|
|
| Author |
Message |
fancypants
Newbie Alert
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: No God |
 |
|
| I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1534
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: Re: No God |
|
|
| fancypants wrote: | | I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real? |
No, or what would be the point in faith? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
Alley Cat
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
fancypants wrote:
| Quote: | | I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real? |
Can I prove that there was a guy named Jesus that was killed on a cross? Yes! Can I prove that there is a God and the Jesus was the son of God? No but I can give valid sound arguments as to why you should believe that there is a God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fancypants
Newbie Alert
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ragman13 wrote: | fancypants wrote:
| Quote: | | I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real? |
Can I prove that there was a guy named Jesus that was killed on a cross? Yes!
|
Ok, why don't we start with this.
| Quote: |
Can I prove that there is a God and the Jesus was the son of God? No but I can give valid sound arguments as to why you should believe that there is a God. |
we'll get to these after the first point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fancypants
Newbie Alert
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: Re: No God |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | fancypants wrote: | | I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real? |
No, or what would be the point in faith? |
So how can we have intellectual honesty and faith simultaneously? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5718
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject: Re: No God |
|
|
| fancypants wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | fancypants wrote: | | I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real? |
No, or what would be the point in faith? |
So how can we have intellectual honesty and faith simultaneously? |
 not everyone here is Christian, or even theist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1534
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: No God |
|
|
| fancypants wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | fancypants wrote: | | I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real? |
No, or what would be the point in faith? |
So how can we have intellectual honesty and faith simultaneously? |
That, my friend, is the mystery of the ages. If you can find an answer for it, please do share. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
Alley Cat
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death |
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123
---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
| Quote: | | Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases. |
All sources found at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html
Thats just a start.
fancypants what are your objections to a historical Jesus? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6671
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So how can we have intellectual honesty and faith simultaneously? |
The two are not necessarily inconsistent.
Faith in something that has been demonstrated to be false would indeed infringe upon intellectual honesty, but faith in itself, or faith in that which is unproven (either true or false) does not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
Faith in something that has been demonstrated to be false would indeed infringe upon intellectual honesty, but faith in itself, or faith in that which is unproven (either true or false) does not. |
I don't know about that. I would argue that the most intellectually honest position to take is the one of skepticism. If someone says to you that they saw a ghost last night or that aliens came and visited them, and they don't have a shred of evidence other than their say-so, then it would be less intellectually honest to give them the benefit of the doubt than it would be to be skeptical.
As for faith in something that has been demonstrated to be false, I agree that this is even worse, but there are millions of religious people who do this. You do it yourself by insisting that God created humans separately from the animals, when it has been conclusively demonstrated by science that this is false; the same process which created all life on Earth also created us.
You're going to argue that special creation has not been demonstrated to be false, but anyone can say the same thing about any phenomenon.
For example, there are lots of people (some of them on this very discussion board) who believe through faith that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. This was shown to be false a long time ago.
But much like you don't accept the scientific arguments for human evolution, so do they refuse to accept the scientific arguments for the universe being billions of years old.
The issue really comes down to this: We all agree that having faith in something which has been demonstrated to be false is an example of intellectual dishonesty. But NOBODY believes things which THEY know to have been falsified. That's the definition of 'believe'.
So the question becomes: Who decides when something has been demonstrated to be false? Me? You? Who?
I argue that science is the only reasonable candidate for deciding when something has been demonstrated to be false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6671
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | I don't know about that. I would argue that the most intellectually honest position to take is the one of skepticism. If someone says to you that they saw a ghost last night or that aliens came and visited them, and they don't have a shred of evidence other than their say-so, then it would be less intellectually honest to give them the benefit of the doubt than it would be to be skeptical. |
Your example fails in that God's existence isn't based upon the 'say-so' of some dude.
| Quote: |
As for faith in something that has been demonstrated to be false, I agree that this is even worse, but there are millions of religious people who do this. You do it yourself by insisting that God created humans separately from the animals, when it has been conclusively demonstrated by science that this is false; the same process which created all life on Earth also created us.
