IF...

[atheist buddy]

I've had several theists make this argument:

I believe in talking donkeys and zombies and virgin births because IF God exists and he has the power to do anything then talking donkeys and virgin births can happen.

First of all, is anybody confused at all about the fact that when somebody says "If X is true then Y is true", then Y hasn't been demonstrated to be true until X has been demonstrated to be true?

In other words, if somebody says "If God exists then donkeys can talk", then the belief in the possibility of talking donkeys hasn't become reasonable until we have extablished the existence of God, indipendently of the talking donkey.

By analogy, imagine somebody said "If Jenny was at Steve's neighborhood yesterday at noon, then it's possible she could have been the murderer who killed Steve in his house yesterday at noon". It doesn't become reasonable to say that Jenny could possibly have killed Steve, until we have etablished that she was in his neighborhood at that time.

If we cannot establish that she was in his neighborhood, we cannot use the notion that she as in his neighborhood to establish she was the murderer. Similarly, if we cannot establish that god exists, we cannot use the notion that he exists to establish that talking donkeys could be possible.

Secondly, if somebody were able to establish that a God capable of making donkeys talk or getting virgins pregnant existed (nobody has in the last 10,000 years), then, by the argument above, he would have only succeded in making a case for talking donkeys and virgin births being possible. Not in demonstrating that they actually happened.

The Jenny/Steve analogy still applies. If you somehow demonstrate that Jenny was in Steve's neighborhood when he was killed, then you've only demonstrated that it's possible that she killed him, you have not demonstrated that she actually killed him. You still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that she killed him. And you still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that God actually caused a donkey to talk.

Lastly, think of the most outrageously absurd, patently impossible thing you can imagine. I dunno, that Bin Laden had the power to turn water into wine, or that Hitler resurrected German soldiers with the power of the Holy Spirit, or that Pontius Pilate was born of a Virgin. If a God who has the power to bend the laws of physics exists, then all of those things are possible, and no less so than the talking donkey or Jesus's virgin birth. An argument that demonstrates anything, actually demonstrates nothing.

Question for debate: Is there any merit to the theist argument I depicted above?

[Mithrae]

To another point, there is another contributor who is saying this part of my argument is sound, but my fallacy is that I simply believe because the Bible says so! I believe this is an unfair, and premature assessment! I have labored to demonstrate that this is not the case, and maybe I have not made that case, but I assure you, I do not believe simply because "the Bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" I have studied the Bible intently, and I have read it the way I read and listen to everything else, which is in a critical manner! I have also stated that, "I would rather not believe, but I am compelled to believe, and I have been compelled by the evidence!" As I have also said, "it is impossible for me to share all the reasons for my belief in this format!" It is not my intent, nor do I believe that I can persuade anyone here on this site to believe as I do. I am here simply to converse with those of other beliefs in order to understand what others believe and why they believe it!

To clarify, I didn't mean (and I don't think I said) that you or Christians in general trust the bible blindly or simplisticly - though many do - merely that it's the bible which is the basis for belief in certain miraculous claims (not some vague theistic speculation). That doesn't preclude having one's own reasons for trusting the bible, much as my belief in a heliocentric world is based in my trust of the consistent picture painted by various books and websites.

Of course in general I myself (and of course Atheist Buddy to whom I was speaking) don't find the bible to be a particularly trustworthy source, with some exceptions, but as you say that's a whole other topic.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

IF...

If I were a swan, I'd be gone.
If I were a train, I'd be late.
And if I were a good man, I'd talk with you more often than I do.
If I were to sleep, I could dream.
If I were afraid, I could hide.
If I go insane, please don't put your wires in my brain.
If I were the moon, I'd be cool.
If I were a rule, I would bend.
If I were a good man, I'd understand the spaces between friends.
If I were alone, I would cry.
And if I were with you, I'd be home and dry.
And if I go insane, will you still let me join in with the game?
If I were a swan, I'd be gone.
If I were a train, I'd be late again.
If I were a good man, I'd talk to you more often than I do.
- Pink Floyd

On heroin. My favorite song for the h, but Animals can be a hoot if you can stay cogent.


"If", here, is as useful as the deal it seeks to establish...

"If you believe there's a god up there and all, then ya gotta believe he speaks to me on your behalf!"

We need folks less prideful of the if of god, and more prideful of the if of us. There's no need to attribute to gods, what we can do as humanity.


Conclusions?

I propose that it be concluded, among here us of that are concluding, that the use of such "if statements", as presented in the OP, be logically concluded thus...

It offers the religious a means of asserting their "deeply held belief" (no slur), while admitting, if chased around the bush, that such assertions are unsupportable in a fair inquirial environment.

