidence in supporting that humans exist. Not only that, but I can make accurate predictions about humans based on observation.
Genocide: I have! I showed clearly that not a single Christian was involved as you claim. Second, I show that your worldview has no basis for objective moral values
Stoning: Have you ever even heard of the Old Covenant and New Covenant and the differences between them?
Evidence: Obviously not! He provided the Holy Spirit as vindication of the truth of the Gospel. This personal experience of God far outweighs any empirical evidence.
@momoseth2 Oh and about your little rant about "the Holy Spirit as vindication of the truth of the Gospel." By definition, the "Holy Spirit" is not a truth. Truth is any fact that has been verified. A fact is an event known to have happened or something known to have existed. You cannot verify your Deity because you don't have any tangible evidence it exists.
That's just it! When you look at nature, you clearly see the teleology in it. The question is, do you take this to its logical conclusions, or do you try to explain it away?
Really? Kalam Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological, Axiological, and Christological arguments all clearly show evidence of God's existence just to name a few.
I do like that you refer to my other video. Read the comments I posted to others who questioned it for my explanation my usage of it.
Last comment from me in regards of this subject, and don't you dare to think I'm backing out or is at a loss of words, it's only that this discussion is now both pointless, and is moving in circles.
YOU need to do more research on what you are talking about.
YOU need to look at Atheism and religion in general as someone standing on the sideline while wanting to discuss the subject.
You can't claim the one for being absolute, while the other being false without knowledge of them.
I need to do more research? I have provide massive amounts of evidence in favor of God's existence and all I am asking is that you back up your assertion for the one argument to make against God's existence. I have carefully researched both sides to every argument and have come away with Christian theism. Perhaps you should do the same.
I'm still waiting for an argument. I need premises and a conclusion! Asking a question isn't the same as making an argument. If you are to maintain that God and evil are mutually exclusive, by all means, show us! Do what no atheist has ever been successful in doing!
He allows people to be deluded from the path he intended us to walk, he himself allows people to rebel towards the words of the Bible.
He allows it, because he does not see it fit to prove that he really is there.
He is omnipotent, but he needs people to worship him?
That's not the definition of a perfect being. That's the definition of a King wanting slaves to kneel before him without any reason other than: I am your King.
Murder is the unlawful taking of one's life. Considering that every breath we take is a gift from God, God has no obligation to unnecessarily extend our lives. And, remember, death is not the end in Christian theology, it is only the beginning. God alone has right over our lives since we all belong to Him. Others do not. That is why the taking of another's life is immoral.
No. That would be circular. I use to Bible to form a conception of God, and then use evidence to test and see if the Biblical conception of God matches reality.
@momoseth2 gods the 1 who taught us about war rape and murder, and yes he also attempted to regulate it, or a pile of bronze-aged scumbags that want every1 to believe in their fairytale...
Respond to this video... yea well i suggest you update yourself on this verse.. ISAIAH 45:7, yes thats god himself stating that he creates the"evil", that happens. and on top of that not explaining how these "current", pains were "in", wont exist! its ridiculous "ill patch you up later"... yea ok... well thats the oldest "scare tactic" in the effing book! jeez so now we must believe he'll be there cause without him theres nothing left except pain and misery and eweh! atheism!
Again, understanding your posts is difficult, but gathering what I could I can say that the "disaster" in Isaiah is contrasted with prosperity, meaning material wealth. Ever hear the saying that the good Lord giveth and the good Lord taketh away? God's punishment by abstaining from helping in the prosperity of the wicked does not in any way mean that evil originated with God. This argument is grasping at straws.
@momoseth2 ok i give but ill let you know this will leave any1 with reasonable doubt do its near anti-satisfying potential. but hey i just wish god desired a defense for himself just as much as you do, then maybe this convo wouldnt exist:( but eh leave it to the "believers", to fend for the god right...
The great thing about God is in knowing who He is. He doesn't have to demean Himself and come and attorney for His actions as if He were being put on trial by His creations for His actions. He is all good and all powerful. There is no external standard by which we could measure God's actions against, since He is the foundation for all morals and logic.
The thing about God is that He gave us free will. He doesn't force us to accept Him. Evil is simply an absence of God. God did not force us to love Him and stay with Him. Instead, He gave us a choice. We can either be with Him in all His goodness, or we can reject Him. He's not going to force our hand. That would not be loving. If we reject Him, we reject everything that is apart of Him, which includes His love, mercy, kindness, and peace of heart.
@momoseth2 yea well i suggest you update yourself on this verse.. ISAIAH 45:7, yes thats god himself stating that he creates the"evil", that happens. and on top of that not explaining how these "current", pains were "in", wont exist! its ridiculous "ill patch you up later"... yea ok... well thats the oldest "scare tactic" in the effing book! jeez so now we must believe he'll be there cause without him theres nothing left except pain and misery and eweh! atheism!
Hitler was a christian and worked hand in hand with the Catholic Church. Stalin was an atheist. Most others believed in some form of god, just not Christianity. Just because someone is not a christian doesn't mean they are automatically atheists. As to morals, I have no religious imperative to be "moral". I don't do good because I might be punished eternally for not doing nor because I am offered a reward for doing so. Most serial killers believe they're doing "God's will".
Hitler was NOT a Christian. Recently discovered Nazi documents show the Third Reich's plan to eliminate Christianity. Bormann's statements comply with this.
Second, don't strawman my argument on morality. I am not claiming one has to be Christian to be moral, but that objective morality rests upon the existence of God. Most atheists, even ones like Hitchens, attempt to strawman the Christian position like this.
1. There is no evidence against Santa as there is never evidence for a negative claim.
2. Define "kind". If different "kinds" of animals entered the Ark, explain how different species of, say, fruit flies came about without the help of evolution. Explain what happened to toxins created. Explain how minuscule insects survived.
3. If you believe speciation exists, explain how this reinforces any biblical claims.
4. I could claim Santa is neither complex nor simple.
1. Never evidence for a negative claim? What screwed up branch of philosophy do you follow?
2. All explained in whole on the AIG website
3. You miss the point. I am simply pointing out strawman arguments
4. A philosophically bankrupt idea. God CANNOT be complex because he is immaterial. Dawkins assumes materialism in his "proof" of the nonexistence of God, which begs the question.
1. It means that you can't provide evidence that something does not exist. Can you provide evidence that there is no invisible ghost on top of you at this very moment? Of course not.
2. Sorry, what website?
3. ...?
4. Replace "God" with Santa. Santa CANNOT be complex because he is immaterial. Your argument remains unconvincing. Sure, God is immaterial but Santa can also be immaterial.
5. "Disobeying God's order". That's not the message of the argument. The message is that people genuinely believe they are doing God's work, no matter how far off they really are from it (ie. they aren't doing it purposely to disobey God).
6. There is no such thing as an atheist regime. Sure, leaders like Stalin killed millions, but these leaders killed for the communist regime. Nobody kills "in the name of no God". That's absurd.
5. People can pervert God's word for their own purpose all they want, but this isn't a strike against God in any way! It is a strike against humanity.
6. This idea (from Dawkins, of course) is so ignorant of history that I do not even know where to begin.
Stalin's antitheistic agenda resulted in the deaths of thousands. Stalin's denial of God, and, thus, objective moral values, justified the mass murder of millions, since he was the highest authority in his worldview.
5. People don't pervert "God's word" to acquire an excuse to slaughter a group of people. People genuinely believe they are doing god's work. Of course it's not a strike against God. The main message is that religious beliefs lead to violence.
6. "Stalin's antitheistic " - this is not atheism. Anti-theism =/= atheism. Stalin slaughtered under his communist regime. Stalin didn't kill because he didn't believe in God. He killed because religion threatened communism.
