Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What would it take for the atheist to believe in God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    Why? It is based on consistent and reliable objective verifiable evidence, where as theological beliefs in God are subjective and very variable and inconsistent and without objective variable evidence.

    All the Theological apologetic arguments require assumptions based on belief.
    Philosophical naturalism is based on a belief and is not based on verifiable evidence.

    Definition:

    naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.



    How does one demonstrate that that is true? You can't, it is an unverifiable belief.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

      This hypothetical subjective view of possibly how 'some people' consider miracles does not address the objective reason why atheists reject the existence of God. Atheists understandable seriously question the validity of miracles past and present. The bottomline for atheists is objective verifiable evidence for such claims, and this includes the existence of God.
      It is far from hypothetical. If by "subjective" you mean "personal," I will agree. Many ordinary things are real but not scientifically verifiable. Miracles are frequently a matter of "you had to be there." The questioning is understandable, but trying to investigate them as though they are some application of natural laws is not.

      Of course, among those who strive to explain subjective miracles claim a source other than Gods(s) they because the 'cannot bring themselves to reject miracles' and attribute Many groups that deal with speculation of the supernatural come up with many different explanations, but not atheists.
      Yes, even atheists. There is always the "it is a perfectly natural occurrence resulting from unknown causes defence, or the "mass hallucination" defence.

      Not an issue in this thread, but claims of the theory of JEDP being destroyed is a very biased over statement. Theologians vary in their view from liberal to very conservative interpretation.
      How do you manage to read "Both [authors] destroy her claim that JEDP is the hypothesis accepted by the overwhelming majority of Theologians" as "the theory of JEDP being destroyed"?

      Supporters of JEDP are now in the minority, and often admit that the earlier claims were over-stated. Nonetheless, I do state that JEDP is destroyed based on my own investigations of what it claims as evidence. It is a simple matter to step proponents through what they consider viable evidence and allowing them to see the logical inconsistency of the claims. Even so, a certain amount of editing and redacting cannot be denied.
      Last edited by tabibito; 12-21-2021, 12:34 PM.
      1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
      "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        It is far from hypothetical. If by "subjective" you mean "personal," I will agree. Many ordinary things are real but not scientifically verifiable. Miracles are frequently a matter of "you had to be there." The questioning is understandable, but trying to investigate them as though they are some application of natural laws is not.
        You just defined why atheists consider miracles 'subjective,' because personal claims of miracles are only meaningful to those who experience them, or those that are willing to accept them without 'objective verifiable evidence.



        Yes, even atheists. There is always the "it is a perfectly natural occurrence resulting from unknown causes defence, or the "mass hallucination" defence.
        No, atheists rarely claim there is . . . "is a perfectly natural occurrence resulting from unknown causes defence, or the "mass hallucination" defence." These would be anecdotal 'hand wave' claims.It is simply the lack of any consistent 'objective verifiable evidence' that atheists is the basis for atheists rejecting miracles


        How do you manage to read "Both [authors] destroy her claim that JEDP is the hypothesis accepted by the overwhelming majority of Theologians" as "the theory of JEDP being destroyed"?

        Supporters of JEDP are now in the minority, and often admit that the earlier claims were over-stated. Nonetheless, I do state that JEDP is destroyed based on my own investigations of what it claims as evidence. It is a simple matter to step proponents through what they consider viable evidence and allowing them to see the logical inconsistency of the claims. Even so, a certain amount of editing and redacting cannot be denied.[/QUOTE]

        No references provide that represent the broader view of Theologians view of JEDP, since most Theologians take a conservative view of the Bible. 'Argument from popularity' is not convincing. The editing and redacting is only part of the argument for JEDP For example: Assumptions of authorship among conservative Theologians bias their views of JEDP hypothesis.

        An interesting overview of JEDP: http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5system_moses/dh10.aspx
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-21-2021, 12:58 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment



        • Dick Harfield
          , lives in Sydney, Australia
          Answered May 1, 2018

          The following comment on the JEDP hypothesis shares my view. .Yes, the original hypothesis is no longer accepted, but the JEDP hypothesis has evolved since.


          Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-documentary-hypothesis-JEDP-still-widely-accepted-What-new-discoveries-could-disprove-it-What-new-discoveries-could-strengthen-it



          The Documentary Hypothesis is evolving away from the version first put forward in the nineteenth century by Julius Wellhausen, and will continue to evolve as scholars look to improve it. Wellhausen’s Hypothesis is no longer widely accepted, but nearly all scholars believe that the Pentateuch really was developed by multiple scholars in the first millennium BCE and that some variant of the Documentary Hypothesis must eventually be as close to the truth as we can possibly hope to be. They say nothing else has been suggested that explains the Pentateuch better than the Documentary Hypothesis.