So, we can't get onto the one's that doing it (sans rule de mod), but we should be proud to point out what such says about claims of gods and such.


"If" is to the claimers of the miraculous, what, "I don't know" is to so many others. The god concept doesn't 'preciate it no uncertainty. It must remain resolute that its conclusions are sound, and so if it takes an 'if' to do it, well you just get off your high horse, and you stop it.

[Realworldjack]

I do not expect all to be convinced by the same evidence I have been convinced by, in fact I expect there to be those who disagree, all I would like to do is to be involved in the conversation, in hopes of undertanding what others believe, in order to help me understand better what it is I claim to believe, and who knows, in the end, it may be myself who becomes convinced I am the one in error!

I respect that.

So, please tell me on what basis you believe that the God of the Bible exist.

I don't believe he exists, but much like you, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

We can't both be right, so let's try to figure it out.

Okay, you are asking me to give you the basis for my belief in the God of the Bible. But as I have attempted to say, this is far to great a task to attempt to accomplish in this type of format. It took years of intense study, and struggle to arrive where I am now. What motivated me to undertake this struggle in the first place, was because I knew I would need to be able to give my children an answer! Before I had children I was pretty much care free, however once my children arrived, I realized they would be exposed to the question of God! I also realized at that time I had no answer! With this being the case, I dove in, in order to have some sort of answer. Shortly after I took on this venture, I concluded I would give them one of three answers.

1. I have studied the evidence and I am convinced there is no God, and here are the reasons why.

2. I have studied the evidence and I have not come to a conclusion as of yet, but this is what I have learned thus far.

3. I have studied the evidence and have become convinced by the evidence that there is a God, and here is why.

Of course as you already know I eventually became convinced of the truth of Christianity, and have shared my beliefs with my children. Now, I would like you to notice, I have not indoctrinated my children! Rather, what I have done is share with them down through the years what it is I believe, and why I believe it, and I have allowed them to analyze this evidence for themselves in order for them to settle this in their own minds. In other words I want their mind to be convinced first, and from here their hearts will follow. Many, many times Christians simply go after the hearts, (emotions), of their children, and leave the mind behind, and this is what causes us to have many weak minded Christians. At any rate my point is, you seem to think that giving the basis for my belief would be a simple task, that I could jot down in a few senteces, but this is not the case in the least, rather I would have to go through the entirety of the Bible. When I attempted to give you a small sample on the other thread, you simply continued to give me your opinion without any facts to back your opinion up, such as when you say, "the Bible is full of fairy tales," and yet you have not demonstrated that it is! You are guilty of what you accuse me of, which is making statements which have not been verified! You also seemed to be extremely bored, which demonstrates you are really not interested at all how I have arrived at my conclusions, therefore why should I waste my time? At any rate, at the risk of boring you further, allow me to attempt again to give you another small portion, remembering this is simply a scratching at the surface!

On another thread, the OP gives a definition of religion. This definition is focused on the, "WORSHIP," of God, or the supernatural. But the problem now is, we have to define the word, "WORSHIP!" I hope you can now see how in depth this can get! You see, you can surely turn to a dictionary and receive a definition of, "worship," but this definition would be absolutely irrelevant if a particular religion had a different definition. As an example, Christianity tells us our proper worship, is to offer ourselves as living sacrifices. With this being the case, the Christian definition of worship, has nothing whatsoever to do with, ritual practices, attending services, etc. This is becoming more, and more in depth as I think about it! But I want you to notice, there is a definite contrast involved here! The contrast is, in the Old Testament the people offered sacrifices but these sacrifices were dead! We no longer are to offer dead sacrifices but rather we are to, "offer ourselves as living sacrifices which is our proper form of worship!" In other words, we are to die to ourselves, wants, and desires, and sacrifice ourselves to the service of others! Notice, I did not say to the service of God! What sort of service would God need from us? With this being the case, we serve God by our service to others!

You see the secular definition of worship involves attending meetings, (SERViCES), where rituals, and certain rites are performed, and these services are viewed as our service, or worship of God. Although there are many, many, Churches that call their services, "Worship Services," this is an incorrect view of the service. The correct view of the Church service is not our service, or worship of God, but rather we attend these services to be served by God! As I said, God is not in need of our service, but we are certainly in need of His service, and it is only after we have been rightly served by God that we can then go out to sarafice ourselves in the service of others. Can you imagine what a difference there would be if all Churches held this view of worship? In other words, they would not in any way view their attendance at the service as worship of God, but rather their worship of God would be the sacrafice of themselves in the service of others! In the end what I am saying here is, our meeting together at Church can be rightly called a service, but it is not a worship service, in other words it is not our service to God, but rather it is called a service because in this service we are being served by God!