7. "Atheism entails..." Atheism doesn't entail anything. Atheism is a lack of belief that's it. All morals are subjective; even God's morals are. Morals aren't physical or measurable properties; they're opinions. And atheists do have their OWN moral standards. And as such, discriminating against a certain group because you yourself see it as odd, is immoral to me.
8. Hitler was a Christian. It's written in Mein Kampf. AND under Nazi soldiers' belts.
7. Atheism is a philosophical position. Like it or not. It's denial of God's existence means it also must deny everything that rests on God's existence, as well, such as objective moral values. Just because something isn't material doesn't mean it doesn't exist! That begins the question toward materialism!!! Also, just because you don't like something in no way makes it wrong. Answer this, is torturing children for fun not absolutely wrong?
7. "Just because something isn't material doesn't mean it doesn't exist"
Do you understand what opinions are and why different people have different opinions? Morals come from opinions, that's all it is. Just like if I claim the sunset is beautiful, doesn't mean "beauty" exists. You can also claim that it is not. Both views are neither correct nor incorrect because both of us have different opinions. That's precisely what morals are.
9. I don't have faith that something does not exist, as I don't look for evidence of non-existence. It's illogical. Do you have faith that Peter Pan does not exist? I don't claim anything. I just ask for evidence of God. If there's none, I assume that this supposed God is non-existent. Just like the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. You'll expect a judge to dismiss the case if you have no evidence.
Sorry if my comment was too long. I just wanted to give a response.
9. Even if there were no evidence (there is)for God's existence,that in no way entails that He doesn't exist. There may no evidence that the stock market will go up tomorrow, but that doesn't mean it won't go up.If I made the claim that the universe was devoid of life except for earth, I would have a "lack of belief", but at the same time, I still believe something else at the same time. In the same way, as a Christian, I could simply say I lack a belief in metaphysical naturalism
9. Replace "God" with any imaginative figure. Just because you can't see a ghost on top of your head, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you believe in peter pan, the boy who lived, or Casper the ghost? If you don't, why not? Is it because you've not seen evidence for any of these ridiculous claims?
-"no way entails that He doesn't exist"
That's why I'm an agnostic-atheist. I don't say for certain that God doesn't exist, like how I don't say for certain that Goldilocks doesn't exist.
"Christian nations never ordered genocide" - Really? The last time I read a history book the whole idea of the Crusades was to exterminate those of the Islamic faith. This wasn't the only flaw in your video, but it was the most glaring one. Also, I would like to point out that during WW II, Germany was a Christian nation, Hitler was a Catholic and their uniforms has "Gott mitt uns" on them, lit. "God is with us"...Check your facts please, before posting shite.
The term "genocide" didn't even come into existence until the twentieth century to describe the horrors of atheistic regimes.The Crusades were meant to retake the Holy Land, not eliminate Islam. Hitler was a pagan. Documents reveal the Nazi plan to eliminate Christianity. "Gott mitt uns" (slogan of the Wermacht) was the slogan long before Hitler. The SS, Hitler's personal guard and elite troop force, had no such slogan. Check your facts please
These rebuttals either don't make any sense (literally didn't understand some of the first couple of points) or makes statement of 'facts' with no supporting evidence.
@momoseth2 I didn't understand the 'foreign to Jews' in your first text.
'Also, claiming the birth narrative is incorrect based on this commits the genetic fallacy.' I don't understand what this means. Can you explain it in other words?
'There is no evidence against God.' ?? This leaves me stumped. ;-)
Foreign to Jews: The Jews would have been unfamiliar to this character in history, so he could have left no impact on Jewish culture. VanCoffeeChick may as well have used Native American legends in their spot.
Genetic Fallacy: This is the fallacy that states that if you can explain where a belief came from, you show that belief to be false. The original video seems to imply that since virgin birth narratives were around before Jesus, the story of His birth is false.
@momoseth2 Ok. I understand. But as someone who lives in the southern hemisphere can you provide evidence that the middle east had no influence from either European cultures or the Indian part of the East?
While Jews would have had some European influences, the Parthian empire (whom Rome was in constant conflict with) would have prohibited any exposure 1st century Jews may have had to the eastern world. There is no record that the Jews had any knowledge of Buddha and Krishna and other Far Eastern religious characters. Even if there was, there would be no pressure for Jews to adopt beliefs from cultures that were enemies of Rome.
@momoseth2 There was exposure to Buddhism in the Grecian empire as early as 2nd and 1st centuries BC (that is on the outer borders of it to the north-east and east). Expanding empires and trade could easily cross-contaminate religion and philosophies both ways, even into the middle east. Anywhere slaves were traded (and slaves often came from long distances) the ideas flowed.
I doubt Buddhism could have made any significant impact on Jews. There is no record of it. Even if they were exposed, there is no reason or evidence that it would have or could have affected their thinking. It is much more likely that a Greek or Roman god would have had a birth narrative stolen from.
Despite all this, the entire idea that the birth narrative was stolen, therefore it is false, commits the genetic fallacy.
@momoseth2 Perhaps it can't be proven either way. However, Gods inseminating virgins was certainly in both Greek/Roman myths (usually when women swam in water) and in Egyptian mythology dating back many centuries earlier. The Virgin Mary myth has antecedents. To ignore this out of hand seems strange. Just saying.
The argument that the birth narrative was stolen from Greco Roman culture was characteristic of the 2nd quest for the historical Jesus, but was rejected by the third. These myths would have been seen as blasphemous by the Jews. Anyway, Greco Roman influence does not predate the prediction of the virgin birth by Isaiah in the 8th century b.c.
Evidence for God: Atheism entails the denial of God's existence. This requires evidence in the same way that saying "God exists" requires evidence. Denying God's existence without providing an argument to back up the claim makes that statement just as much a statement of faith as the statement that God does exist.
@momoseth2 Can you provide evidence of God's existence?
To prove something doesn't exist (like unicorns, ghosts or aliens) in fact doesn't take much effort - there is no certain proof at hand. But to prove they do exist needs material evidence or even incidental evidence (leaving something behind that can be independently measured and not have a more mundane explanation.
I'm not saying God doesn't exist. I'm just saying that organised religion is more about humans than beyond our reality.
While I wouldn't call it "evidence", since God is not a material being, there are some very good arguments for the existence of God, such as the kalam cosmological argument, ontological argument, axiological argument, teleological argument, the argument from contingency, Pascal's Wager, Plantingian argument for a proper basis, transcendental argument, and Christological argument. The evolutionary argument against naturalism and the argument from reason are good against materialism.
Anything can technically be refuted. From this standpoint, there is no way for humanity to discover truth. The question isn't whether if these arguments have refutations or not, the question is is whether their premises are more likely than their denials. If this is true, then they are good philosophical arguments in favor of showing God's existence. I'm not out to "prove God's existence", I out to show that theism is the most ratinonal position to hold
@momoseth2 I don’t see how theism is more rational than ‘non-theism’. Eg - there is a difference in ‘not believing in ghosts’ (when ghosts are not proven) and ‘not believing in ghosts’ (when scientific evidence says disembodied spirits haunt houses). The first is a subjective belief based on no facts ghosts exist; the latter a rejection of a proven fact (I reject proof of ghosts cos they freak me out).
I would say the statement that God exists would fall in the middle. There are good arguments for God's existence, but no "proof" other than experiencial, which cannot be quantified scientifically. Also remember that the first belief is not irrational. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absense." Carl Sagan.
@momoseth2 Your statement that there is ‘no way for humanity to discover truth’ leads to Agnostism not Theism. Refutations test the facts (and are tested themselves in the process). Refutations can be more sound that the original statement of belief, therefore more rational.
