The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[tabibito]

Can you point me to some of the posts where this happened? Having read through the last few pages of this thread, all I see is Christians asserting he is wrong, but very little in the way of evidence to support that.

Aside from the refusal to acknowledge what words actually signify, do you mean? Or disallowing the evidence available from any source other than those that he approves? And even then, he hasn't been able to demonstrate that "he was raised" "he lives" "he recovered" mean anything other than what they say (except by dint of the aforementioned refusal.) His entire argument relies on disallowing even evidence available from within the scant body of text that he does acknowledge.
The only evidence (so called) that he can provide in support of his position is "Paul saw Christ in a vision therefore everyone who saw Christ saw him in a vision." The claim is irrational ... "I saw Richard Dawkins on television, therefore everyone who saw Richard Dawkins saw him on television." Even if his argument had a skerrick of validity, it would fail to support the contention that Christ was not raised bodily from the dead.
Even if he could demonstrate that the words don't mean what they say, there remains the fact that Paul's experience was not only post resurrection but post ascension. At least some of the other experiences were post resurrection and pre-ascension. Paul saw the resurrected Christ in heaven, others saw the resurrected Christ on Earth (and the TV analogy holds even more thoroughly because of it). But that evidence will be disallowed because Paul doesn't mention them in his letters to people who are well familiar with the basics. It is as if people are expected to rehash basic information that they know is well familiar to their audience in letters that are not relevant to the basics.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm glad you agree. The discussion is about the earliest literature not the decades later embellished accounts contained in the gospels and other late literature.

That's an ignorant position to take - even more ignorant than usual, for you. Acts - which is where Paul's encounter with Jesus Christ is recounted - is at least later than the first gospel account attesting to a bodily resurrection.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Regardless of Luke's later physical resurrection view and his adding of an ascension to the story, the appearance to Paul was still a "vision/revelation" i.e. a SPIRITUAL ENCOUNTER which he places in the same list as the "appearances" to the others without a distinction in nature. If you accept that the appearance to Paul was a "vision" then you can't claim the appearances to the others mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were more "physical."

[Tassman]

That's an ignorant position to take - even more ignorant than usual, for you. Acts - which is where Paul's encounter with Jesus Christ is recounted - is at least later than the first gospel account attesting to a bodily resurrection.

Nevertheless the only encounters of Paul and those listed in the 1 Cor 15 Creed, (which together comprise the earliest record) are of some form of powerful spiritual experience, presumably similar to the conversion experiences claimed by modern Christians.

[tabibito]

I should base my opinions on claims that original documents were produced in the same time frame as acknowledged copies of those originals? Even in the absence of the following facts, such an opinion would be worthless - regardless of the field it referred to. The date when the copies were produced says nothing about the date that the originals were produced.

When one of those copies shows the original to have been produced by someone who knew (but was not one of) the disciples of Jesus-before-his-crucifixion.
When that same copy declares that contemporaneous others were documenting the events of Jesus during his time on Earth.
When Paul declares - twice - that written records of those events existed.


I feel free to base my opinions on the available evidence.

The claims that you would have me accept as valid are based on nothing - they are not even as much as arguments from silence: such scant evidence as does exist indicates that the claims you would have me believe are incorrect.

[One Bad Pig]

Nevertheless the only encounters of Paul and those listed in the 1 Cor 15 Creed, (which together comprise the earliest record) are of some form of powerful spiritual experience, presumably similar to the conversion experiences claimed by modern Christians.

Your opinion is duly noted.

[Sparko]

Can you point me to some of the posts where this happened? Having read through the last few pages of this thread, all I see is Christians asserting he is wrong, but very little in the way of evidence to support that.

Have fun: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-Christ

[JimL]

I don't think there exists any single 'knock-out' arguments either way.

There are obviously specific arguments that can be levied against particular religions based on particular religious teachings. But I think that overall the most powerful general argument for atheism is a general evidence-based one: We can reasonably expect that if there was a god then the world would be different in a number of ways. (this is somewhat cheating in terms of being a single argument because there are sub-components):
(a) there would be less diversity of religions within the world and it would be more obvious that a particular religion was right rather than them all having a roughly equal lack of evidence for them
(b) there would be obvious miracles that occurred in the world, and the invention of everyone having cellphones and video cameras should mean that youtube should have a hundred thousand compelling videos of miracles happening, and the international media would be able to provide video footage of a person's leg growing back as the shaman prayed over the person.
(c) Religious people who felt they had been 'given a message from God' would be right more often and agree with each other more.
(d) there would be less naturally occurring suffering in the world (disease, earthquakes, etc).
(e) a deity could create the world and the life on it instantly, but everything we know about astronomy and biology tells us that naturalistic processes over billions of years were what formed our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, and evolved life on it.

To phrase it as a single argument: The world as I observe it does not show any of the kinds of thing I would expect to see in a world created by or actively interfered with by a deity, whereas the observed world seems entirely consistent with the lack of a deity. Thus the weight of the observed evidence points to atheism (or something close to it - e.g. that the deity's interference is minuscule).

In my opinion the best argument is related to John Lockes question of "why is there something rather than nothing." That question has never been, and can never be answered, and it's a question that applies to both the Universe and to God, if he/she/it should exist. But since there is no answer in either case, and we have empirical evidence that the universe exist, then there is no reason to assume that there is any answer, other than it just is. That there is "something rather than nothing" is just a brute fact, and there is no reason to move the goal post, so to speak, from universe to God. The argument that the "Something" that just is must be timeless and changeless, and therefore that "something" must be God, then being that God is timeless and changeless, he couldn't create anything, he couldn't do anything. The only way that time and change could be, is if they are attributes of the nature of the Something that has always existed.

