KingandPriest wrote:This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God
To this, an agnostic replied:
Blastcat wrote:Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.
Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.
How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?
Would that be many or few?
To this I now ask:
1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?
“Now to the simulations and mathematical calculations that support the bible:
“
The guy in the video says:
“There are two dimensionless Constants of the Universe: pi, π and Natural Logarithms, Loge
Geneses 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.�
In the Hebrew take The number of letters x the product of the letters/The number of words x the product of the words = 3.1416 x 10 to the 17th power. That contains pi to four decimal places
John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.�
In the Greek take The number of letters x the product of the letters/The number of words x the product of the words = 2.7183 x 10 to the 65th power. That's e to four decimal places. This is mathematical proof that God created the heaven and the earth and inspired the scriptures.�
Seriously this is proof of Yahweh being real?
Some bogus mathematical tricks.
Just coincidences. Nothing special.
But wait a minute if we want to be exact pi is not 3.1416 but: Pi = 3. 1415926535… https://www.angio.net/pi/digits.html
No so special anymore.
Brown's Flood model and associated claims are overwhelmingly rejected by conventional scientists, since they conflict with many lines of evidence that the earth and solar system have had a long and complex history, and that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old (Hazen, 2013; Strahler, 1987). Detailed critiques of Brown's Flood model (based on earlier editions of his book) have been made by Lippard (1989a, 1989b, 1990) and Jellison (2009a, 2009b), while one or more his specific claims have been refuted by others (Bahcall, 2004; Fleming, 2012; Kuban, 1997; Matson, 1995a, b; Morton, 2003a; Sharp, 2005; Van Till, 1986). Although Brown's Flood model has garnered considerable popularity among lay creationists, many YEC authors and major groups have rejected or strongly questioned it, and refuted many of his specific arguments (Oard, 2013; Faulkner, 2014). In the wake of such criticisms, Brown removed a few of the most glaring errors from his book and website, such as those regarding the "shrinking sun," "missing neutrinos, and a "Japanese plesiosaur"; however, he continues to promote many other dubious and unfounded claims. This review expands on past critiques, and addresses recent updates to Brown's book and web site.
(Spoiler: No it doesn't.) Recently, a discovery was made from a battered ringwoodite that survived a trip from the mantle[2], indicating a long-held theory that there is a very, very large amount of water that's trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth. Creationists, ever the straw-graspers, jumped on this discovery and started spamming it everywhere as "proof" of the validity of hydroplate theory.
However, it should be pointed out that those who post and point to this discovery as "proof" are committing a common error among creationists: Not actually reading the article beyond the title. If they had, they would find that first of all the notion that water could simply "explode" out from the mantle is quite frankly ridiculous. Secondly, unlike what the title alone suggests, scientists did not find some "ocean of liquid water just sitting in this transition layer waiting to be spilled out on a moment's notice", but rather incredibly high-pressure concentrations of non-liquid ringwoodite that contain "water" in the form of hydroxide ions.
Expecting water to spring forth from ringwoodite is like expecting water to suddenly gush out of Malachite[wp], a mineral that contains hydroxides at atmospheric pressures. If these hydroxide[wp] ions suddenly exploded out on the surface and were suddenly released by some magic they aren't going to just turn into water. Much of it would turn into caustic chemicals like lye at tremendously high temperatures. Noah's large wooden boat wouldn't be much protection against being steamed for 40 days in ~1000 °C lye[3].
What they found was not really an "ocean of water below the crust" but rather a ring of ringwoodite between the upper and lower mantles. Hardly anything that could have caused a global flood through plate tectonics or any other volcanic mechanisms. It's akin to how probes have found water on the Moon, but it's not liquid water—it's bare traces of it that could potentially be mined to extract small amounts of water for drinking etc.
The only thing this discovery really "proves" for creationists is just how desperate they are to vindicate themselves. Of course, at this point it should be pretty obvious.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." "God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him" "Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
Someone experienced an unexplained medical recovery, therefore my God(Yahweh) exist is an argument from ignorance.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.