I do believe that humans can discover truth. Let me clarify. Despite this fact, one cannot ever escape the fact that a different philosophy position cannot be disproven. The rational acceptance of basic beliefs should entail a belief in theism, but one could always deny these beliefs. I do not believe that either you or I believe our basic beliefs to be invalid. Refutation of theistic arguments (especially the teleological or kalam cosmological) are all weak or baseless in my eyes.
All one has to do to prove God does not exist is to show that the idea of God is logically inconsistent. I propose that it is impossible to prove a positive (see solipsism).
There are good arguments for the existence of God, but even if there weren't, one has the right to believe in God based on the Plantingian argument from a proper basis.
Not everyone gains faith in God at a young age. St. Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Hugh Ross, and Francis Collins all came to believe as adults.
You're comment is devoid of any solid reasoning. C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity based on the evidence in favor of Christianity, not from cultural influences. The cultural elite after WW1 were slowly becoming more atheistic, not theistic.
Barring all this, you're committing the genetic fallacy. Even granting that one believes based on culture (which I do not grant), this, in no way, entails that the belief is false.
There are a lot of apologetics which can convince even an otherwise rational a person. Those apologetics are the cultural superstitions I was talking about.
As an Atheist even I am not immune. Sometimes, I take the lord's name in vain. Its not rational it's an artifact of my culture.
So, if belief isn't based on culture why don't we have spontaneous conversion to Christianity?
Those superstitions need to worm their way into the mind before anyone accepts them.
You seem to believe apologetics are irrational. All apologetics are grounded in logic. If you want to provide evidence for why you believe Christianity is nothing more than a superstition, you are welcome to do so.
People don't convert instantly because that would be irrational. Who believes anything worldview changing when they hear it the first time? They rationally look at the arguments made in favor of it and, if convincing, switch opinion.
What a dumbass video. Aren't Christian apologetics tired already of using the special pleading fallacy to say that their particular god doesn't apply, when there is nothing factual to show that to be the case? How convenient. Your circular logic has no place in a real debate. Leave that to those who use actual facts and logic, instead of starting with blind faith, and using whatever one can find to try to justify that blind faith. It's preposterous.
firegod001 1 month ago
So god is intangible? Let's see...that would...contradict the ENTIRE bible! Nice fail, but keep trying.
fdasherv 3 months ago
Just ridiculous cont again....
10.) Actually Christians are supposed to put non-believers to death for our wicked non-belief.
11.) See above
12) Crusades? Oh, and of course there was that little holocaust thing a few decades ago...
13.) That's because you are delusional.
14.) So, then you must believe that everything exists including all the other gods of all the other religions... What makes you think you got the right one?
15.) I can show you science, you can't show me god.
evilgenius2003 4 months ago
Just ridiculous cont....
7.) HA! You don't know anything of the characteristics of god! God is a smallish fellow who smells like marmalade... I know because my invisible friend Steve created him. Prove me wrong.
8.) almost all wars have something to do with religion... And I hope you weren't counting Nazi Germany as atheistic... cause you'll have to do your math again if you were.
9.) All I can do is laugh at this one... Atheists can't call oppression immoral because we don't believe in god?
evilgenius2003 4 months ago
Just ridiculous...
1.) Virgin birth of Mithra... should be real easy for you to confirm
2.) So the other half do believe in a young earth... So your saying only half the Christians are stupid.
3.) Prove to me there is no Santa! Where is your evidence against Santa!
4.) Even with just the "kinds" you couldn't fit enough food.
5.) There is not enough water on the planet for the flood of the bible to have occurred.
6.) They deny "macro-evolution" which IS speciation over a longer time frame
evilgenius2003 4 months ago
I am probably going to get blasted on this forum for this, but I agree with momoseth that religions and philosopihies DON'T start wars, rather, wars start by dictators and the like hijacking them for their own political purposes. (Good example would be the Militarist Japanese Government hijacking Bushido and Shinto for there own nefarious purposes)
Armyof1993 9 months ago
the fact still remains, there is no such thing as god until a believer can bring forth concrete evidence...and non have.
trampledone 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
I noticed in your video at 1:09 that you said "There is no evidence against god." however there is no evidence to support your god.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
In fact, shadywolf, there is. The kalam cosmological, teleological, ontological, axiological, Christological, transcendental, and Leibnizian cosmological argument are just a few, not to mention the argument from consciousness, argument from reason, the Plantigian argument from a proper basis, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, and Pascal's Wager.
momoseth2 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Leibnizian cosmological argument and Plantigian argument are nonexistent according to Google so I would like for you to explain them to me. Argument from consciousness is subjective and quite frankly seems like circular reasoning. Evolutionary argument against naturalism is the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes. So that actually goes against any deity. Pascal's wager is a narrow-minded joke of circular reasoning.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 Liebniz: It's more commonly called the argument from contingency
Plantingian: The argument from a proper basis, I just looked, does have a wikipedia page
Consciousness: It is based on the objective reality of human consciousness. It reasons from consciousness to God.
Evolutionary: What? No the argument shows the incompatibility of evolution and metaphysical naturalism
Pascal:Just talk and rhetoric. I cannot recall ever reading anyone accusing it of circular reasoning.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 If I'm correct argument from contingency goes something like A1 Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
A2 If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
A3 The universe exists.
T1 The universe has an explanation of its existence.
T2 Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.
#2 is a fallacy because it simply makes an assumption "that explanation is God"
And #1 is questionable.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 Liebniz: It's more commonly called the argument from contingency
Plantingian: The argument from a proper basis, I just looked, does have a wikipedia page
Consciousness: It is based on the objective reality of human consciousness. It reasons from consciousness to God.
Evolutionary: What? No the argument shows the incompatibility of evolution and metaphysical naturalism
Pascal: Just talk and rhetoric. I cannot recall ever reading anyone accusing it of circular reasoning.
momoseth2 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 Discrediting Ontology Cont... 5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Last, Pascal's wager. You're right; it isn't circular reasoning I got it confused with the free will argument. Anyway it's still narrow-minded in the fact that it ignores all other religion's hells and punishments. For Example, Christianity and Islam. Both say you must believe in the teachings of Joshua or Muhammad respectively, and both say that you will be punishing believing in the other.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2 The argument from a proper basis, is referring to fideism which states that faith and reason are separate. This is one of the weakest straw man's I have ever heard. Faith is the belief in a supernatural power, and no amount of belief makes something a fact. I would say this is your weakest argument, but it isn't even an argument. To say that faith provides evidence of your God is a fallacy because faith only exists in the imagination of people.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Argument against Ontology cont...
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2 And yes I am aware that the evolutionary argument against naturalism is against metaphysical naturalism, how does this give evidence to the existence of your god?
shadywolf91 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@momoseth2 In the Kalama cosmological argument, the first point is questionable and a “cause” doesn't have to be a god, so that doesn't work. Teleology is once again speaking about "ends and purposes" which is subjective to human perspective. I would like you to explain your position on ontology to me because it doesn't mention a deity. Axiology is a study of ethics which has nothing to do with any deity. Christology is a joke. Transcendental arguments cannot be backed up with evidence.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
Kalam: The first point is perhaps the most well verified principle within metaphysics. Could you give one counterexample? The cause must be immaterial, timeless, spaceless, powerful, and personal.
Teleology: Does not rely on ends and purposes, but on fine tuning.
Ontology: Look up the modal ontological argument
Moral: God is the foundation of objective moral values. Since they exist, so does He.
Chistology: Why?
