The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[carpedm9587]

Pretty sure that was what I wrote in the first post in this thread. But glad to see someone saying the same thing 63 pages later, and amused to see people are still posting in this thread.

That's a cultural thing, and is heavily affected by the proportion of atheists in your country. In my country almost 50% of the people on the census say they have no religion, and a large proportion of those who do happen to report a religion on the census don't actually actively practice it. So if someone asks your religion (not that they commonly do) and you say "atheist" they would just shrug and move on because chances are about half their friends are atheists, and they're perfectly aware atheists aren't going to ridicule them for any faith they do or don't have themselves. The current and previous two elected leaders in my country happened to be atheists and approximately no one cares. Whereas in the US, it seems to be considered political suicide at the federal level to admit to being an atheist.

For now...

[Jedidiah]

I have found that pretty much all logical arguments for an against the existence of a god encounter problems at one point or another, and scientific arguments tend to fail altogether. My beliefs concerning the existence of a god are more experiential than they are definitively logical/scientific. There is nothing in my experience that speaks to the existence of a god, ergo I do not add one to the universe just because I was raised to believe there is one, or because others believe there is one. And each idea of "god" I have encountered is simply too riddled with internal contradictions or simply nonsensical (to me) statements.

So you would say that there are no valid arguments against the existence of God? You are basing your rejection on personal experiences. Is that right?

[lee_merrill]

I have to admit, I have never found this particular argument all that compelling.

Well, I'm surprised, you will hear people say that they want something falsifiable, and the four kingdoms of Daniel are eminently falsifiable. The Ottomans, and more recently Hitler tried to be a fifth kingdom, and they failed.

Blessings,
Lee

[Roy]

Well, I'm surprised, you will hear people say that they want something falsifiable, and the four kingdoms of Daniel are eminently falsifiable. The Ottomans, and more recently Hitler tried to be a fifth kingdom, and they failed.

The British empire, on the other hand, covered more are than any of your 4 kingdoms, and since it was largely peacefully dissolved by letting the constituent parts have independence (the US being the main exception) cannot really be said to have failed.

Why does this not refute the prophechy?

[carpedm9587]

So you would say that there are no valid arguments against the existence of God? You are basing your rejection on personal experiences. Is that right?

I have not encountered a logical or scientific argument for the existence of god that doesn't have holes. It seems reasonable to me that this would be so. We're talking about a metaphysical being that (often) transcends logic. As a metaphysical being, how could scientific arguments begin to prove or disprove it? As a transcendent being, how could logical arguments be adequate?

AFAICT, the notion of god is a matter of faith. Hopefully, it is an informed faith. But I don't see how you could "prove" your god exists anymore than I can disprove it.

[carpedm9587]

Well, I'm surprised, you will hear people say that they want something falsifiable, and the four kingdoms of Daniel are eminently falsifiable. The Ottomans, and more recently Hitler tried to be a fifth kingdom, and they failed.

Blessings,
Lee

Prophecy is a tricky thing, Lee. For a prophecy to be demonstrably a prophecy, it has to meet some specific criteria:

1. It has to be offered at a time prior to the incidents it predicts (I claim to have predicted my son would ride home from school with me today - but there is not way for me to prove I made that prediction BEFORE that ride - the claim of prophecy is dubious).
2. It has to unambiguously refer to those incidents (If I say, "a child will ride with me in my back driver's side seat," the prophecy is vague enough that any future child riding in my back, driver's side seat will meet the terms, so it's not specific to a particular incident).
3. It has to be such that knowledge of the prophecy cannot be used to artificially create the outcome (knowing that someone predicted my child riding in my seat, it would be easy for me to insist my son ride on the driver's side back seat and so meet the terms of the prophecy).
4. The event the prophecy predicts has to unambigously be shown to have occurred (If I just claim my son rode back there, I am offering little proof that it actually happened. Someone's acceptance will depend on their sense of me as a credible reporter, the nature of the claim, etc.)

I didn't make that list up. It actually comes from an Old Testament course I took in the seminary. I have yet to encounter a "prophecy" that doesn't fail on one point or another, and most on multiple such points.