1. HIV tests are highly sensitive and may result in a false positive.
As for the cancer:
“Everson and Cole offered as explanation for spontaneous regression from cancer:
In many of the collected cases ... it must be acknowledged that the factors or mechanisms responsible for spontaneous regression are obscure or unknown in the light of present knowledge. However, in some of the cases, available knowledge permits one to infer that hormonal influences probably were important. ... In other cases, the protocols strongly suggest that an immune mechanism was responsible.� https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing
“The American Cancer Society states "available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can actually cure physical ailments."[4] "Death, disability, and other unwanted outcomes have occurred when faith healing was elected instead of medical care for serious injuries or illnesses."[4] When parents use faith healing in the place of medical care, some children have died that otherwise would have been expected to live.[9] Similar results are found in adults.� https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission
5. Even if she had HIV and then suddenly recovered, it still not means it was a miracle. The same goes with unexplained cancer recoveries.
Only that it is an unexplained medical phenomenon; maybe we don’t have a medical explanation now, but maybe in 50-100 years we will do.
Like when someone sees an UFO (unidentified flying object). It does not prove the existence of aliens, only that someone saw something in the sky and didn’t knew what it was.
6. Even if there is no natural explanation for the event, therefore a proof for the supernatural how do you determine which entity, being, gods or what is responsible for the event.
In 1963, Sathya Sai Baba suffered a stroke and four severe heart attacks, which left him paralysed on one side. These events culminated in an event where he apparently healed himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery. http://www.saibaba.ws/miracles.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
The argument from contrariety, first developed by David Hume in his mid-18th-century Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, notes that the contrary claims of competing religions are mutually exclusive and thus cannot all be true. Moreover, the testimonial "evidence" for the truth of any one religion (whether understood as testimony for the occurrence of public miracles or private religious experiences) is on an equal footing with the contrary testimonial evidence for any other religion (such that the clash of equally credible testimonies yields a "he said, she said" situation). Since there are a multitude of competing religions, and thus a multitude of (absent anything better than testimony) equally credible yet contrary testimonies, the probability that any given religion is true--and thus that any religion at all is true--is extraordinarily low. Consequently, it is highly probable that all religions are false. Although an argument from contrariety can be combined with an argument from religious confusion to demonstrate the probable nonexistence of God, it does not have to be; an argument from contrariety stands on its own as a strong argument for the falsity of all religions.
Q: Which is more likely that Sathya Sai Baba and TB Joshua have really performed miracles or that they tricked the gullible and the desperate?
Even though what you show might fool the gullible, does not convince anyone who is objective and rational in looking at the evidence. Not one "miracle healing" has been proven true.
We only see claims of miracle healing for diseases and illnesses that can go away on their own.
Or of people that have claimed to have heal others but were suspected later of being frauds.
Q: Can you show me cases of amputees with their limbs grown back, people cured of MS, Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Congenital hypothyroidism, Prader–Willi syndrome, 22q13 deletion syndrome, Huntington's disease, Acute intermittent porphyria?(And please don’t tell that nobody pray for these people)
Studies on intercessory prayer
“Meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings.�
1. You could not refute these as non empirical evidence. You may reject that these support the claim of miracles, but these do meet the qualification of empirical evidence which you "never heard of". Consider yourself better informed. Many atheists on this forum as well as other literature have made the false claim that Christians lack empirical evidence to support their claim. Above was just a few examples of empirical evidence which in no way reflect the past 2000 years worth of evidence.
2. To your comments about incredulity.
alexxcJRO wrote:The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.
Is this not the entire argument of atheists against Christianity. Some atheists decided God does exist because the cannot personally understand how He can exist. Others claim a lack of belief because they cannot understand the Godhead or a need for a savior, or the Kingdom of God.
3. You list a lot of maybe's as a possible alternatives. This is not a very good alternative hypothesis, and not one the scientific method would allow either. If so, a person could just list a gambit of maybe's to refute any scientific hypothesis.
4. You wrote
alexxcJRO wrote:Even if she had HIV and then suddenly recovered, it still not means it was a miracle. The same goes with unexplained cancer recoveries.
Only that it is an unexplained medical phenomenon; maybe we don’t have a medical explanation now, but maybe in 50-100 years we will do.