Transcendental: What? Logic itself requires God's existence.
momoseth2 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2 As to the Kalam, you say it is the most well verified principle within metaphysics. However according to physicists Victor Stenger, quantum mechanics disconfirms the first premise of the argument, that is, that something can not come into being from nothing. I'm not saying metaphysicians are wrong, I'm saying that the Kalam is. You never explained how Teleology gives evidence to the existence of a god you just said it did.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Morals aren't objective so by the logic of "Since they exists, so does he" God do not exists. I shouldn't have referred to Christology as a joke however I did refer to Christology as a joke because it does not give evidence for the existence of the Christian God, only if Joshua existed or not. Then it would have to give evidence that he is the son of god witch is currently impossible. How does logic require God's existence? By definition it does not.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2 An argument against Ontology Melbourne philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) stated:
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2 None of those arguments make any sense whatsoever. Try any of them on me, and let's see how it works out for ya.
firegod001 1 month ago
And fun fact:
I can live my whole life without praying once to God, and live a perfectly healthy and good life.
This means that God, even though if really was there, is completely useless. If he knows that you won't pray to him, then he won't do anything for you, yet you are capable of creating a successful life filled with joy.
But for doing that, according to Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT, I should be killed by his followers, and that I'm a sinner that will go to Hell
A real nice lovable man that God
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
1. Of course you can live a long and happy life with or without God! You can die a happy, old atheist!
But what about after you die? If atheism is true, that's it. You die. You'll never know you were correct about God's existence or not. But if you're wrong...
2. Funny you should quote the Pentateuch. Who was it addressed to? Has anything happened since then?
momoseth2 1 year ago
And quickly now, while I still remember it:
You say a Christian Regime have never ordered Genocide.
I beg to differ:
Read Joshua 8:1-29 NLT in your own "holy bible", then please restate that a Christian led army have not committed Genocide on another nation.
Even Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT supports the notion of a Genocide at the Battle of Babylon, said by the lord himself.
Never think you are better than others when you do not even know your own history.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
Joshua? Led a Christian army? 1400 years before Christ's birth and the first Christians? Isn't that logically contradictory?
Again, you claim that God's judgement (with the use of the PAGAN Persians) upon wickedness is immoral. First off, wow. Second off, by what standard is God to be judged if He is the foundation of morality?
You show a complete ignorance of Biblical history. He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.
momoseth2 1 year ago
whats sad is "god", is incapable of defending himself almost as if... wait wait... ding!!! HE WASNT THERE!!!! his "word", (i.e. the bible) does nothing but show how bronzed-age idiots go about slavery, war, hallucinations, and magic. havent you seen all the blatant evil, slavery, war, and contradictions are in the bible? search quizshow (bible contradictions)its just a few of the many that are out there...
buktomsin 1 year ago
now obviousy ur a dr. william lane retard criag junkie...
so go to "thisw4satriumph's", channel and watch'em get all of dr. craigs arguments and fuck'uhm sideways;)
if ur really arent a craig junkie then oh well:'(
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
I am not a "criag junkie". I am not even a classical apologist. But I did try to find the channel anyway. I was unable to.
Even if I was, unless the man has at least a Ph.D. in philosophy, I should expect him to be like all the others on youtube who try to refute Craig. Their arguments are filled with logical fallacies and just plain ridiculous claims.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 sorry for being so mean, but anyway atleast type in "dr. william lane craig: the artful dodger"
and youll getta see his almost infinte "fallacies".
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
I have seen this video, actually. Where I disagree is that Andromeda presupposes that Craig assumes mereological nihilism in his first premise, but Craig does no such thing. I could go farther but the reply to the video by exposed2000 does an admirable job.
momoseth2 1 year ago
evry1 read psalms 137:9
thats precisely what prompted my dis-belief. i discern winning in war but feeling joyus or happy for slaughtering "infants", against a crag. is i think even less moral then stalin... wait no nvmind he got the idea from that verse thats right:) anyway yea k/d ratio numbers from theist and atheist are fine and dandy but when its "god", from his own holy book saying you'll be happy to slaughter infants, then your ass cant debunk shit!!!
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
What Psalm 137 represents is an emotional appeal by David to God. Instead of taking revenge himself (read his accounts Samuel and Chronicles), he honestly expresses his rage to God. God never ordained such rage. These Psalms accurately tell of the coming destruction of Babylon in hopes that in the face of such punishment, the nation will repent. A loving God wouldn't provide such a warning!
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 really? thats not the message the rest of the world got... hmm
my proof was biblical, yours was??? self-explanatory? opinionative at best? and if some rationalism was applied here i think anyone would agree it goes along with "death penalty! for everything", (old testament) god were talking about here:)
jeez you bible thumbers are relentless*-*
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
No offense, but trying to understand your last post was a daunting task. I think you mess up in the same place where most atheists mess up. They search the Bible for some morally abominable act and then immediately equate it to God with any notice of its context. If it's in the Bible, it must be permissible. This is a horrific eisegetical method of interpretation that will always lead to misreadings of the text.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 nope you kinda get the picture in the very 1st book of the bible, where god says to adam "dont eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge".... its an impossible taskm seeing that adam in his (then) current state blatantly doesnt have knowledge. so how would he determine if its bad??? for all we know of his mental perspective at that instance he could think disobeying is about the same as obeying.... but damn when you read the whole bible, geewiz its horrific.
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
When the serpent tempts Eve, she displays a clear understanding that disobedience to God is wrong. When we call Adam and Eve innocent, what is meant is that they had no knowledge of the consequences of sin (the worst of which is death). Adam and Eve are provided with only one rule, do not eat from one tree in the garden. The narrative of the fall shows clearly that both understood that disobedience to God was wrong and would have drastic consequences.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 wow you really believe that?
i assume its from 1timothy ch3:4??? no no i meant, 2Craig ch6:66... lol
buktomsin 1 year ago
@momoseth2 how do you feel about ISAIAH 45:7? another emotional appeal by david? or an emotional outburst from god? or neither?
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
Isaiah 45:7? It is talking about how God will allow disaster to befall wicked nations and people. It is part of God's morally good character to judge wickedness.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 i see it would of helped if you were somehow every single priest or pastor in the world at the same time grade A mumbojumbo.
hey, could god create a boulder so big that he couldnt lift it??? just curious...
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
Thank you very much.
When it is said that God is omnipotent and all powerful, what is meant is that God can do anything that is logically possible. So no, God cannot create any square circles, or married bachelors, nor can He create a boulder so big that an all powerful being could not lift it. That is because these ideas are logically contradictory ideas. They are just absurdities dreamt up in the human mind, not logically coherent possibilities.
momoseth2 1 year ago
benitorasan! that was so true and sooo funny hahaha "even his name was epic!"
buktomsin 1 year ago
Comment removed
nusucker 1 year ago
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
Epicurus
His name was even Epic.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
There is one thing Epicurus didn't consider. God is willing and able to prevent evil, but has a morally good reason for allowing the existence of evil. This drives the argument into a debate about the near infinite amount of possible morally good reasons for the proliferation of evil. In the end, though, the logical problem of evil is a dead argument used only by atheists who are not updated on current philosophical developments.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
Did you know, If God is able to Prevent evil, but not willing, that basically means he want us to suffer?
He want things like 9/11 happen over and over again, because he want us to suffer.
How can you call him a loving God, when all he has done is slaughter those who do not follow him, the sinners and innocent people?
There have been ZERO evidence of a loving God.
If he really is there, and I meet him when I die, I sincerely hope he is material. Because I will punch him.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
Through all your emotion rhetoric lies absolute no logical argument. Show me that a loving God cannot be possible in the presence of evil logically and I will disbelieve.
Oh, and by the way, in the presence of an Almighty God, you (as will I) will be too busy bowing and shivering in fear to do anything else
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
Shiver in fear of a God that clearly don't care about humans?
That literally have killed millions?
Nope, I'll be to angry to fear such an asshole.
Nothing he has done is something you would call "loving"
He gave us free will. He tossed us out of Eden because of that Free will.
He is all knowing, yet he puts us through a so called "test" which for the most part, contains suffering.
