The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[seer]

A falsehood?

You said "And if you make the claim it is on you to justify it. "
You haven't justified your claim that "God is not physical. At least not in the sense that we understand physical."

That would be the classic biblical understanding Roy. And you know it Roy. And that was the point idiot, God would not be open to scientific testing, idiot. But whether the the New Testament was written as a fairy tale is a claim that needs to be justified, idiot. And can be.

[JimL]

That would be the classic biblical understanding Roy. And you know it Roy. And that was the point idiot, God would not be open to scientific testing, idiot. But whether the the New Testament was written as a fairy tale is a claim that needs to be justified, idiot. And can be.

I didn't say that the N.T. was written as a fairy tale in the sense that it was meant to be understood as such. I'm sure that the gospel authors wanted their readers to believe in the reality of the events they wrote of, that they may have even believed those things themselves, but the fact that they believed what they wrote doesn't make what they wrote any more of a reality. Their belief doesn't make it so! Its a fairy tale because its BS, plain and simple. Flesh and blood can't walk on water, two fish can't feed thousands, demons don't live in our bodies, mountains can't be moved by believing, the long time dead don't climb out of their graves and chat with the locals, people don't become paralyzed from sinning, and they are not cured of paralysis by forgiveness, etc etc etc. Its a fairy tale!

[seer]

Their belief doesn't make it so! Its a fairy tale because its BS, plain and simple. Flesh and blood can't walk on water, two fish can't feed thousands, demons don't live in our bodies, mountains can't be moved by believing, the long time dead don't climb out of their graves and chat with the locals, people don't become paralyzed from sinning, and they are not cured of paralysis by forgiveness, etc etc etc. Its a fairy tale!

Right and that is your bottom line Jim, miracles can't happen.

[Adrift]

That would be the classic biblical understanding Roy. And you know it Roy. And that was the point idiot, God would not be open to scientific testing, idiot. But whether the the New Testament was written as a fairy tale is a claim that needs to be justified, idiot. And can be.

Calling Roy an idiot I don't think helps whatever point you're trying to make here seer. It makes you come across as frustrated more than anything.

Roy, if you're really interested in how theists might justify claims for God's immateriality, probably a good place to start would be with cosmological and ontological arguments. So, one argument is that, if all material came into being at the Big Bang, it would seem to require some sort of transcendent reality to bring it into being. It would also require something vastly powerful, timeless, and likely personal. Another reason to think that God is immaterial is that, if he is both eternal and immutable (and there are arguments to suggest that he must be), only an immaterial being could be immune from change. An immaterial God would also better explain his ability to be omnipresent. As an immaterial being, God would not be extended in space. Relating to all of the above, the concept of divine simplicity requires God to be immaterial. Furthermore, arguments from mind suggest that if minds are immaterial, they require a conscious being to make them in his likeness.

There are probably a slew of other justifications for the claim that God is not physical that I'm not remembering. These are just the ones that come immediately to mind. Just so you know, I'm not at all interested in defending any of these justifications. There is plenty of literature out there that goes into them all in great detail. A couple recommendations include The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, and Scaling the Secular City. At any rate, you're of course free to reject all of these justifications, or deem them completely ridiculous and silly. I just wanted to point out that justifications, regardless of how you might perceive them, do exist.

[seer]

Calling Roy an idiot I don't think helps whatever point you're trying to make here seer. It makes you come across as frustrated more than anything.

It was early, I over reacted - Roy seems to bring out the worst in me. But an immaterial God would not be subject to the scientific rigors that many atheists seem to demand. That however does not bear on the validity or His existence or non-existence.

[psstein]

The gospels cannot be assessed as either historically accurate or inaccurate given that they are not based upon eyewitnesses and cannot be verified by the usual historical criteria.This would include multiple pieces of evidence, such as artefacts, or independent contemporary sources etc. But there are none.

In my non-internet life, I'm a historian. So I know quite a bit about this kind of thing. There are many accounts in ancient history that do not have multiple supporting pieces of evidence, independent sources, etc. Nobody doubts the fundamental historicity of them.

No, I do know this. This is the view of every NT scholar, historian of Christianity, etc. in the world who teaches at an accredited university. The gospels testify to how Jesus' message was remembered and interpreted by Christian communities.