          © Copyright Original Source


          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            You just defined why atheists consider miracles 'subjective,' because personal claims of miracles are only meaningful to those who experience them, or those that are willing to accept them without 'objective verifiable evidence.
            With regard to most claims of miracles, I am agnostic - though I do consider how likely they are to be true. I'm not going to criticise people for being sceptical.

            No, atheists rarely claim there is . . . "is a perfectly natural occurrence resulting from unknown causes defence, or the "mass hallucination" defence." These would be anecdotal 'hand wave' claims.It is simply the lack of any consistent 'objective verifiable evidence' that atheists is the basis for atheists rejecting miracles
            Mostly, yes. Circumstances where the atheist will be confronted with material that they can't write off are rare. That is when the "unknown natural occurrence" or "mass hallucination" defences are brought into play.

            'Argument from popularity' is not convincing.
            I was not advancing an opinion that it is - simply demonstrating that a claim was incorrect.

            The editing and redacting is only part of the argument for JEDP
            And close to the only part of the argument that ever (and by no means usually) withstands scrutiny, though a fair number of the claims must be classified as inconclusive.

            Assumptions of authorship among conservative Theologians bias their views of JEDP hypothesis.
            Sometimes - at other times assessments are based on available evidence. [and I am usually in the minority, and certainly not a conservative - both of which have been demonstrated often enough on this site.]



            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
            "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=tabibito;n1335376]

              With regard to most claims of miracles, I am agnostic - though I do consider how likely they are to be true. I'm not going to criticise people for being sceptical.



              Mostly, yes. Circumstances where the atheist will be confronted with material that they can't write off are rare. That is when the "unknown natural occurrence" or "mass hallucination" defences are brought into play.



              I was not advancing an opinion that it is - simply demonstrating that a claim was incorrect.
              This ia where I believe you have failed as noted in post #469


              [quote] And close to the only part of the argument that ever (and by no means usually) withstands scrutiny, though a fair number of the claims must be classified as inconclusive.



              Sometimes - at other times assessments are based on available evidence. [and I am usually in the minority, and certainly not a conservative - both of which have been demonstrated often enough on this site.
              In response to the bold I have been on this site for many years, and I have not found no such argument on this site that would conclude that the JEDP hypothesis has been destroyed.

              I believe the discussion on the JEDP hypothesis is worthy of a separate thread. In this and other sites I investigated on the opposition they cited scripture to defend their objections which was circular relying on citations of scripture.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1335396][QUOTE=tabibito;n1335376]

                In response to the bold I have been on this site for many years, and I have not found no such argument on this site that would conclude that the JEDP hypothesis has been destroyed.
                I said: "I am usually in the minority, and certainly not a conservative - both of which have been demonstrated often enough on this site."
                In earlier years on this site, my opinion of JEDP was very much a minority opinion - suddenly, I find myself in the majority group.
                No one on this site has ever accused me of being a conservative. {ETA - there was one person who thought I might be Eastern Orthodox. IRL that is reasonably common when I interact with members of the Eastern churches. I will frequently be mistaken as a member of someone else's Eastern Church - as in, not a member of the same Eastern church as the person I am interacting with.}

                I believe the discussion on the JEDP hypothesis is worthy of a separate thread. In this and other sites I investigated on the opposition they cited scripture to defend their objections which was circular relying on citations of scripture.
                I might even consider participating in such a discussion.
                Last edited by tabibito; 12-21-2021, 11:44 PM.
                1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                "It's bigger inside" might work for a TARDIS - it doesn't work for a bronze sea.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post

                  And philosophical naturalism is not a rationally defendable position.
                  It needs to be assumed by both perspectives that the existence of God nor the non-existence of God are not provable nor even conclusively rationally defendable positions. because neither position can be logically proven nor convincing to either side..

                  The question at hand is 'What would it take for the atheist to believe in God?'


                  The dominant view among what may be called Metaphysical Naturalists is not the belief that there is a logical argument that proves God does not exist, but that 'there is no reason nor objective verifiable evidence that God(s) exist.

                  The Metaphysical Naturalist may argue that there is a rational argument basis not proof that our physical existence may be explained that the sources of our physical existence can be explained in terms of Natural Laws and and natural processes. There is no objective verifiable evidence for any other possible source.

                  What argument could the Theist provide that would be rationally defendable alternative?
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-03-2022, 08:35 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by tabibito, 05-12-2022, 10:42 PM
                  36 responses
                  168 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post tabibito  
                  Started by whag, 05-10-2022, 06:04 PM
                  5 responses
                  55 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-02-2022, 09:53 AM
                  70 responses
                  380 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                  Started by lee_merrill, 04-24-2022, 06:02 PM
                  138 responses
                  763 views
                  1 like
                  Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                  Started by shunyadragon, 04-20-2022, 12:01 PM
                  223 responses
                  1,309 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Working...
                  X