Instead of testing our knowledge, he tests our faith in something we cannot see.
Makes perfect sense.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
I could make a point by point reply to your post, but, in the end, I think it would miss the point.
Provide some logical argument that a loving God and evil are mutually exclusive and then we can have a real discussion on the problem of evil.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
You could, but won't, which is the same logic I use towards God.
He could stop wars, but he won't.
He could clear the world of the starvation problem, but he won't.
The things he HAVE done though, is killing humans in the millions.
By logical view, that would mean he is evil.
He even breaks his own law: You shall not kill.
No one is or should be above the Law. Not even God.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
First off, what law? God is the foundation for moral values. If there is no God, wars, rape, and murder would not be objectively wrong in any sense.
Secondly, let me make it easier for you. Show me that the following two propositions are contradictory.
1. God exists
2. Evil exists
There is no explicit contradiction between them. So if you are to maintain that they are mutually exclusive, please, show me the implicit contradiction.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
God Exists and let's Evil exist and go rampant in a world he created.
He let one of his own Arch angels turn against him. He killed child's in Egypt.
We kill in his name, and he does not care one bit, which there is a contradiction to one of the 10 laws: You shall not kill.
He does not have any moral, cause if he did, he sure as hell wouldn't let idiots use his name to justify wars or murder.
And Contradiction between God and evil isn't the point.
The point is, he let's us suffer.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
And a question for you:
If God really is there, If God really is good, if God really is all powerful and all knowing, why must we humans take a test of Faith, if he already knows the outcome?
Does that mean there are things even God cannot predict? And if so, How can he predict the end of the world? How can he judge us for us actions if he already knows what we are doing and will do?
He is our creator. He gave us free will, yet he punishes us for that free will.
Explain that.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
God shouldn't punish us for our free choices? Make sure and tell a parent that about their rebellious child next time you see one.
God knows the outcome of our choices beforehand, but He is not going to judge us for choices we would have made. That would be immoral and outside His nature. Instead, He allows us to freely rebel against Him.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
Question: Besides failing to provide a single implicit contradictions between the two terms, you make another logical error. You judge God by a standard that doesn't exist. What moral standard is higher than God? God gave us our lives. He has full ownership over it. Remember, also, that in Christian theology, death is not the end, so death is not the worst thing possible! We are told to rejoice at the death of saints because being absent from the body is being present with God.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
You really believe that?
So if God say: Drop down and die, you will do so?
I question God by human Logic. I question his motives for even creating us in the first place, when he should already know what we where going to do.
It does not make a inch of sense that he would let us freely rebel, when a parent of a child would try to regulate what said child is doing.
There is not a single inch of proof of a God in the newer ages.
Nothing at all.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
God is a morally perfect agent. It is logically contradictory for Him to will evil. What you are asking is a logically nonsensical question.
So is it moral for a parent to chain a child up because they know there is a possibility that the child will rebel? Of course not! Part of love is the allowance of free choice, even if that choice is rebellion.
There are multiple arguments in favor of God's existence and not a single logically valid one against His existence.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
Please do present the multiple arguments that is in favor of God's existence.
I would love to have a read on it.
As for the rest of your rabble: If a child is rebelling in dangerous ways, it's GOOD for a parent to put said child in house arrest until the child can calm down and think clearly.
You do not let a child do whatever he or she wants, because that would be dangerous. You are supposed to protect your child from dangers, not allow the child to become danger.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological, Axiological, Christological, Argument from consciousness, Argument from contingency, Transcendental, etc.
I noticed that you used the words " You are supposed..." Based on what objective moral code are you basing this judgment on? Objective moral standards assume God's existence. Without knowing it, you are presupposing God's existence to make your argument.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
God already knows everything, so he will know that a man will take the life of another someday. He KNOWS it will happen. He created us, he has the power to stop the man from taking that life, but he doesn't.
So by your logic, if I take the life of someone, it's God's will. He already knew I would do it, and he did nothing to try and stop me. That would mean he would want me to do it.
Does that make any sense?
Of course not.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
I am still waiting for the logical argument.
Here, let me help you out.
If there is even a possibility that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing the existence of evil, then the logical problem of evil is defeated. Plantinga drove home this point. Now, thanks largely to him, the atheistic philosophical community has largely abandoned the logical problem of evil.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
If God really is there, Logically speaking, he would be doing some sort of "Miracle" here and now as he did in the Old testament.
We haven't seen any powers such as the ones described there at work.
Logically speaking, if he gave a single damn about what happens here at this planet, he would eradicate us humans completely.
For what we have done to this planet, should logically speaking be unforgivable.
If God really is there, let him strike me down right now.
Odd..nothing happened.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
Miracles: Really? You're being highly presumptuous of God. I agree with Bacon when he said that God doesn't wrought miracles to convince atheism as His ordinary works should do that.
Genocide: Ah! So it is morally good for God to wipe out humanity? Why complain about war then? Remember that God is all merciful along with being all just
Striking you down: It's a good thing God doesn't take orders from humans.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
There isn't a single evidence for a God being there.
There isn't a single evidence that we actually where created from dirt.
There isn't a single evidence that the Earth is the center of the universe.
There isn't a single evidence that the sun rotates around the Earth.
There is also not a single evidence of any "Miracles" at work.
If he loves us so damn much, why is he working so hard to keep himself hidden?
Let him test us in knowledge, not faith.
That would be logical.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
1. I can list over a dozen arguments for God's existence
2. Really? I thought we were carbon based?
3. Good thing the Bible never claims this
4. See 3
5. Christological argument, Kalam Cosmological argument
6. Hidden? Most of the world finds God's existence as a reality something easy to grasp and believe!
7. It's good to know you are more knowledgeable than an omniscient being. Oh wait, I think I just made a logical contradiction somewhere...
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
For being a omnipotent being, he sure is a evil little son of a bitch.
Instead of using his powers to quell the Egyptians to let the Hebrews go free, he killed their first born sons.
Instead of allowing people to use their "free will", he says kill everyone who believes in anything else but him.
Instead of proving that he really is there, he let's people like you go rampant saying that he is there, that we only have to believe without any evidence what so ever.
Not so smart now is it?
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
Francis Bacon once said that God never wrong miracles to convince atheism because His ordinary works should do that. God wants a personal relationship, not simple belief.
Again, I am still waiting for my logical argument.
Instead, you simply seem to think that humans in their finite knowledge, time, and space are more knowledgeable than an omniscient being, which is logically invalid
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
I think, that humans who have the capability of actually proving that we exist rather than a so called "smartass" in the sky who is incapable of solving problems other than Genocide, murder and plague, are smarter than this so called omnipotent being.
He isn't smart when he thinks humans will change for the better believing in him, crime rates prove otherwise.
He isn't smart when he, himself says: Kill all those who do not believe in my name.
That's a message of murder and war.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
First off, you cannot prove we exist. To do so, you assume human logic, which already assumes you exist, which is a circular argument. You simply accept it on faith.
Tell me this, if God wanted me to kill off all nonbelievers, why would he send Jesus into the world to save their lives? Why did Jesus tell us to love our enemy? Why did He command us to go and spread the Gospel to these lost nations? Why are you purposefully ignoring these facts you know full well?
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 This is a straw man argument. It is impossible to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt. However I can give you a very large amount of evidence supporting the existence of humans. You cannot give a lot of evidence supporting your deity. I can point, see, slap, lick, smell, hear, and even have sexual intercourse with another human. These are all evidence in supporting that humans exist. Not only that, but I can make accurate predictions about humans based on observation.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2
"He who lies in a glass house shall not throw stones"
I use that argument towards you now, for you have not answered the Genocidal part of the Bible.
You claim to have read it, yet it seems like you have no knowledge of it.
Words in the Bible are RARELY left for misinterpretation. It states VERY clearly what is God's will and what is not.