Sounds like denial of the facts. A miracle is defined as: an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.
By definition, an event that is currently unexplainable by natural or scientific laws is a miracle. It is not a "wait 50-100 years and hope we figure out how it happened."
5. The same reasons you wish to reject the empirical evidence presented is the same reason a person can reject the empirical evidence supporting some theories presented in science which are generally accepted today. On this post, I did the same thing you are doing in regards to the nebular hypothesis or theorized age of the sun, and often some claimed that an accumulation of data which correlates to a espoused theory is sufficient to meet the requirements of the scientific method.
The amount of correlated empirical evidence of people being healed after being prayed for specifically in the name of Jesus, helps us identify the diety who is responsible for the healing. No such similar evidence exists for other religions around the world.
You can choose to reject the evidence which supports the claim of miracles, and you will be on the same footing as someone who disputes the theory of evolution, or a person who disputes the age of the universe.
alexxcJRO wrote:
The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.
Is this not the entire argument of atheists against Christianity. Some atheists decided God does exist because the cannot personally understand how He can exist. Others claim a lack of belief because they cannot understand the Godhead or a need for a savior, or the Kingdom of God.
Take that up with those who make the statements.
All who debate against Christian claims and stories do NOT take those positions – just as not all Christians accept the position of Christian groups who claim to be able to handle deadly snakes and drink poison without harm.
This Non-Theist takes the position “ANY of the thousands of gods proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by humans MAY exist and MAY influence human lives -- awaiting verifiable evidence upon which to base an intelligent, informed, reasoned decision.�
KingandPriest wrote:
A miracle is defined as: an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.
By definition, an event that is currently unexplainable by natural or scientific laws is a miracle. It is not a "wait 50-100 years and hope we figure out how it happened."
Most things we take for granted in modern times would have been considered a 'miracle' a century or two ago (modern medicine, food production / preservation / distribution, communication, transportation, etc). Did they cease being 'miracles' when knowledge expanded?
That is classic 'God of the gaps' – which shrinks as knowledge grows.
KingandPriest wrote:
The amount of correlated empirical evidence of people being healed after being prayed for specifically in the name of Jesus, helps us identify the diety who is responsible for the healing. No such similar evidence exists for other religions around the world.
Is 'no other religions around the world' presented as fact or speculation / opinion? If the former, the claim professes knowledge of 4000 world religions.
KingandPriest wrote:
You can choose to reject the evidence which supports the claim of miracles, and you will be on the same footing as someone who disputes the theory of evolution, or a person who disputes the age of the universe.
Your computer is indisputable evidence that science works. There are some speculative areas of science that are IDENTIFIED as speculative (note use of the term 'theory' attached to many scientific topics).
Religion, conversely, claims TRUTH but cannot demonstrate that it is anything more than working imagination. Religious topics are NOT presented as theories – but as established fact.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
“1. You could not refute these as non empirical evidence. You may reject that these support the claim of miracles, but these do meet the qualification of empirical evidence which you "never heard of". Consider yourself better informed.�
Nonsense.
Your so called empirical evidence is bogus evidence.
You gloating at the smallest sign of an apparent victory is so sad.
The psychology behind this tells much about how impotent the theological arguments are.
A. Let’s see what empirical evidence is:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.
The scientific method
The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play. Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.
Before any pieces of empirical data are collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.
The scientific method often involves lab experiments that are repeated over and over, and these experiments result in quantitative data in the form of numbers and statistics. However, that is not the only process used for gathering information to support or refute a theory.
Types of empirical research
"Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or experimentation," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, in Marlboro, Vermont. There are two research methods used to gather empirical measurements and data: qualitative and quantitative.
Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human behavior, according to Oklahoma State University. It involves data that can be found using the human senses. This type of research is often done in the beginning of an experiment.
Quantitative research involves methods that are used to collect numerical data and analyze it using statistical methods, according to the IT University of Copenhagen.
Quantitative numerical data can be any data that uses measurements, including mass, size or volume, according to Midwestern State University, in Wichita Falls, Texas.
This type of research is often used at the end of an experiment to refine and test the previous research.