You're going to argue that special creation has not been demonstrated to be false, but anyone can say the same thing about any phenomenon.
For example, there are lots of people (some of them on this very discussion board) who believe through faith that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. This was shown to be false a long time ago.
But much like you don't accept the scientific arguments for human evolution, so do they refuse to accept the scientific arguments for the universe being billions of years old. |
Take this to the appropriate forum please. We don't want to derail this thread.
| Quote: | So the question becomes: Who decides when something has been demonstrated to be false? Me? You? Who?
I argue that science is the only reasonable candidate for deciding when something has been demonstrated to be false. |
The problem is that science is not a sentient thing, it cannot decide when something has or hasn't been demonstrated to be false. Additionally, nothing in science, or those who engage in the study of science has ever demonstrated that God does not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5718
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Additionally, nothing in science, or those who engage in the study of science has ever demonstrated that God does not exist. |
Because such a thing is impossible as theists have defined away God's falsifiability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | P123 wrote: | | I don't know about that. I would argue that the most intellectually honest position to take is the one of skepticism. If someone says to you that they saw a ghost last night or that aliens came and visited them, and they don't have a shred of evidence other than their say-so, then it would be less intellectually honest to give them the benefit of the doubt than it would be to be skeptical. |
Your example fails in that God's existence isn't based upon the 'say-so' of some dude. |
It's based on the say-so of many dudes whose writings were compiled into a book. So I guess a more apt analogy for me to make would involve a group. So let me rephrase:
If a bunch of people INDEPENDENTLY claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrials, they write a bunch of books about it, and they don't have a shred of evidence other than their say-so, then it would be less intellectually honest to give them the benefit of the doubt than it would be to be skeptical.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: |
As for faith in something that has been demonstrated to be false, I agree that this is even worse, but there are millions of religious people who do this. You do it yourself by insisting that God created humans separately from the animals, when it has been conclusively demonstrated by science that this is false; the same process which created all life on Earth also created us.
You're going to argue that special creation has not been demonstrated to be false, but anyone can say the same thing about any phenomenon.
For example, there are lots of people (some of them on this very discussion board) who believe through faith that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. This was shown to be false a long time ago.
But much like you don't accept the scientific arguments for human evolution, so do they refuse to accept the scientific arguments for the universe being billions of years old. |
Take this to the appropriate forum please. We don't want to derail this thread. |
I guess that's one way to deal with a tough question you can't answer.
I'm NOT derailing this thread. Evolution is only an EXAMPLE in a much broader point I'm trying to make, and that point is right-smack-on-topic.
I'm talking about faith in something which has been demonstrated to be false, which is EXACTLY what you were talking about.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | So the question becomes: Who decides when something has been demonstrated to be false? Me? You? Who?
I argue that science is the only reasonable candidate for deciding when something has been demonstrated to be false. |
The problem is that science is not a sentient thing, it cannot decide when something has or hasn't been demonstrated to be false.
|
True, but a massive group of the best experts we have (we call them the scientific mainstream) sure can.
| RevJP wrote: |
Additionally, nothing in science, or those who engage in the study of science has ever demonstrated that God does not exist. |
Sure; I agree. But science is all about skepticism, so a scientific world-view implies a default disbelief in God until sufficient evidence is provided to warrant a belief in His existence.
But what does this have to do with the original question,
| Quote: | | So how can we have intellectual honesty and faith simultaneously? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 750
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: Re: No God |
|
|
| fancypants wrote: | | I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real? |
Why bother, your mind is already made up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:06 am Post subject: Re: No God |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | | fancypants wrote: | | I don't believe in god. or jesus. can someone prove they're real? |
Why bother, your mind is already made up. |
Not true. If God exists, then He could EASILY prove to any atheist that He is real. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