God's will is for his followers to stone those who dares question him.
God's will is for his followers to believe in him without any evidence.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
Genocide: I have! I showed clearly that not a single Christian was involved as you claim. Second, I show that your worldview has no basis for objective moral values
Stoning: Have you ever even heard of the Old Covenant and New Covenant and the differences between them?
Evidence: Obviously not! He provided the Holy Spirit as vindication of the truth of the Gospel. This personal experience of God far outweighs any empirical evidence.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Oh and about your little rant about "the Holy Spirit as vindication of the truth of the Gospel." By definition, the "Holy Spirit" is not a truth. Truth is any fact that has been verified. A fact is an event known to have happened or something known to have existed. You cannot verify your Deity because you don't have any tangible evidence it exists.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2
God is not something you can prove to exist. His so called "work" at normal miracles are very simply Mother nature doing her work.
There haven't been a single evidence nor event that couldn't be explained using modern science.
And besides, you are the one helping with the conspiracy theories towards Atheism.
In another one of your vids, you show Dawkins being confused over a Creationism question, even though that video have been proven false.
You are the one who is ignorant.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
That's just it! When you look at nature, you clearly see the teleology in it. The question is, do you take this to its logical conclusions, or do you try to explain it away?
Really? Kalam Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological, Axiological, and Christological arguments all clearly show evidence of God's existence just to name a few.
I do like that you refer to my other video. Read the comments I posted to others who questioned it for my explanation my usage of it.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
Last comment from me in regards of this subject, and don't you dare to think I'm backing out or is at a loss of words, it's only that this discussion is now both pointless, and is moving in circles.
YOU need to do more research on what you are talking about.
YOU need to look at Atheism and religion in general as someone standing on the sideline while wanting to discuss the subject.
You can't claim the one for being absolute, while the other being false without knowledge of them.
Bye.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
I need to do more research? I have provide massive amounts of evidence in favor of God's existence and all I am asking is that you back up your assertion for the one argument to make against God's existence. I have carefully researched both sides to every argument and have come away with Christian theism. Perhaps you should do the same.
Goodbye. Happy Hunting
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Point at him. If you can then that would prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@momoseth2
As for Morality, God, supposedly if he is real, should know that we humans would create war.
He knew from the instant he made us, that Eve would eat that Apple.
He knew from the instant that he made us, that we would go to war with each other.
He knew from the instant that he created us, that we would defy him.
WHY create a sentient being and then just punish them?
Self amusement? Just for the heck of it? For show to see suffering?
How is that logical to you?
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
I'm still waiting for an argument. I need premises and a conclusion! Asking a question isn't the same as making an argument. If you are to maintain that God and evil are mutually exclusive, by all means, show us! Do what no atheist has ever been successful in doing!
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
God is Evil and only that.
There are no proof on him being GOOD.
He killed himself to please himself to rid the world of Sins that HE himself created.
That's not logical, that's not good, that's stupid as fuck.
He brings suffering upon those who dares to believe in another God, as he himself have done NOTHING to prove that he is the only one.
That he will send me to hell for saying what is the truth about him even proves my point even further.
He have done nothing Good.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
1. Logical contradiction: An all moral being cannot be evil
2. Argument from ignorance fallacy. Plus, there is evidence (axiological and ontological argument)
3. Strawman
4. Question begging epithet fallacy.
5. Ipse-dixitism fallacy
6. Logically invalid statement. God is the foundation of truth in Christian theology. There is no truth beside Him.
7. First, by whose standard? What measuring stick are you using to judge morality? Second, logically invalid. God's nature is The Good.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
God is even more evil than the Devil himself.
He allows people to be deluded from the path he intended us to walk, he himself allows people to rebel towards the words of the Bible.
He allows it, because he does not see it fit to prove that he really is there.
He is omnipotent, but he needs people to worship him?
That's not the definition of a perfect being. That's the definition of a King wanting slaves to kneel before him without any reason other than: I am your King.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@momoseth2
God, as a whole, is not something I can nor ever will call Good.
You say he gives us the choice of life, yet he condemns those who makes a different choice than he intended.
God is Evil.
Only Good thing he ever did was to allow us humans to live on this planet, and that's where it stops.
If God is there, the time I die, I will find him and I will punch him for his foolishness of hiding himself constantly.
An omnipotent being afraid of showing himself...makes perfect sense.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@momoseth2
And if you still think that "God" is the above Morality as we know it, then why even bother to think about it in the first place?
If I say: God is a murderer, which he is by the way, you will refute that fact by saying: He is above moral and laws.
He is above his own Law: You shall not kill.
He is above his own Law: You shall never lie
He is a fucking moron.
A scientist watching over his rats would show the rats that he is still there to watch them.
God however, does not.
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@BenitoraSan
God isn't above morality, He IS morality.
Murder is the unlawful taking of one's life. Considering that every breath we take is a gift from God, God has no obligation to unnecessarily extend our lives. And, remember, death is not the end in Christian theology, it is only the beginning. God alone has right over our lives since we all belong to Him. Others do not. That is why the taking of another's life is immoral.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
He already knows the outcome, he already knows that half the world will not believe in him.
He already knows, that people like me find the whole concept of a God ridiculous is here.
Yet, he will do NOTHING. If he does nothing, then he is indifferent of his own creations.
And if he is Indifferent, then why care about him?
He Gave us free will in the garden of Eden. And punished us later for that same free will, when he knew what would happen.
Logic, how does it fucking work?
BenitoraSan 1 year ago
@momoseth2 and your providing evidence is.... the bible? hahahahaha
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
No. That would be circular. I use to Bible to form a conception of God, and then use evidence to test and see if the Biblical conception of God matches reality.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 gods the 1 who taught us about war rape and murder, and yes he also attempted to regulate it, or a pile of bronze-aged scumbags that want every1 to believe in their fairytale...
buktomsin 1 year ago
@momoseth2 so you assume to know gods morals? yes or no?
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
I assume that objective moral values do exist, and therefore, God exists, as He is the foundation for objective moral values.
momoseth2 1 year ago
Respond to this video... yea well i suggest you update yourself on this verse.. ISAIAH 45:7, yes thats god himself stating that he creates the"evil", that happens. and on top of that not explaining how these "current", pains were "in", wont exist! its ridiculous "ill patch you up later"... yea ok... well thats the oldest "scare tactic" in the effing book! jeez so now we must believe he'll be there cause without him theres nothing left except pain and misery and eweh! atheism!
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
Again, understanding your posts is difficult, but gathering what I could I can say that the "disaster" in Isaiah is contrasted with prosperity, meaning material wealth. Ever hear the saying that the good Lord giveth and the good Lord taketh away? God's punishment by abstaining from helping in the prosperity of the wicked does not in any way mean that evil originated with God. This argument is grasping at straws.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 ok i give but ill let you know this will leave any1 with reasonable doubt do its near anti-satisfying potential. but hey i just wish god desired a defense for himself just as much as you do, then maybe this convo wouldnt exist:( but eh leave it to the "believers", to fend for the god right...