Identifying empirical evidence
Identifying empirical evidence in another researcher's experiments can sometimes be difficult. According to the Pennsylvania State University Libraries, there are some things one can look for when determining if evidence is empirical:
Can the experiment be recreated and tested?
Does the experiment have a statement about the methodology, tools and controls used?
Is there a definition of the group or phenomena being studied?
You have presented a video on a Christian TV show of a woman claiming she was healed of HIV/AIDS.
“Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.�
Q: Was there an independent medical team of trained professionals investigating, researching the claims about TB Joshua using certain methodology, protocol(to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data)?
Q: Were any experiments done before and after TB Joshua has done the so called healing to check the validity of the diagnosis and the sudden medical recovery?
B. Again miracle claims have been made by other religions suggesting their god is real.
In 1963, Sathya Sai Baba suffered a stroke and four severe heart attacks, which left him paralysed on one side. These events culminated in an event where he apparently healed himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery.
The argument from contrariety, first developed by David Hume in his mid-18th-century Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, notes that the contrary claims of competing religions are mutually exclusive and thus cannot all be true. Moreover, the testimonial "evidence" for the truth of any one religion (whether understood as testimony for the occurrence of public miracles or private religious experiences) is on an equal footing with the contrary testimonial evidence for any other religion (such that the clash of equally credible testimonies yields a "he said, she said" situation). Since there are a multitude of competing religions, and thus a multitude of (absent anything better than testimony) equally credible yet contrary testimonies, the probability that any given religion is true--and thus that any religion at all is true--is extraordinarily low. Consequently, it is highly probable that all religions are false. Although an argument from contrariety can be combined with an argument from religious confusion to demonstrate the probable nonexistence of God, it does not have to be; an argument from contrariety stands on its own as a strong argument for the falsity of all religions.
Q: Which is more likely that Sathya Sai Baba, TB Joshua, Mali al kurdi have really performed miracles or that they tricked the gullible and the desperate?
C. Real empirical evidence shows intercessory prayer does not work
“Meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings.�
“Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.�
D. Death, disability, and other unwanted outcomes have occurred when faith healing was elected instead of medical care for serious injuries or illnesses." When parents use faith healing in the place of medical care, some children have died that otherwise would have been expected to live. Similar results are found in adults.�
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." "God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him" "Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
KingandPriest wrote:
In a separate thread, I suggested the following:
KingandPriest wrote:This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God
To this, an agnostic replied:
Blastcat wrote:Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.
Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.
How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?
Would that be many or few?
To this I now ask:
1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?
Do you feel that it takes faith on your part not to believe that there is a Santa Claus? Because that is exactly how much faith non believers are expending in not believing in the existence of God.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
KingandPriest wrote:
In a separate thread, I suggested the following:
KingandPriest wrote:This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God
To this, an agnostic replied:
Blastcat wrote:Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.
Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.
How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?
Would that be many or few?
To this I now ask:
1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?
Faith, as explained in the bible:
-Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
-For we live by faith, not by sight. Corinthians 5:7
-So that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. Corinthians 2:5
-For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourself, it is the gift of god … Ephesians 2:8
-Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. Romans 10:17
Just to be clear, faith as it is used and described/defined in the bible is not utilized by any atheist or non-theist I know.
To argue otherwise is to admit one of two things:
1) the bible is wrong about what faith means, or
2) you are not using the word in the same context as the bible is, and in which case, the question is a dishonest one.
Just my two cents,
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
KingandPriest wrote:
In a separate thread, I suggested the following:
KingandPriest wrote:This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God
To this, an agnostic replied:
Blastcat wrote:Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.
Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.
How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?
Would that be many or few?
To this I now ask:
1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?
Do you feel that it takes faith on your part not to believe that there is a Santa Claus? Because that is exactly how much faith non believers are expending in not believing in the existence of God.
It does not take faith or a lack of faith to believe that there is a Santa Claus, because I have direct knowledge that the depiction we see in malls and other paraphernalia is an exaggeration of a real person. I know the history of the original Saint Nicholas of which the story originated. Direct knowledge informs my decisions which in turn inform my beliefs. Since I have knowledge and proof that Santa Claus does not exist and never existed, it is easy to conclude no belief is necessary.