Now lets return to the definition of religion. The OP I referred to above gave a definition of religion, and I am sure there are others. Well, I have my own definition of religion. Notice, I am saying this is my own definition, I am not in any way saying that all should adhere to this definition, I am simply saying, this is the way I view religion! In my view, all religion is a man made system. Religion teaches us that there is a god, higher power, utopia, enlightenment, etc., that must be reached, and religion gives us a list of things we must do to reach this goal. This list of things we must do, comes in the form of, rules to keep, keys to unlock, steps to follow, laws to obey, etc. In the end all these things are rungs on the ladder we must climb to ascend to this god, etc.

Now allow me to preface what I am about to say. I am going to reference something the Bible tells us. I am not in any way saying it is true, I am simply stating the fact, that this is recorded in the Bible, whether it is true or not is another discussion. Okay, the Bible tells us, "the Laws of God are written on our, (human race), conscience." Now, "IF" this happens to be true, it could explain religion. In other words it could explain, that we understand law! We understand the process! If I do this, this is what I will receive in return. So then, we understand law! The problem is not the laws, the laws work just fine, the problem is that I cannot keep law! Sure I can keep some of the laws some of the time, but I continually fail at keeping law! This is why we continue to run into so many of our problems, because we fail to keep law!

By way of example, my sister has had a weight problem all her life. Over the last couple of years she has finally stuck to the laws of a diet program, and lost over 100 lbs. This demonstrates, there is nothing wrong whatsoever, with the laws of dieting! These laws are good, and they work! Now there are many people who are overweight, most of these people not only want to lose weight, but they would also absolutely love to! For the overwhelming majority of these people, the laws of a diet program would work just fine, and if they would simply follow these laws, they could, and would lose weight, because the laws of dieting work just fine! So then, what is the problem? The problem is not the law, the law is good! This means the problem is the people who find it to difficult to follow this law! This principle is at work in other areas as well, like if I would take my medication daily as I should, it would keep me from having gout flair ups! But it is also at work in more serious problems we face.

Now surely there are those that seem to be better law keepers than the rest of us, but in the end, no matter how much better you are than me, we are all law breakers! But again the problem is not at all law! The law is right, just, good, and it works! So then I find the problem is me! I am the problem, because I cannot consistently keep law!

So, religion gives us a list of things to do, in the end, no matter how you slice it, and no matter what you call it, whether you call it, rules to keep, keys to unlock, or steps to follow, in the end this is all LAW! These LAWS are the rungs on the ladder you must use to ascend to god, higher power, arrive at utopia, enlightenment, etc. In Chhristianity, there is a God, and there is also a ladder that spans the gap between ourselves and God, however Christianity tells us we cannot ascend this ladder to God, rather God has descended the ladder to us! Christianity tells us to let go of our own efforts of attempting to ascend this ladder, and grab a hold of the God Who has descended this ladder to us!

Religion gives us, LAW, at list of things for us to do, and if we do these things, it will have a positive impact on us. Christianity on the other hand gives us Gospel, which means, The Good News of what God has done for us, and allows this News to have it's effect, or impact on us, and in us! So religion gives us LAW which is bad news because it in no way empowers us to be able to keep the LAW! And again, Christianity gives us simple News, and allows this News to do its work!

News, is a powerful thing! Simple news has the power to change things, it has the power to change the direction of a man. Example, on my way home the other day, I had fully intended to go straight home, however while I was on the way, I received a text from my wife that simply said, "we are out of milk." Now this was news to me, but this simple news message had the power to cause me to change my direction!

So again, religion gives us LAW, (a list of things to do), while Christianity gives us The Good News of what God has done for us, and we can now let go of our own efforts, and grab a hold of what God has done for us.

Now, if you will go back and read again what I posted on the other thread, I think you will see how what I have said here ties into what was said there! In other words, Adam, and Eve, could continue to work sewing fig leaves together, or they could rest from their work, and trust in what God had supplied, (animal skin). Or the contrast between the lines of Cain, and Seth. One line is busy attempting to remedy their situation while the other is calling on The Name of The Lord! And then there was Abraham who believed God, and by this belief was credited righteousness. In other words, he did not earn righteousness by his works, but rather rested from his works, and trusted God, and this trust was credited to him as righteousness.

