Most Christians accept evolution

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

>There is a huge amount of evidence that black holes exist, and very strong
>circumstantial evidence for the Higgs . . .

Agreed. But the same can be said for God. (i.e. he parted the Red Sea, Jesus healed lepers etc) Thus the weakness in the argument "if there's evidence for it, it exists" (or more accurately "if there's no evidence it doesn't exist.")

Stories in a neolithic peoples mythology do not belong in the same category of "evidence" as, say, the standard model of physics which has been exhaustively tested over and over again and makes predictions accurate to the limit of our experimental capabilities of testing them.

If "God" were to part the Red Sea tomorrow with a bunch of geologists, hydrologists and geographers recording the event I might agree with you. The stories of goat herders --- nope.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,130]

>There is no cirmumstancial evidence of God.

Sure there is. God parted the Red Sea, flooded the Earth, stopped the Sun for an hour etc. You can, of course, decide that's not good evidence (as many do.)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>There is no cirmumstancial evidence of God.

Sure there is. God parted the Red Sea, flooded the Earth, stopped the Sun for an hour etc. You can, of course, decide that's not good evidence (as many do.)

No, in order for it to be circumstancial evidence you have to first assume that the stories actually happened and then assume that a God exists to have been the cause of these things happening.


Are the stories of Superman circumstancial evidence that Superman exists??

Or more to the point are the stories of Zeus circumstancial evidence that Zeus exists?

[billvon 3,130]

>No, in order for it to be circumstancial evidence you have to first assume that the
>stories actually happened and then assume that a God exists to have been the cause
>of these things happening.

True of science as well. You have to trust the research that came before. (To paraphrase Isaac Newton, you have to trust the giants you are standing on.) Since they are generally pretty trustworthy that's usually a good bet.

>Are the stories of Superman circumstancial evidence that Superman exists??

If they're presented as factual? Yes. (I'd call it very poor evidence, but that's just me.)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

True of science as well. You have to trust the research that came before. (To paraphrase Isaac Newton, you have to trust the giants you are standing on.) Since they are generally pretty trustworthy that's usually a good bet.

No you don't have to trust the research. You can test it for your self if you want to.

[billvon 3,130]

>No you don't have to trust the research. You can test it for your self if you want to.

And people can base their religious beliefs on their own life experiences (God helping someone get off drugs, for example.)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>No you don't have to trust the research. You can test it for your self if you want to.

And people can base their religious beliefs on their own life experiences (God helping someone get off drugs, for example.)

That isn't evidence that can be tested. It's based on an assumption which can not be verified.

[billvon 3,130]

>That isn't evidence that can be tested.

Sure it can. The person could try a dozen times to get off drugs, only to succeed when they use God. They can then compare their experience to others who succeed (or don't succeed.) And that might mean that the existence of God makes sense TO THEM.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God (or the absence of God.) I am just pointing out that not everyone who believes in God is as foolish or as shallow as the atheists here seem to think.

[beowulf 1]

The point is there is no evidence to support the existence of any deity.

Just because people claim that their god helped them get off drugs doesn't mean their god exists or that he helped them get off drugs. It's not evidence that their deity exists.

There needs to be evidence of a deity before it's reasonable to conclude that one exists.

People believe all kinds of unreasonable things. Just because lots of people believe in deitys doesn't make it any more reasonable.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I am just pointing out that not everyone who believes in God is as foolish or as shallow as the atheists here seem to think.

We can do this all day long. There is no convincing argument that believing in a deity is not foolish. In order to believe in a deity you must first assume one exists. Why? because there is no evidence to support the existence of any deity. Every claim that god did this or god did that, first assumes god exists. The logic just doesn't work. It is foolish.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

>There is no cirmumstancial evidence of God.

Sure there is. God parted the Red Sea, flooded the Earth, stopped the Sun for an hour etc. You can, of course, decide that's not good evidence (as many do.)

I think you might be confusing the bible with "evidence." There is no evidence of these events whatsoever outside of the bible.

There is no record at all of the Jews even being enslaved in Egypt let alone parting the Red Sea or wandering the desert for 40 years. The Egyptians kept pretty good records for those days and we have no record of this. They certainly didn't build the pyramids. The movie 'The Ten Commandments' is not considered scientific evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.

If the sun went out or "stopped" when Jesus was crucified, why is there no record of it anywhere but the gospels? Certainly the other advanced civilizations around the world would have noticed the sun "stopping for an hour."

Edited to add: The flood story is so patently absurd it doesn't qualify for a response.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

I am just pointing out that not everyone who believes in God is as foolish or as shallow as the atheists here seem to think.

I know a lot of believers who're rational intelligent people until they start talking about their faith. For some reason they manage to overwrite their common sense and rationality in favour of idiotic believes. Interestingly at the same time they're perfectly able to reason why other religions are false.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

If they're presented as factual? Yes. (I'd call it very poor evidence, but that's just me.)

So if you present something as factual then it's a form of evidence??? You have a very low standard for evidence, even if you call it poor evidence.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

I am not trying to prove the existence of God (or the absence of God.)

Despite what many seem to think here, I am not trying to nor have I ever tried to prove that any deity doesn't exist. It's not possible. I am not the one making a claim. I am simply pointing out that there is no evidence to back the claims that many people have that a deity exists, specifically the Christian God. The final fall back for all of their arguments has been faith. Faith is belief with out evidence, so please don't claim there is evidence to support the existence of the Christian God. Otherwise faith would be unnecessary.