Many historical works from the ancient world relate miraculous occurrences. That doesn't make them ahistorical. Nobody discounts Josephus for his reports of miracles.

[Jedidiah]

It was early, I over reacted - Roy seems to bring out the worst in me. But an immaterial God would not be subject to the scientific rigors that many atheists seem to demand. That however does not bear on the validity or His existence or non-existence.

This is simply a statement that the truth about God is not in any way influenced by science. God is not a part of the creation if, as we Christians believe, He created it from no existing matter. You can make all the (JimL and tassman) statements to that effect but they are nothing more than personal incredulity.

[JimL]

This is simply a statement that the truth about God is not in any way influenced by science. God is not a part of the creation if, as we Christians believe, He created it from no existing matter. You can make all the (JimL and tassman) statements to that effect but they are nothing more than personal incredulity.

As opposed to the "nothing more than the personal credulity" of believers. Those of you who believe, do so simply because you want to believe, most of you neither knew, or know still, anything about the cosmological, ontological arguments that were later dragged out to support their belief. Non-believers on the other hand, base their disbelief on the evidence for god, for which there is none.

[JimL]

Right and that is your bottom line Jim, miracles can't happen.

No, my bottom line is that they don't happen, so I don't base my judgement concerning them on an ancient book that says they did happen. I'd be willing to bet that if someone came to you and claimed to have experienced or witnessed any of those things, those miraculous things, today, you wouldn't believe them.

[One Bad Pig]

No, my bottom line is that they don't happen, so I don't base my judgement concerning them on an ancient book that says they did happen. I'd be willing to bet that if someone came to you and claimed to have experienced or witnessed any of those things, those miraculous things, today, you wouldn't believe them.

Good to know that your preconceived notions trump evidence. I'd ask you to consider reading Craig Keener's book on miracles, but I'm not sure your mind could take the cognitive dissonance required to get through it while maintaining your skepticism. Even Gary couldn't get all the way through it.

[Jedidiah]

As opposed to the "nothing more than the personal credulity" of believers. Those of you who believe, do so simply because you want to believe, most of you neither knew, or know still, anything about the cosmological, ontological arguments that were later dragged out to support their belief. Non-believers on the other hand, base their disbelief on the evidence for god, for which there is none.

Do you choose a self existent universe or a self existent creator. Science does not help with that decision. If you think it does you are fooling yourself. I choose a creator because it seems more likely to me. I choose the God of Christianity because it is the only one who seems to me to fit my observations of the world and my comparisons with other religions. You, if you reject god because of lack of scientific evidence you are fooling yourself. You choose what you find less incredulous - as do I.

[Adrift]

As opposed to the "nothing more than the personal credulity" of believers. Those of you who believe, do so simply because you want to believe, most of you neither knew, or know still, anything about the cosmological, ontological arguments that were later dragged out to support their belief. Non-believers on the other hand, base their disbelief on the evidence for god, for which there is none.

That hasn't been my experience, nor the experience of many other Christians I know. First of all, plenty of Christians have come to their worldview through rational arguments. But even those who do not, still often come to their worldview through other forms of evidence. I know many Christians who've come to faith in Christ through personal experiences in their lives, or by seeing a radical change in someone else's life. Some people come to their worldview through philosophical questions and deep personal contemplation without knowledge of systematic theology. They look at the world around them, and see the evidence of God in creation. They see evidence in the purpose of life. They see evidence in the existence of good and evil. They ask themselves, "where did this all come from?" "what is it all about?" "where are we all going in the end?"

Now you may have never asked yourself these questions, nor found any of this evidence particularly powerful, but millions and millions of others have. To lay blanket claims that believers simply believe because they want to, and disbelievers never do that is intellectually dishonest.

[Jedidiah]

There is evidence, just not scientific evidence.

[Doug Shaver]

There are many accounts in ancient history that do not have multiple supporting pieces of evidence, independent sources, etc. Nobody doubts the fundamental historicity of them.

Could I trouble you for a typical example?

[JimL]

Good to know that your preconceived notions trump evidence. I'd ask you to consider reading Craig Keener's book on miracles, but I'm not sure your mind could take the cognitive dissonance required to get through it while maintaining your skepticism. Even Gary couldn't get all the way through it.

Not a preconceived notion, there is no evidence of anything other than the existence of the natural world and natural law.