[Sparko]

In my opinion the best argument is related to John Lockes question of "why is there something rather than nothing." That question has never been, and can never be answered, and it's a question that applies to both the Universe and to God, if he/she/it should exist. But since there is no answer in either case, and we have empirical evidence that the universe exist, then there is no reason to assume that there is any answer, other than it just is. That there is "something rather than nothing" is just a brute fact, and there is no reason to move the goal post, so to speak, from universe to God. The argument that the "Something" that just is must be timeless and changeless, and therefore that "something" must be God, then being that God is timeless and changeless, he couldn't create anything, he couldn't do anything. The only way that time and change could be, is if they are attributes of the nature of the Something that has always existed.

That's not even an argument. It's just you stating your opinion.

as far as God changing things: The ONLY thing that can make a change when there is no time, is an intelligent agent who is not bound by time. Your argument just defeated the Big Bang. How did the singularity that expanded into the universe, creating time and space, expand if there was no time, and expand into what if there was no space?

[shunyadragon]

That's not even an argument. It's just you stating your opinion.

as far as God changing things: The ONLY thing that can make a change when there is no time, is an intelligent agent who is not bound by time. Your argument just defeated the Big Bang. How did the singularity that expanded into the universe, creating time and space, expand if there was no time, and expand into what if there was no space?

Of course there are many unknowns concerning the nature of our physical existence, but it does not justify an 'argument from ignorance' to justify the existence nor non-existence of God.

It is 'possible' that the Quantum zero-point energy world outside our universe is timeless. and singularities form due to Quantum Gravity within a timeless matrix. The theoretical alternatives how any possible universe forms remains the cutting edge of science may never be definitively falsified, and remain a mystery, but than again the mystery may be resolved in the future.

[Sparko]

Of course there are many unknowns concerning the nature of our physical existence, but it does not justify an 'argument from ignorance' to justify the existence nor non-existence of God.

It is 'possible' that the Quantum zero-point energy world outside our universe is timeless. and singularities form due to Quantum Gravity within a timeless matrix. The theoretical alternatives how any possible universe forms remains the cutting edge of science may never be definitively falsified, and remain a mystery, but than again the mystery may be resolved in the future.

Typical Shuny... "does not justify an argument from ignorance to justify the existence nor non-existence of God" then proceeds to make an argument from ignorance to justify the existence of the universe.

[tabibito]

That's not even an argument. It's just you stating your opinion.

But ... he did admit that it is an opinion.

[shunyadragon]

Typical Shuny... "does not justify an argument from ignorance to justify the existence nor non-existence of God" then proceeds to make an argument from ignorance to justify the existence of the universe.

False, I described it in terms of 'possibilities' that there could be a natural explanation for the origins in terms of the theories and hypothesis of the existence of multiverse(s), of all possible universes including our own. The conclusion is clear, because of the present lack of evidence there is no basis for an argument for or against God.

I was not 'arguing from ignorance,' because I was not proposing, nor arguing for a possible conclusion, to the question of the existence nor non-existence of God. For the fallacy 'arguing from ignorance' to apply I would have to propose a possible logical conclusion as to whether God exists or not, based on a lack of evidence therefore . . .

The Laws of Nature concerning the nature of the Quantum World are not dependent on the existence 'time' nor 'space.' I propose that the physical verifiable evidence is neutral to any argument for or against the existence of God.

On the other hand you were proposing a possible argument for the existence of God based on the possibility of the lack of time, and the fact that it is unknown how a singularity could form in the medium of Quantum World Multiverse without time and space as we know it in our universe.

. . . as far as God changing things: The ONLY thing that can make a change when there is no time, is an intelligent agent who is not bound by time. Your argument just defeated the Big Bang. How did the singularity that expanded into the universe, creating time and space, expand if there was no time, and expand into what if there was no space?

[JimL]

That's not even an argument. It's just you stating your opinion.

That doesn't even make sense.

as far as God changing things: The ONLY thing that can make a change when there is no time, is an intelligent agent who is not bound by time.

Says who, based on what? How does a timeless, changeless agent, do anything?

Your argument just defeated the Big Bang. How did the singularity that expanded into the universe, creating time and space, expand if there was no time, and expand into what if there was no space?

I don't think its known what lies outside our universe of spacetime Sparko, or that it began as a singularity.

[Sparko]

False, I described it in terms of 'possibilities' that there could be a natural explanation for the origins in terms of the theories and hypothesis of the existence of multiverse(s), of all possible universes including our own. The conclusion is clear, because of the present lack of evidence there is no basis for an argument for or against God.

I was not 'arguing from ignorance,' because I was not proposing, nor arguing for a possible conclusion, to the question of the existence nor non-existence of God. For the fallacy 'arguing from ignorance' to apply I would have to propose a possible logical conclusion as to whether God exists or not, based on a lack of evidence therefore . . .

The Laws of Nature concerning the nature of the Quantum World are not dependent on the existence 'time' nor 'space.' I propose that the physical verifiable evidence is neutral to any argument for or against the existence of God.

On the other hand you were proposing a possible argument for the existence of God based on the possibility of the lack of time, and the fact that it is unknown how a singularity could form in the medium of Quantum World Multiverse without time and space as we know it in our universe.

you made up metaphysical woo while I was using logic not "argument from ignorance"

I was pointing out that JimL's objections would preclude the existence of the universe instead of just God.

a personal agent with free will can cause a change where a nonpersonal agent cannot. If there is no space and no time then it would take a freewill decision to create change. Now you propose a previous universe that is the cause of the big bang. But that only moves the problem back one level. Sure you can make up whatever you want to, but again it is indeed "argument from ignorance" since you have no idea what caused the big bang to go bang or if there is any previous universe(s) or anything. You are ignorant of any information yet you make the argument. Argument from ignorance.