In my opinion it is foolish to believe something exists when there is no evidence to even suggest that it does.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The final fall back for all of their arguments has been faith.

See, this is true. And I find it really wierd.

faith should really be their first position and their only position - and by definition that should be sufficient - for them

the rest is weak rationalization


however, for those asking for "proof" of what's unproveable, maybe if they stopped that strawman, then those insecure about their faith would stop trying to construct something to answer the question

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

Quote

however, for those asking for "proof" of what's unproveable, maybe if they stopped that strawman, then those insecure about their faith would stop trying to construct something to answer the question

It's not a strawman argument. Many Christians claim they have evidence that their God is real. So it only makes sense to ask what is this evidence. In the end no evidence has ever been submitted. All their arguments assume that their God exists and therefore falls apart when approached with critical thinking.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

however, for those asking for "proof" of what's unproveable, maybe if they stopped that strawman, then those insecure about their faith would stop trying to construct something to answer the question

It's not a strawman argument. Many Christians claim they have evidence that their God is real. So it's only makes sense to ask what is this evidence. In the end no evidence has ever been submitted. All their arguments assume that their God exists and therefore falls apart when approached with critical thinking.

it absolutely is a strawman.. just because they set themselves up by claiming "PROOF!!" on matters of "faith" (or they are just ignorant enough to not really know the difference) doesn't mean you have to pretend to not know the difference yourself just get a few pokes in

your last sentence about assumptions and critical thinking doesn't even apply in the subject - it's battling a question that isn't even answered.......

As far as I'm concerned, any religious (not just christian) person that claims they have "proof" is just someone that is weak in their "faith"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

Quote

it absolutely is a strawman.. just because they set themselves up by claiming "PROOF!!" on matters of "faith" (or they are just ignorant enough to not really know the difference) doesn't mean you have to pretend to not know the difference yourself just get a few pokes in

You are assuming there would never be proof. Which is possible and I think most likely. I prefer not to assume.

No it's battling a question that they think they have answered. I am just attempting to show them it's not actually answered.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

>That isn't evidence that can be tested.

Sure it can. The person could try a dozen times to get off drugs, only to succeed when they use God. They can then compare their experience to others who succeed (or don't succeed.) And that might mean that the existence of God makes sense TO THEM.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God (or the absence of God.) I am just pointing out that not everyone who believes in God is as foolish or as shallow as the atheists here seem to think.

Thank you billvon. Excellent post. The vast majority of those in successful addiction recovery are maintaining sobriety with a belief in God as they understand Him.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

Quote

>That isn't evidence that can be tested.

Sure it can. The person could try a dozen times to get off drugs, only to succeed when they use God. They can then compare their experience to others who succeed (or don't succeed.) And that might mean that the existence of God makes sense TO THEM.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God (or the absence of God.) I am just pointing out that not everyone who believes in God is as foolish or as shallow as the atheists here seem to think.

Thank you billvon. Excellent post. The vast majority of those in successful addiction recovery are maintaining sobriety with a belief in God as they understand Him.

So in a couple hundred years when no one believes this horse shit any more we'll all be alcoholic crack heads?

Makes total sense.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

>That isn't evidence that can be tested.

Sure it can. The person could try a dozen times to get off drugs, only to succeed when they use God. They can then compare their experience to others who succeed (or don't succeed.) And that might mean that the existence of God makes sense TO THEM.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God (or the absence of God.) I am just pointing out that not everyone who believes in God is as foolish or as shallow as the atheists here seem to think.

Thank you billvon. Excellent post. The vast majority of those in successful addiction recovery are maintaining sobriety with a belief in God as they understand Him.

Measuring the success rate of AA and other similar programs is very difficult and often disputed. What evidence do you have to support your claim that belief in God increases the success rate for those dealing with addiction?

[billvon 3,130]

>It's not a strawman argument.

It almost always is. It usually goes like this:

Christian: I believe in Jesus Christ, the only son of . . .
Atheist: Bullshit. What proof do you have he existed?
Christian: Well, his life has been chronicled by dozens of writers throughout time
Atheist: No, I mean what proof do you have that he's a magical fairy who turns water into wine?
Christian: I never claimed he was a magical fairy.
Athest: See? I ask for proof and you REFUSE!

Claiming "he is a magical fairy" (or whatever an atheist imagines God or Jesus is) is a classic strawman argument. They're not debating what the person believes, they are debating what they IMAGINE the person believes - because it's easier and they're lazy.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

So in a couple hundred years when no one believes this horse shit any more we'll all be alcoholic crack heads?

Makes total sense.

Why wait? You can be one now.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Measuring the success rate of AA and other similar programs is very difficult and often disputed. What evidence do you have to support your claim that belief in God increases the success rate for those dealing with addiction?

Go to an AA/NA meeting and see for yourself.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[deltron80 0]

Quote

Christian: I believe in Jesus Christ, the only son of . . .
Atheist: Bullshit. What proof do you have he existed?
Christian: Well, his life has been chronicled by dozens of writers throughout time

Actually it was not "chronicled" by any of his contemporaries at all. But hey, "throughout time" is good enough.