Again, this is just a small sample of why I believe the Bible. Now, do I expect what I have said here to cause you are anyone else who may read it to be busting through the doors of a Church this Sunday? I do not, and this is not the intent. My intent is simply to give the reasons why I believe. I expect there to be those who reject my reasons, and I understand this rejection, and I do not condemn or ridicule those who do reject my reasoning. I understand there are many Christians who do ridicule, and condemn those who reject their reasoning, and these Christians claim there is no reason for unbelief. I am not that guy! I understand that Atheist, and unbelievers have reasons for their unbelief, and also that they have reasons for what it is they do believe. Moreover, I will say most Atheist, and unbelievers can explain their reasons far better than the marjority of Christians can explain their reason.

So again, I understand there is reason in unbelief. My goal is to demonstrate that there is also reason in belief as well. Now, if you say I have no reason to believe, then you are no different than the Christians I have described above, and I see no need in further discussion between us! However, if you believe you can find fault in my reasoning, or that my reason may be in error then we have something we can talk about!

[atheist buddy]

I do not expect all to be convinced by the same evidence I have been convinced by, in fact I expect there to be those who disagree, all I would like to do is to be involved in the conversation, in hopes of undertanding what others believe, in order to help me understand better what it is I claim to believe, and who knows, in the end, it may be myself who becomes convinced I am the one in error!

I respect that.

So, please tell me on what basis you believe that the God of the Bible exist.

I don't believe he exists, but much like you, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

We can't both be right, so let's try to figure it out.

When I attempted to give you a small sample on the other thread, you simply continued to give me your opinion without any facts to back your opinion up, such as when you say, "the Bible is full of fairy tales," and yet you have not demonstrated that it is! You are guilty of what you accuse me of, which is making statements which have not been verified!

Realworldjack. You have to decide right now if you're going to be serious or if you're going to joke around.

You CANNOT say stuff like "we haven't verified that the Bible contains fairy tales". That is a really really really bad joke. I am NOT ok with talking about serious matters with people that are interested in only making jokes. Either you take it seriously, or we can stop this right now.

OBVIOUSLY we have verified that the Bible contains fairy tales - that is, fictional tales that are not true and never happened in reality.

For example, we have verified that donkeys don't talk, that frogs don't rain from the sky, that a 900 year old man never fitted millions of animals onto a boat, that Mary had a bunch of ejaculate in her uterus 9 months before Jesus was born, that no zombies came out of their grave in Jerusalem, etc, etc, etc. All thiese things have been thoroughly verified, scrutinized and fact-checked. They are fictional. They are fake. They are fairy tales. Period.

On another thread, the OP gives a definition of religion. This definition is focused on the, "WORSHIP," of God, or the supernatural. But the problem now is, we have to define the word, "WORSHIP!" I hope you can now see how in depth this can get! You see, you can surely turn to a dictionary and receive a definition of, "worship," but this definition would be absolutely irrelevant if a particular religion had a different definition. As an example, Christianity tells us our proper worship, is to offer ourselves as living sacrifices. With this being the case, the Christian definition of worship, has nothing whatsoever to do with, ritual practices, attending services, etc. This is becoming more, and more in depth as I think about it! But I want you to notice, there is a definite contrast involved here! The contrast is, in the Old Testament the people offered sacrifices but these sacrifices were dead! We no longer are to offer dead sacrifices but rather we are to, "offer ourselves as living sacrifices which is our proper form of worship!" In other words, we are to die to ourselves, wants, and desires, and sacrifice ourselves to the service of others! Notice, I did not say to the service of God! What sort of service would God need from us? With this being the case, we serve God by our service to others!

Realworldjack. ENOUGH with the jokes. Stop it! You're here to provide evidence for God's existence, not to start by presupposing tha tgod exists, and then tell us how you interact with your imaginary friend. I genuinely don't care about how you worship your imaginary friend. I care about you demonstrating that I'm wrong in thinking your friend is imaginary. Please demonstrate that he is real.

You see the secular definition of worship involves attending meetings, (SERViCES), where rituals, and certain rites are performed, and these services are viewed as our service, or worship of God. Although there are many, many, Churches that call their services, "Worship Services," this is an incorrect view of the service. The correct view of the Church service is not our service, or worship of God, but rather we attend these services to be served by God! As I said, God is not in need of our service, but we are certainly in need of His service, and it is only after we have been rightly served by God that we can then go out to sarafice ourselves in the service of others. Can you imagine what a difference there would be if all Churches held this view of worship? In other words, they would not in any way view their attendance at the service as worship of God, but rather their worship of God would be the sacrafice of themselves in the service of others! In the end what I am saying here is, our meeting together at Church can be rightly called a service, but it is not a worship service, in other words it is not our service to God, but rather it is called a service because in this service we are being served by God!

YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT GOD EXISTS, before you can tell us stories about how you interact with him, and about how nice it would be if other people interaccted with him that way.