Non-theists do not have such direct knowledge or proof. What they have is evidence which they deem as insufficient. When a believer presents evidence of a miraculous healing, some non-theists assert this is insufficient evidence of God, while other accept the evidence as sufficient.
Insufficient evidence for God is not the same as claiming sufficient evidence to reject the existence of God. In comparison to Santa, I have direct and sufficient evidence to reject the existence of Santa. Nonbelievers lack such direct and sufficient evidence to proclaim God does not exist. At best one could proclaim an agnostic perspective of insufficiency.
KingandPriest wrote:
Insufficient evidence for God is not the same as claiming sufficient evidence to reject the existence of God. In comparison to Santa, I have direct and sufficient evidence to reject the existence of Santa. Nonbelievers lack such direct and sufficient evidence to proclaim God does not exist. At best one could proclaim an agnostic perspective of insufficiency.
When speaking of the Biblical God what you just said here is blatantly untrue. The Biblical God can be dismissed in the same way you claim to dismiss Santa Claus. The Bible describes the Biblical God in great detail and can easily be shown to be self-contradictory and therefore necessarily false. It also proclaims things that can easily be demonstrated to be false.
So in the case of the Biblical God agnosticism is not required. We can know for certain that the Biblical God cannot exist as described in the Bible. That's the key right there. There is no need to claim to have no knowledge of the Biblical God. The Bible defines its God in extreme and self-contradictory detail. So we can be confident in our dismissal of the Biblical God just as you are confident in your dismissal of Santa Claus.
We have sufficient evidence to dismiss the Biblical God.
[center] Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
KingandPriest wrote:
Insufficient evidence for God is not the same as claiming sufficient evidence to reject the existence of God. In comparison to Santa, I have direct and sufficient evidence to reject the existence of Santa. Nonbelievers lack such direct and sufficient evidence to proclaim God does not exist. At best one could proclaim an agnostic perspective of insufficiency.
When speaking of the Biblical God what you just said here is blatantly untrue. The Biblical God can be dismissed in the same way you claim to dismiss Santa Claus. The Bible describes the Biblical God in great detail and can easily be shown to be self-contradictory and therefore necessarily false. It also proclaims things that can easily be demonstrated to be false.
So in the case of the Biblical God agnosticism is not required. We can know for certain that the Biblical God cannot exist as described in the Bible. That's the key right there. There is no need to claim to have no knowledge of the Biblical God. The Bible defines its God in extreme and self-contradictory detail. So we can be confident in our dismissal of the Biblical God just as you are confident in your dismissal of Santa Claus.
We have sufficient evidence to dismiss the Biblical God.
So in your opinion, if something appears contradictory, it can be dismissed. In case you are not aware, there are many branches of science which appear contradictory. Should reject modern medicine or quantum mechanics because of possible contradictions?
In addition, what you often list as contradictions is a misapplication or lack of comprehension to certain biblucal text. If something doesn't make sense to you, you list ot as a contradiction.
You make a claim of sufficient evidence and only list assumptions or hypothetical scenarios about biblical texts.
What you deem as sufficient evidence can be called comjecture by those who are actually considered bible scholars. Should we trust your opinion on possible controversial texts or the experts?
Very well, KnP, enlighten us please as to how you have direct evidence to reject the existence of Santa Claus? Notice please what you said
In comparison to Santa, I have direct and sufficient evidence to reject the existence of Santa. Nonbelievers lack such direct and sufficient evidence to proclaim God does not exist. At best one could proclaim an agnostic perspective of insufficiency.
You made the distinct claim to show your difference with an agnostic. An agnostic says he doesn't have (sufficient) evidence of God, therefore he doesn't believe God exists.
That is a case of insufficient evidence.
However, with yourself, you are different. You have made the positive claim that Santa doesn't exist.
So I'd like it please if you could define Santa Claus, what he is able to do (or claimed to be able to do) and how you have investigated and gathered evidence to show he doesn't exist.
Remember...you have made the claim that you can prove the non-existence of something. That is a rather tall order, don't you think?
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