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
The great thing about God is in knowing who He is. He doesn't have to demean Himself and come and attorney for His actions as if He were being put on trial by His creations for His actions. He is all good and all powerful. There is no external standard by which we could measure God's actions against, since He is the foundation for all morals and logic.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 you honestly believe that? wow
ok i hope i dont get ur gods death penalty then:(
buktomsin 1 year ago
@buktomsin
The thing about God is that He gave us free will. He doesn't force us to accept Him. Evil is simply an absence of God. God did not force us to love Him and stay with Him. Instead, He gave us a choice. We can either be with Him in all His goodness, or we can reject Him. He's not going to force our hand. That would not be loving. If we reject Him, we reject everything that is apart of Him, which includes His love, mercy, kindness, and peace of heart.
momoseth2 1 year ago
Respond to this video... and sorry but there simply is no santa...
buktomsin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@momoseth2 yea well i suggest you update yourself on this verse.. ISAIAH 45:7, yes thats god himself stating that he creates the"evil", that happens. and on top of that not explaining how these "current", pains were "in", wont exist! its ridiculous "ill patch you up later"... yea ok... well thats the oldest "scare tactic" in the effing book! jeez so now we must believe he'll be there cause without him theres nothing left except pain and misery and eweh! atheism!
buktomsin 1 year ago
Nice job!!
oleh2007 1 year ago
Hitler was a christian and worked hand in hand with the Catholic Church. Stalin was an atheist. Most others believed in some form of god, just not Christianity. Just because someone is not a christian doesn't mean they are automatically atheists. As to morals, I have no religious imperative to be "moral". I don't do good because I might be punished eternally for not doing nor because I am offered a reward for doing so. Most serial killers believe they're doing "God's will".
stevo92373 1 year ago
@stevo92373
Hitler was NOT a Christian. Recently discovered Nazi documents show the Third Reich's plan to eliminate Christianity. Bormann's statements comply with this.
Second, don't strawman my argument on morality. I am not claiming one has to be Christian to be moral, but that objective morality rests upon the existence of God. Most atheists, even ones like Hitchens, attempt to strawman the Christian position like this.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2,
1. There is no evidence against Santa as there is never evidence for a negative claim.
2. Define "kind". If different "kinds" of animals entered the Ark, explain how different species of, say, fruit flies came about without the help of evolution. Explain what happened to toxins created. Explain how minuscule insects survived.
3. If you believe speciation exists, explain how this reinforces any biblical claims.
4. I could claim Santa is neither complex nor simple.
[cont]
royalrangew8 1 year ago
@royalrangew8
1. Never evidence for a negative claim? What screwed up branch of philosophy do you follow?
2. All explained in whole on the AIG website
3. You miss the point. I am simply pointing out strawman arguments
4. A philosophically bankrupt idea. God CANNOT be complex because he is immaterial. Dawkins assumes materialism in his "proof" of the nonexistence of God, which begs the question.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2,
1. It means that you can't provide evidence that something does not exist. Can you provide evidence that there is no invisible ghost on top of you at this very moment? Of course not.
2. Sorry, what website?
3. ...?
4. Replace "God" with Santa. Santa CANNOT be complex because he is immaterial. Your argument remains unconvincing. Sure, God is immaterial but Santa can also be immaterial.
royalrangew8 1 year ago
@momoseth2
[cont]
5. "Disobeying God's order". That's not the message of the argument. The message is that people genuinely believe they are doing God's work, no matter how far off they really are from it (ie. they aren't doing it purposely to disobey God).
6. There is no such thing as an atheist regime. Sure, leaders like Stalin killed millions, but these leaders killed for the communist regime. Nobody kills "in the name of no God". That's absurd.
[cont]
royalrangew8 1 year ago
@royalrangew8
5. People can pervert God's word for their own purpose all they want, but this isn't a strike against God in any way! It is a strike against humanity.
6. This idea (from Dawkins, of course) is so ignorant of history that I do not even know where to begin.
Stalin's antitheistic agenda resulted in the deaths of thousands. Stalin's denial of God, and, thus, objective moral values, justified the mass murder of millions, since he was the highest authority in his worldview.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2,
5. People don't pervert "God's word" to acquire an excuse to slaughter a group of people. People genuinely believe they are doing god's work. Of course it's not a strike against God. The main message is that religious beliefs lead to violence.
6. "Stalin's antitheistic " - this is not atheism. Anti-theism =/= atheism. Stalin slaughtered under his communist regime. Stalin didn't kill because he didn't believe in God. He killed because religion threatened communism.
royalrangew8 1 year ago
@momoseth2
[cont]
7. "Atheism entails..." Atheism doesn't entail anything. Atheism is a lack of belief that's it. All morals are subjective; even God's morals are. Morals aren't physical or measurable properties; they're opinions. And atheists do have their OWN moral standards. And as such, discriminating against a certain group because you yourself see it as odd, is immoral to me.
8. Hitler was a Christian. It's written in Mein Kampf. AND under Nazi soldiers' belts.
[cont]
royalrangew8 1 year ago
@royalrangew8
7. Atheism is a philosophical position. Like it or not. It's denial of God's existence means it also must deny everything that rests on God's existence, as well, such as objective moral values. Just because something isn't material doesn't mean it doesn't exist! That begins the question toward materialism!!! Also, just because you don't like something in no way makes it wrong. Answer this, is torturing children for fun not absolutely wrong?
8. Read my comment to Steveo92373.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2,
7. "Just because something isn't material doesn't mean it doesn't exist"
Do you understand what opinions are and why different people have different opinions? Morals come from opinions, that's all it is. Just like if I claim the sunset is beautiful, doesn't mean "beauty" exists. You can also claim that it is not. Both views are neither correct nor incorrect because both of us have different opinions. That's precisely what morals are.
8. Sure I'd like to see evidence of those claims.
royalrangew8 1 year ago
@momoseth2
[cont]
9. I don't have faith that something does not exist, as I don't look for evidence of non-existence. It's illogical. Do you have faith that Peter Pan does not exist? I don't claim anything. I just ask for evidence of God. If there's none, I assume that this supposed God is non-existent. Just like the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. You'll expect a judge to dismiss the case if you have no evidence.
Sorry if my comment was too long. I just wanted to give a response.
royalrangew8 1 year ago
@royalrangew8
9. Even if there were no evidence (there is)for God's existence,that in no way entails that He doesn't exist. There may no evidence that the stock market will go up tomorrow, but that doesn't mean it won't go up.If I made the claim that the universe was devoid of life except for earth, I would have a "lack of belief", but at the same time, I still believe something else at the same time. In the same way, as a Christian, I could simply say I lack a belief in metaphysical naturalism
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
9. Replace "God" with any imaginative figure. Just because you can't see a ghost on top of your head, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you believe in peter pan, the boy who lived, or Casper the ghost? If you don't, why not? Is it because you've not seen evidence for any of these ridiculous claims?
-"no way entails that He doesn't exist"
That's why I'm an agnostic-atheist. I don't say for certain that God doesn't exist, like how I don't say for certain that Goldilocks doesn't exist.
royalrangew8 1 year ago
red does have a smell . . . its the smell of w/e it is on lolol.
Tiger4meat 1 year ago
@Tiger4meat
True, true...
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 lol
Tiger4meat 1 year ago
"Christian nations never ordered genocide" - Really? The last time I read a history book the whole idea of the Crusades was to exterminate those of the Islamic faith. This wasn't the only flaw in your video, but it was the most glaring one. Also, I would like to point out that during WW II, Germany was a Christian nation, Hitler was a Catholic and their uniforms has "Gott mitt uns" on them, lit. "God is with us"...Check your facts please, before posting shite.
Corneilius5188 1 year ago
@Corneilius5188
The term "genocide" didn't even come into existence until the twentieth century to describe the horrors of atheistic regimes.The Crusades were meant to retake the Holy Land, not eliminate Islam. Hitler was a pagan. Documents reveal the Nazi plan to eliminate Christianity. "Gott mitt uns" (slogan of the Wermacht) was the slogan long before Hitler. The SS, Hitler's personal guard and elite troop force, had no such slogan. Check your facts please
momoseth2 1 year ago
These rebuttals either don't make any sense (literally didn't understand some of the first couple of points) or makes statement of 'facts' with no supporting evidence.
portantwas 1 year ago
@portantwas
Name a fact
I'll provide a source.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 I didn't understand the 'foreign to Jews' in your first text.