We're here to determine if God exists. You CANNOT presuppose God exists when debating if God exists.

Now lets return to the definition of religion.

No let's not. Let's return to you demonstrating that God exists.

The OP I referred to above gave a definition of religion, and I am sure there are others. Well, I have my own definition of religion. Notice, I am saying this is my own definition, I am not in any way saying that all should adhere to this definition, I am simply saying, this is the way I view religion! In my view, all religion is a man made system. Religion teaches us that there is a god, higher power, utopia, enlightenment, etc., that must be reached, and religion gives us a list of things we must do to reach this goal. This list of things we must do, comes in the form of, rules to keep, keys to unlock, steps to follow, laws to obey, etc. In the end all these things are rungs on the ladder we must climb to ascend to this god, etc.

Stop telling jokes! It's not funny! Not even SLIGHTLY funny. Why are you doing this? We're not discussing religion as a social phenomenon. We're trying to determine if it's TRUE that a God exists.

Now allow me to preface what I am about to say. I am going to reference something the Bible tells us. I am not in any way saying it is true, I am simply stating the fact, that this is recorded in the Bible, whether it is true or not is another discussion

NO. Whether it's true is EXACTLY the topic of this discussion. PROVIDE EVIDENCE THE BIBLE IS TRUE.

Okay, the Bible tells us, "the Laws of God are written on our, (human race), conscience." Now, "IF" this happens to be true, it could explain religion. In other words it could explain, that we understand law! We understand the process! If I do this, this is what I will receive in return. So then, we understand law! The problem is not the laws, the laws work just fine, the problem is that I cannot keep law! Sure I can keep some of the laws some of the time, but I continually fail at keeping law! This is why we continue to run into so many of our problems, because we fail to keep law!

This is a continued attempt to change the subject. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS TOPIC RIGHT NOW. You're providing evidence that God exists. Stop joking around.

By way of example, my sister has had a weight problem all her life. Over the last couple of years she has finally stuck to the laws of a diet program, and lost over 100 lbs. This demonstrates, there is nothing wrong whatsoever, with the laws of dieting! These laws are good, and they work! Now there are many people who are overweight, most of these people not only want to lose weight, but they would also absolutely love to! For the overwhelming majority of these people, the laws of a diet program would work just fine, and if they would simply follow these laws, they could, and would lose weight, because the laws of dieting work just fine! So then, what is the problem? The problem is not the law, the law is good! This means the problem is the people who find it to difficult to follow this law! This principle is at work in other areas as well, like if I would take my medication daily as I should, it would keep me from having gout flair ups! But it is also at work in more serious problems we face.

The laws of the Bible are HORRIBLE. "Kill gay people, kill witches, kill children who misbehave, force women to marry their rapists, murder anybody who believes in a different God, etc".

the rules which Jesus told us must be followed to the letter are DISCUSTING. But it doesn't matter. Because they are not rules from God. They are the scribblings of Bronze age barbarians. unless you have some evidence that God exists. Why are you refusing to provide that evidence?

Now surely there are those that seem to be better law keepers than the rest of us, but in the end, no matter how much better you are than me, we are all law breakers! But again the problem is not at all law! The law is right, just, good, and it works! So then I find the problem is me! I am the problem, because I cannot consistently keep law!

I am very proud of constantly breaking the laws of the Bible. I HATE murder. I would NEVER killa person just for being gay. I would NEVER kill my 8 year old son because he curses at me.

So, religion gives us a list of things to do, in the end, no matter how you slice it, and no matter what you call it, whether you call it, rules to keep, keys to unlock, or steps to follow, in the end this is all LAW! These LAWS are the rungs on the ladder you must use to ascend to god, higher power, arrive at utopia, enlightenment, etc. In Chhristianity, there is a God, and there is also a ladder that spans the gap between ourselves and God, however Christianity tells us we cannot ascend this ladder to God, rather God has descended the ladder to us! Christianity tells us to let go of our own efforts of attempting to ascend this ladder, and grab a hold of the God Who has descended this ladder to us!

Stop telling jokes. This is not funny at all!

Telling a joke once is ok, but you can't keep doing it. It would be bad if it was a FUNNY joke you kept repeating, but considering that it wasn't funny the first time, your repeated efforts are truly irritating.

YOU. CANNOT. PRESUPPOSE. THE. EXISTENCE. OF. A. GOD. WHO. DESCENDS. LADDERS. WHEN. TRYING. TO. DETERMINE. IF. A. GOD. EXISTS. IN. THE. FIRST. PLACE!!!!!