Having said that - I have to admit I am really not up to going back through all of the research I've done over the years and addressing the various prophecies found in the christian scriptures. Been there - done that. If you bring one up I have never encountered, I'd be happy to look at it. If I've already looked at it, I just don't have the time to do it all again. I can tell you right now that I've dug into Revelation and most of the Major/Minor prophets in the OT.

If thatmakes my claim suspect, so be it. Feel free to write me off.

[shunyadragon]

So you would say that there are no valid arguments against the existence of God? You are basing your rejection on personal experiences. Is that right?

Arguments for the diversity of the different God(s) are based on personal experience.

[crepuscule]

What attribute attributed to God cannot possibly be attributed to the self Existent Uncaused Existence?

[crepuscule]

I'm not sure how this necessary follows, (...)

(...) OR that it shows there is no god. Are you implying there is necessarily only one uncaused existence? If so, I don't see how that flows from the previous statements. Am I missing something?

[carpedm9587]

So this is by definition of "god" as creator of everything that exists? There are certainly other definitions of "god" for which this does not necessarily apply, so I'm assuming this argument is in the context of the traditional Christian definition of "god."

I would agree. First of all - we cannot even say definitively that there IS an uncaused cause. Second, there are other possible candidates besides "god."

[crepuscule]

So this is by definition of "god" as creator of everything that exists? There are certainly other definitions of "god" for which this does not necessarily apply, so I'm assuming this argument is in the context of the traditional Christian definition of "god."

I would say being the only uncaused existence

I would agree. First of all - we cannot even say definitively that there IS an uncaused cause. Second, there are other possible candidates besides "god."

Quite.

[lee_merrill]

The British empire, on the other hand, covered more are than any of your 4 kingdoms, and since it was largely peacefully dissolved by letting the constituent parts have independence (the US being the main exception) cannot really be said to have failed.

Why does this not refute the prophechy?

I take this prophecy to be about the kingdoms that followed the Babylonians, kingdoms over that area. No one has ever reconquered Europe...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Prophecy is a tricky thing, Lee. For a prophecy to be demonstrably a prophecy, it has to meet some specific criteria:

1. It has to be offered at a time prior to the incidents it predicts (I claim to have predicted my son would ride home from school with me today - but there is not way for me to prove I made that prediction BEFORE that ride - the claim of prophecy is dubious).
2. It has to unambiguously refer to those incidents (If I say, "a child will ride with me in my back driver's side seat," the prophecy is vague enough that any future child riding in my back, driver's side seat will meet the terms, so it's not specific to a particular incident).
3. It has to be such that knowledge of the prophecy cannot be used to artificially create the outcome (knowing that someone predicted my child riding in my seat, it would be easy for me to insist my son ride on the driver's side back seat and so meet the terms of the prophecy).
4. The event the prophecy predicts has to unambigously be shown to have occurred (If I just claim my son rode back there, I am offering little proof that it actually happened. Someone's acceptance will depend on their sense of me as a credible reporter, the nature of the claim, etc.)

That's why I like to focus on "forever" prophecies, such as "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited," which are falsifiable at any time.

If you bring one up I have never encountered, I'd be happy to look at it. If I've already looked at it, I just don't have the time to do it all again. I can tell you right now that I've dug into Revelation and most of the Major/Minor prophets in the OT.

How about Babylon?

Blessings,
Lee

[carpedm9587]

That's why I like to focus on "forever" prophecies, such as "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited," which are falsifiable at any time.

How about Babylon?

Blessings,
Lee

The problem, Lee - is that such prophecies are unsubstantiated. You see - one of the requirements I listed is that the prophecy be unambiguoously associated with the event it foretells. we will only know if this particular prophecy is fulfilled when...well...never. Because we haven't reach the end of time - so "forever" isn't done yet.

This is the type of "sleight of hand" many prophets use.

[Roy]

I take this prophecy to be about the kingdoms that followed the Babylonians, kingdoms over that area. No one has ever reconquered Europe...

What has Europe got to do with it? The Babylonian empire didn't include Europe. It was centred around the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.

There were lots of Kingdoms that followed the Babylonians which you haven't addressed. The Seljuqs, for instance. The Sasanians.

Can you justifiably exclude them for reasons that don't apply to any of your four?