'Also, claiming the birth narrative is incorrect based on this commits the genetic fallacy.' I don't understand what this means. Can you explain it in other words?
'There is no evidence against God.' ?? This leaves me stumped. ;-)
portantwas 1 year ago
@portantwas
Foreign to Jews: The Jews would have been unfamiliar to this character in history, so he could have left no impact on Jewish culture. VanCoffeeChick may as well have used Native American legends in their spot.
Genetic Fallacy: This is the fallacy that states that if you can explain where a belief came from, you show that belief to be false. The original video seems to imply that since virgin birth narratives were around before Jesus, the story of His birth is false.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Ok. I understand. But as someone who lives in the southern hemisphere can you provide evidence that the middle east had no influence from either European cultures or the Indian part of the East?
portantwas 1 year ago
@portantwas
While Jews would have had some European influences, the Parthian empire (whom Rome was in constant conflict with) would have prohibited any exposure 1st century Jews may have had to the eastern world. There is no record that the Jews had any knowledge of Buddha and Krishna and other Far Eastern religious characters. Even if there was, there would be no pressure for Jews to adopt beliefs from cultures that were enemies of Rome.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 There was exposure to Buddhism in the Grecian empire as early as 2nd and 1st centuries BC (that is on the outer borders of it to the north-east and east). Expanding empires and trade could easily cross-contaminate religion and philosophies both ways, even into the middle east. Anywhere slaves were traded (and slaves often came from long distances) the ideas flowed.
portantwas 1 year ago
@portantwas
I doubt Buddhism could have made any significant impact on Jews. There is no record of it. Even if they were exposed, there is no reason or evidence that it would have or could have affected their thinking. It is much more likely that a Greek or Roman god would have had a birth narrative stolen from.
Despite all this, the entire idea that the birth narrative was stolen, therefore it is false, commits the genetic fallacy.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Perhaps it can't be proven either way. However, Gods inseminating virgins was certainly in both Greek/Roman myths (usually when women swam in water) and in Egyptian mythology dating back many centuries earlier. The Virgin Mary myth has antecedents. To ignore this out of hand seems strange. Just saying.
portantwas 1 year ago
@portantwas
The argument that the birth narrative was stolen from Greco Roman culture was characteristic of the 2nd quest for the historical Jesus, but was rejected by the third. These myths would have been seen as blasphemous by the Jews. Anyway, Greco Roman influence does not predate the prediction of the virgin birth by Isaiah in the 8th century b.c.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@portantwas
Cont.
Evidence for God: Atheism entails the denial of God's existence. This requires evidence in the same way that saying "God exists" requires evidence. Denying God's existence without providing an argument to back up the claim makes that statement just as much a statement of faith as the statement that God does exist.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Can you provide evidence of God's existence?
To prove something doesn't exist (like unicorns, ghosts or aliens) in fact doesn't take much effort - there is no certain proof at hand. But to prove they do exist needs material evidence or even incidental evidence (leaving something behind that can be independently measured and not have a more mundane explanation.
I'm not saying God doesn't exist. I'm just saying that organised religion is more about humans than beyond our reality.
portantwas 1 year ago
@portantwas
While I wouldn't call it "evidence", since God is not a material being, there are some very good arguments for the existence of God, such as the kalam cosmological argument, ontological argument, axiological argument, teleological argument, the argument from contingency, Pascal's Wager, Plantingian argument for a proper basis, transcendental argument, and Christological argument. The evolutionary argument against naturalism and the argument from reason are good against materialism.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Each of these arguments can be refuted, so still no proof which is what you stated.
portantwas 1 year ago
@portantwas
Anything can technically be refuted. From this standpoint, there is no way for humanity to discover truth. The question isn't whether if these arguments have refutations or not, the question is is whether their premises are more likely than their denials. If this is true, then they are good philosophical arguments in favor of showing God's existence. I'm not out to "prove God's existence", I out to show that theism is the most ratinonal position to hold
momoseth2 1 year ago
PT 1
@momoseth2 I don’t see how theism is more rational than ‘non-theism’. Eg - there is a difference in ‘not believing in ghosts’ (when ghosts are not proven) and ‘not believing in ghosts’ (when scientific evidence says disembodied spirits haunt houses). The first is a subjective belief based on no facts ghosts exist; the latter a rejection of a proven fact (I reject proof of ghosts cos they freak me out).
portantwas 1 year ago
@portantwas
I would say the statement that God exists would fall in the middle. There are good arguments for God's existence, but no "proof" other than experiencial, which cannot be quantified scientifically. Also remember that the first belief is not irrational. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absense." Carl Sagan.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2 Your statement that there is ‘no way for humanity to discover truth’ leads to Agnostism not Theism. Refutations test the facts (and are tested themselves in the process). Refutations can be more sound that the original statement of belief, therefore more rational.
portantwas 1 year ago
@portantwas
I do believe that humans can discover truth. Let me clarify. Despite this fact, one cannot ever escape the fact that a different philosophy position cannot be disproven. The rational acceptance of basic beliefs should entail a belief in theism, but one could always deny these beliefs. I do not believe that either you or I believe our basic beliefs to be invalid. Refutation of theistic arguments (especially the teleological or kalam cosmological) are all weak or baseless in my eyes.
momoseth2 1 year ago
On disbelieving Santa/God:
Despite having good reason to believe Santa is really just a story made up by our parents there is no way to disprove he actually exists.
Same with God.
The issue is that rational belief hinges on what CAN be proved not what can't.
So, until someone can actually prove that Santa/God exists there is no compelling reason to accept it as fact.
People believe in these things because they are told they are true at an impressionable age.
joshkarandora 1 year ago
@joshkarandora
All one has to do to prove God does not exist is to show that the idea of God is logically inconsistent. I propose that it is impossible to prove a positive (see solipsism).
There are good arguments for the existence of God, but even if there weren't, one has the right to believe in God based on the Plantingian argument from a proper basis.
Not everyone gains faith in God at a young age. St. Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Hugh Ross, and Francis Collins all came to believe as adults.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
A good way to explain this is to consider a "trend" people gravitate toward when converted at a later age.
A Muslim would be more likely to convert to believing in Christ as opposed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster correct?
Why? because although they don't grow up believing, they still can be affected by cultural superstitions and the cultures are similar.
If Lewis had converted to Buddhism that might be significant, but he didn't. He adopted a superstition familiar to him.
joshkarandora 1 year ago
@joshkarandora
You're comment is devoid of any solid reasoning. C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity based on the evidence in favor of Christianity, not from cultural influences. The cultural elite after WW1 were slowly becoming more atheistic, not theistic.
Barring all this, you're committing the genetic fallacy. Even granting that one believes based on culture (which I do not grant), this, in no way, entails that the belief is false.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
There are a lot of apologetics which can convince even an otherwise rational a person. Those apologetics are the cultural superstitions I was talking about.
As an Atheist even I am not immune. Sometimes, I take the lord's name in vain. Its not rational it's an artifact of my culture.
So, if belief isn't based on culture why don't we have spontaneous conversion to Christianity?
Those superstitions need to worm their way into the mind before anyone accepts them.
joshkarandora 1 year ago
@joshkarandora
You seem to believe apologetics are irrational. All apologetics are grounded in logic. If you want to provide evidence for why you believe Christianity is nothing more than a superstition, you are welcome to do so.
People don't convert instantly because that would be irrational. Who believes anything worldview changing when they hear it the first time? They rationally look at the arguments made in favor of it and, if convincing, switch opinion.
momoseth2 1 year ago
@momoseth2
You just refuted yourself.
Before you said belief isn't based on culture (which includes knowledge)
Now you just said it would be irrational for someone to convert without the cultural knowledge for specific religion.
So, which is it?
joshkarandora 1 year ago