Religion gives us, LAW, at list of things for us to do, and if we do these things, it will have a positive impact on us. Christianity on the other hand gives us Gospel, which means, The Good News of what God has done for us, and allows this News to have it's effect, or impact on us, and in us! So religion gives us LAW which is bad news because it in no way empowers us to be able to keep the LAW! And again, Christianity gives us simple News, and allows this News to do its work!

News, is a powerful thing! Simple news has the power to change things, it has the power to change the direction of a man. Example, on my way home the other day, I had fully intended to go straight home, however while I was on the way, I received a text from my wife that simply said, "we are out of milk." Now this was news to me, but this simple news message had the power to cause me to change my direction!

So again, religion gives us LAW, (a list of things to do), while Christianity gives us The Good News of what God has done for us, and we can now let go of our own efforts, and grab a hold of what God has done for us.

Now, if you will go back and read again what I posted on the other thread, I think you will see how what I have said here ties into what was said there! In other words, Adam, and Eve, could continue to work sewing fig leaves together, or they could rest from their work, and trust in what God had supplied, (animal skin). Or the contrast between the lines of Cain, and Seth. One line is busy attempting to remedy their situation while the other is calling on The Name of The Lord! And then there was Abraham who believed God, and by this belief was credited righteousness. In other words, he did not earn righteousness by his works, but rather rested from his works, and trusted God, and this trust was credited to him as righteousness.

Again, this is just a small sample of why I believe the Bible.

No it's not! stop joking. This is NOT funny.

You didn't tell me why you believe the Bible. You started from the presupposition that the Bible is ture, and then told me how cool you think it is.

If I told you how awesome I thought Frodo was for casting the One Ring into the Crack of Doom, and how great Gandalf was for coming up with that plan, would I be giving you any evidence for the Lord of the Rings being real?

Now, do I expect what I have said here to cause you are anyone else who may read it to be busting through the doors of a Church this Sunday? I do not, and this is not the intent. My intent is simply to give the reasons why I believe.

you did NOt tell us why you believe. You just told us why you think that this story which you already beleive in, seems awesome to you.

I expect there to be those who reject my reasons, and I understand this rejection

I really don't think you do.

and I do not condemn or ridicule those who do reject my reasoning. I understand there are many Christians who do ridicule, and condemn those who reject their reasoning, and these Christians claim there is no reason for unbelief. I am not that guy! I understand that Atheist, and unbelievers have reasons for their unbelief, and also that they have reasons for what it is they do believe. Moreover, I will say most Atheist, and unbelievers can explain their reasons far better than the marjority of Christians can explain their reason.

Well, you definitely fall within that category of Christians in my opinion. You haven't even STARTED to give an explanation for your reason for believing.

So again, I understand there is reason in unbelief. My goal is to demonstrate that there is also reason in belief as well.

Well then TELL ME IT. What is the reason for believing that God exists. Don't start with the presupposition that he does.

Now, if you say I have no reason to believe, then you are no different than the Christians I have described above, and I see no need in further discussion between us!

I don't know if you have reason to believe or not. If you do, you certainly haven't presented it yet.

However, if you believe you can find fault in my reasoning, or that my reason may be in error then we have something we can talk about!

You haven't presented any reasoning.

Imagine I said "I believe Spiderman is real", and you asked me "why do you believe that", and I replied with this: "Well, he got bitten by a radioactive spider and gained superpowers. This made it possible for him to beat the Green Goblin ad many other villains. Isn't it awesome that Spiderman is such a great guy?"

Would that count as "reasoning and justification for my belief in Spiderman" to you?

Come on Realworldjack. Stop the joking, and tell us why you believe God is real.

[Mithrae]

OBVIOUSLY we have verified that the Bible contains fairy tales - that is, fictional tales that are not true and never happened in reality.

For example, we have verified that donkeys don't talk...

And we have verified that metal balls fall faster than feathers. That's been a well-known fact for thousands of years. Yet some people claim to have seen a feather fall just as fast as a metal ball. What are we to make of that?

We may know the secret to that particular trick, us enlightened 21st century folk. It can be accomplished with some unusual circumstances. But then, the folk who believe that a donkey once talked suggest that the fellow who reported the event (Moses, according to tradition) had some pretty unusual circumstances going on himself!

So are you arguing here that we have verified those unusual circumstances did not occur; that there is no God, for example, or that if there is he certainly didn't interact in the 2nd millenium middle east?

Or are you saying it is rationally justifiable to dismiss out of hand all claims of unusual events - such as feathers falling like lead - unless and until you know for sure exactly how the trick was done?

[atheist buddy]

OBVIOUSLY we have verified that the Bible contains fairy tales - that is, fictional tales that are not true and never happened in reality.

