The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Starlight]

So where are the examples of limbs regrowing that I'm too "blind" to see.

You need to see it through the eyes of faith, Tass. Your normal eyes show the limbs not regrowing. But if you scrunch up your faith really, really hard, you can convince yourself they really are regrowing.

[One Bad Pig]

I've read the reviews of Keener's book.

[One Bad Pig]

You need to see it through the eyes of faith, Tass. Your normal eyes show the limbs not regrowing. But if you scrunch up your faith really, really hard, you can convince yourself they really are regrowing.

You've obviously not read the book either. What was regrown was seen by "normal" eyes.

[Tassman]

You need to see it through the eyes of faith, Tass. Your normal eyes show the limbs not regrowing. But if you scrunch up your faith really, really hard, you can convince yourself they really are regrowing.

My bad! I keep forgetting that "faith can move mountains"...metaphorically speaking of course.

[Tassman]

You've obviously not read the book either. What was regrown was seen by "normal" eyes.

Surely you don't mean the vague, unsubstantiated hearsay accounts as quoted by Keener, including one from televangelist Pat Robertson about an alleged amputee healing somewhere in Ghana. Yeah, that's convincing.

[One Bad Pig]

Surely you don't mean the vague, unsubstantiated hearsay accounts as quoted by Keener, including one from televangelist Pat Robertson about an alleged amputee healing somewhere in Ghana. Yeah, that's convincing.

Ah yes, insults from the self-admittedly ignorant. How humiliating.

[shunyadragon]

Ah yes, insults from the self-admittedly ignorant. How humiliating.

There definitely needs to be more documentation for the claims in Keener's book other than second or third hand anecdotal claims.

[Jedidiah]

Back to the argument question, which after all is the topic of the OP, what evidence is there that there is no god? Nothing but a non sequitur about lack of scientific evidence. As I and others have pointed out before this does not speak to the question at all. No scientific evidence is to be expected of a creator who is not part of the creation, and the conclusion of no god is not supported by the evidence or lack thereof.

[Tassman]

Back to the argument question, which after all is the topic of the OP, what evidence is there that there is no god? Nothing but a non sequitur about lack of scientific evidence. As I and others have pointed out before this does not speak to the question at all.

Positing the existence of a god is an argument from ignorance, a non-testable hypothesis.

No scientific evidence is to be expected of a creator who is not part of the creation,

If a creator god intervenes in the natural world then one would expect evidence of the intervention.

and the conclusion of no god is not supported by the evidence or lack thereof.

Neither is the conclusion of a god.

[Jedidiah]

Positing the existence of a god is an argument from ignorance, a non-testable hypothesis.

The entire idea of testability is completely meaningless in this field.

If a creator god intervenes in the natural world then one would expect evidence of the intervention.

Depends on how He intervenes, if He does.

Neither is the conclusion of a god.

There is certainly no scientific evidence, but as you have been told multiple times there are other sorts of evidence.

[Tassman]

The entire idea of testability is completely meaningless in this field.

So 'blind faith' is the way to go?

Depends on how He intervenes, if He does.

If God involved himself in the natural world then this would be measurable via scientific methodology. Although one wonders how an immaterial deity can interact with the material world, where do they connect?

There is certainly no scientific evidence, but as you have been told multiple times there are other sorts of evidence.

Such as?

[One Bad Pig]

There definitely needs to be more documentation for the claims in Keener's book other than second or third hand anecdotal claims.

Well, well, another astute commentator who hasn't actually bothered to read the work in question.

@Tassman - while I'm no fan of Pat Robertson, he rather lacks the imagination to make up an entire book on miracles out of whole cloth - and your source seems to have failed to mention that for the miracle in question Pat Robertson's account is cited for providing additional detail (in other words, he's not the main source for the account).

Does anyone who's actually read the work have anything to say? Further assertions from the willfully ignorant are unworthy of a response.

[crepuscule]

Back to the argument question, which after all is the topic of the OP, what evidence is there that there is no god?

What, again?

And incidentally, have you answered the OP yet?

[shunyadragon]

Well, well, another astute commentator who hasn't actually bothered to read the work in question.

@Tassman - while I'm no fan of Pat Robertson, he rather lacks the imagination to make up an entire book on miracles out of whole cloth - and your source seems to have failed to mention that for the miracle in question Pat Robertson's account is cited for providing additional detail (in other words, he's not the main source for the account).

Does anyone who's actually read the work have anything to say? Further assertions from the willfully ignorant are unworthy of a response.

I have read the book, and may refer to it in the future, and yes, it is an attempt to record the 'reports' of miracles, and testimonies from around the world in many cultures throughout recorded history.

The problem remains, ALL of his references are anecdotal, and third hand at best records and testimonies of 'miracles,' and no objective verifiable evidence to confirm the miracles is provided.
The universal 'report' of miracles is not evidence of miracles. It only reflects the human desire for miracles to justify what they want to believe.

The book was recommended? Why? What is the purpose of recommending a book that is simply a record of the anecdotal claims of miracles in history with no basis in objective verifiable evidence?

This anecdotal listing of miracles is not credible justification of miracles, that everyone can simple read about in many other historical records. Nothing new here.

The word following 'miracle' in the dictionary is 'mirage.'

[One Bad Pig]

I have read the book, and may refer to it in the future, and yes, it is an attempt to record the 'reports' of miracles, and testimonies from around the world in many cultures throughout recorded history.

The problem remains, ALL of his references are anecdotal, and third hand at best records and testimonies of 'miracles,' and no objective verifiable evidence to confirm the miracles is provided.
The universal 'report' of miracles is not evidence of miracles. It only reflects the human desire for miracles to justify what they want to believe.

The book was recommended? Why? What is the purpose of recommending a book that is simply a record of the anecdotal claims of miracles in history with no basis in objective verifiable evidence?

This anecdotal listing of miracles is not credible justification of miracles, that everyone can simple read about in many other historical records. Nothing new here.

Assuming you've actually read it, you've done a bang-up job of mischaracterizing it (which is not a surprise, given your penchant for misreading just about every source you cite here). Quite a few of the accounts Keener supplies include corroboration by medical doctors. It seems that any amount of hand-waving is justified in order to sustain disbelief in miracles.

The word following 'miracle' in the dictionary is 'mirage.'

That's nice.