For example, we have verified that donkeys don't talk...

And we have verified that metal balls fall faster than feathers. That's been a well-known fact for thousands of years. Yet some people claim to have seen a feather fall just as fast as a metal ball. What are we to make of that?

In a vacuum there is no air resistence, therefore that which upsets the perfect balance between the gravitational pull on more massive objects and the difficulty to cause acceleration of a more massive object is not present, and they thus fall at the same speed.

It really is not surprising to me that someone who is puzzled by 4th grade physics, has difficulty grasping the notion that donkeys don't talk.

Donkeys don't talk, Mithrae. Unless, we make this argument: IF circumstances were such that those things we know not to happen could happen, then things which didn't happen happened. Once we make that argument, there is NOTHING which isn't true, becuase by definition, both the true and the untrue are true.

Short of defining that-which-isn't as that-which-is, donkeys don't talk, 900 year olds cannot fit millions of animals on a boat, and feathers don't fall slower than lead balls in a vacuum. Stop wasting my time.

[dianaiad]

I've had several theists make this argument:

I believe in talking donkeys and zombies and virgin births because IF God exists and he has the power to do anything then talking donkeys and virgin births can happen.

.........

Question for debate: Is there any merit to the theist argument I depicted above?

yes, actually, there is. It takes the argument away from the general atheist/non-believer argument of "talking donkeys and zombies and virgin births are impossible/improbable and therefore God does not exist."

Are you arguing that if God does exist..this omnipotent creator Being...that the talking donkeys, etc., are still impossible? Even when part of the definition of said God is that they ARE?

Doesn't seem to me as if it is the theists here (as presented by you) are the ones having problems with circular reasoning.

They have simply begged the question, or rather, raised it. If God's existence makes such things possible, does their existence prove that God exist?

I mean, we can make a donkey talk...sort of...
(I was going to post a youtube video of an Obama speech synced to the movement of a donkey braying, but I figured that would just be, er, being a poor winner and all...)

We can do the virgin birth thing.

We have brought people back from 'the dead,' though resurrection isn't quite the same thing as reviving. We have restarted hearts and breath.

Shoot, we can even walk on water these days. It's a little awkward, but it can be done and several colleges have competitions for doing so.

Does our being able to pull this off mean that God exists? Does our being able to pull these things off mean He doesn't?

Is it illogical to say that if God exists, then HE could pull 'em all off? I mean, really...if WE can...

In other words, making fun of these ideas doesn't disprove God. Finding out that they are possible doesn't prove Him.

So I don't quite understand your problem with the statement. It's perfectly logical. It simply means that one must find some other means to verify God's existence...or non-existence.

[Lotan]

It takes the argument away from the general atheist/non-believer argument of "talking donkeys and zombies and virgin births are impossible/improbable and therefore God does not exist.

I don't think the existence of god is the question here so much as the reliability of the Bible as a source of information about god, or anything else. There is a talking snake in 'The Jungle Book' and a talking donkey in 'Shrek'. I doubt that you would consider either of them evidence for the existence of god. The literal existence of these characters has little to do do with the messages that the stories they inhabit are meant to convey, and we do know that human beings have been telling stories for a very long time. Talking animals are creatures of folklore and fable, but Bible literalists make an exception, a special pleading, for the stories they prefer. In ancient near eastern mythology the serpent was believed to have mastered immortality, and walking on water represented Jesus' mastery over chaos. The people who first heard those stories would have recognized these tropes immediately and would have cared as little for their literal truth as we might care whether a donkey and a dragon can reproduce. If the theists argument is simply that god is magic and can do anything, then there is no point to a discussion. It is a poor argument.

As for the examples of modern virgin birth etc these are false equivalencies that only mimic the alleged Bible miracles. They are not evidence for them.

[atheist buddy]

I've had several theists make this argument:

I believe in talking donkeys and zombies and virgin births because IF God exists and he has the power to do anything then talking donkeys and virgin births can happen.

.........

Question for debate: Is there any merit to the theist argument I depicted above?

It takes the argument away from the general atheist/non-believer argument of "talking donkeys and zombies and virgin births are impossible/improbable and therefore God does not exist."

Dianaiad.

As I said earlier, I cannot continue this conversation with you until you clearly and explicitly acknwoledge that the argument you spelled out above is NOT an argument I'm making.

Please write the following: "I, Dianaiad, hereby acknowledge that Atheist Buddy is NOT making the argument that talking donkeys and zombies and virign births are improbable therefore God doesn't exist. I understand fully that Atheist Buddy is arguing that the whether God exists and whether donkeys can talk are two separate claims which stand or fall independently based on the evidence in favor or against them".

Are you arguing that if God does exist..this omnipotent creator Being...that the talking donkeys, etc., are still impossible?

Of course not. That would be crazy. If an entity capable of making the impossible possible existed, then NOTHING would be impossible, not the virgin birth, not the talking donkey, not the flying hourse, not the snowman that comes to life when you put a hat on its head.

But that's neither here nor there, because before we start talking about what the possible ramifications of the existence of god would be, we have to determine if God exists or not.

Imagine if New York's mayor hired special skyscraper window cleaners to remove the webs left by spiderman. It's perfectly logical to hire cleaners of spiderman's webs IF spiderman exists. But before a major spends tax dollars on that expense predicated on the existence of Spiderman, he had better make a solid argument for the existence of spiderman in the first place.

Doesn't seem to me as if it is the theists here (as presented by you) are the ones having problems with circular reasoning.

No, the man who's having problems here is the atheist who makes the argument that even if God existed then the miracles would still be impossible. Another problem this man would have is the vicinity of open flames. Becuase he's very flammable, being that he's made entirely of straws.

YOU'RE BUILDING A STRAWMAN! Nobody ever in the history of the human race has ever made the argument you're trying to counter. It's already bad enough that you worship imaginary friends. At least stop debating imaginary opponents.

They have simply begged the question, or rather, raised it. If God's existence makes such things possible, does their existence prove that God exist?

Could somebody translate this for me? I have no idea of what Dianaiad is saying here.

I mean, we can make a donkey talk...sort of...
(I was going to post a youtube video of an Obama speech synced to the movement of a donkey braying, but I figured that would just be, er, being a poor winner and all...)

We can do the virgin birth thing.

We have brought people back from 'the dead,' though resurrection isn't quite the same thing as reviving. We have restarted hearts and breath.

Shoot, we can even walk on water these days. It's a little awkward, but it can be done and several colleges have competitions for doing so.

Does our being able to pull this off mean that God exists? Does our being able to pull these things off mean He doesn't?

No, and no.

Our past, present or future ability or inability to perform any given action has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of a God.

The claim of God's existence must stanr fall on its own merits, based on the evidence for and against it.

Is it illogical to say that if God exists, then HE could pull 'em all off? I mean, really...if WE can...

It's irrefutable that if an entity that can do practically anything exists, than practically anything can be done.

Now go ahead and provide evidence that such an entity exists. Until you do, you're just engaging in meaningless speculation.

In other words, making fun of these ideas doesn't disprove God.

Dianaiad, I need you to write the following: "I hereby acknowledge that Atheist buddy is NOT trying to disprove God. He is just requesting that we present evidence for his existence".

Finding out that they are possible doesn't prove Him.

True

So I don't quite understand your problem with the statement. It's perfectly logical. It simply means that one must find some other means to verify God's existence...or non-existence.

I agree with that completely! Have you even bothered reading my OP? That's EXACTLY what I'm arguing!

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with either of these two syllogisms:

1) If God exists, then talking donkeys and flying horses are reasonably possible
2) God exists
3) Therefore talking donkeys and flying horses are reasonably possible

1) If the tooth fairy exists, then the tooth fairy replacing my fallen teeth under my pillow with money is reasonably possible
2) The tooth fairy exists
3) Therefore the tooth fairy replacing my fallen teeth under my pillow with money is reasonably possible

Nothing wrong AT ALL with the structure of either of these two arguments. But before the conclusion can be deemed true, the premises have to be established to be true.

You have to demonstrate that God and the Tooth Fairy exist, before you can draw the conclusion that the talking donkey/flying horse and the magical replacement of teeth with money is reasonably possible.

If premise 2 in the syllogisms above is purely hypothetical, and no reason is presented to deem that they are true, then conclusion 3 in both syllogisms is a meaningless hypothetical with no connection to reality whatsoever.

[Mithrae]

Donkeys don't talk, Mithrae. Unless, we make this argument: IF circumstances were such that those things we know not to happen could happen, then things which didn't happen happened. Once we make that argument, there is NOTHING which isn't true, becuase by definition, both the true and the untrue are true.

So your whole position here is simply asserting, and repeating, that no donkey can ever talk period, even though you haven't observed all donkeys.

If you'd lived in the 15th century, you would have declared with equal conviction that no feather can ever fall as fast as a lead ball.

The two arguments are on precisely the same logical footing: Confidence in what is known, for a fact, to be the usual state of affairs... and ignorance/dismissal of any claims of unusual circumstances.

Needless to say, one doesn't have to actually believe in a talking donkey to recognise that this isn't a very compelling argument