The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

---The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source
---As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other. Source
---The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. Source

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

---The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. Source
---It is this extraordinary instance of apparent fine tuning, and others, which has brought the worlds most respected cosmologists, including Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, & Andrei Linde, to recognize not only the legitimacy of the phenomenon, but the necessity to explain it. Source

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. Source

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Source
---An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Source

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts. For the sake of intellectual honesty (a virtue that is desperately needed on this forum) theists need to admit that these facts do not decisively prove God's existence. They only lend support to the proposition of God and the God hypothesis is only one of many explanations that accounts for these facts. In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

Question: Are the four items listed above facts? If so, how much credibility do they give the God hypothesis and Christian theism?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 203 by Star]

Pink is a color on the visible spectrum. If something is pink it is not invisible. Therefore invisible pink unicorns do not exist. QED

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 203 by Star]

Pink is a color on the visible spectrum. If something is pink it is not invisible. Therefore invisible pink unicorns do not exist. QED

NO! No! No! They are indeed both pink and invisible. The are pink in the abstract. They appear pink to those to whom they are visible, while they remain invisible to others.

You simply cannot prove that the invisible pink unicorns are not visible to someone.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 203 by Star]

Pink is a color on the visible spectrum. If something is pink it is not invisible. Therefore invisible pink unicorns do not exist. QED

NO! No! No! They are indeed both pink and invisible. The are pink in the abstract. They appear pink to those to whom they are visible, while they remain invisible to others.

You simply cannot prove that the invisible pink unicorns are not visible to someone.

Well, it seems to me that in this context, 'invisible' is a property of the unicorn; that is, the unicorn is invisible, and if it is invisible at all it is invisible to all. Otherwise one would have to use a different adjectival phrase, such as 'invisible to all but (insert privileged few here).

In that case, then it must be true that an invisible unicorn cannot be both invisible and pink.

Y'know, I've never thought of that before, the internal contradiction of 'pink' and invisibility' applied to the same object.


I'd say that was amazing, my missing that obvious problem, except that I miss stuff like that all the time.

[scourge99]

[Replying to post 203 by Star]

Pink is a color on the visible spectrum. If something is pink it is not invisible. Therefore invisible pink unicorns do not exist. QED

NO! No! No! They are indeed both pink and invisible. The are pink in the abstract. They appear pink to those to whom they are visible, while they remain invisible to others.

You simply cannot prove that the invisible pink unicorns are not visible to someone.

Well, it seems to me that in this context, 'invisible' is a property of the unicorn; that is, the unicorn is invisible, and if it is invisible at all it is invisible to all. Otherwise one would have to use a different adjectival phrase, such as 'invisible to all but (insert privileged few here).

In that case, then it must be true that an invisible unicorn cannot be both invisible and pink.

Y'know, I've never thought of that before, the internal contradiction of 'pink' and invisibility' applied to the same object.


I'd say that was amazing, my missing that obvious problem, except that I miss stuff like that all the time.

A-unicornists need to be a bit more careful before making such amateur mistakes like assuming such a simplistic assessment of the unicorn's properties is sufficient to dismiss its existence. Perhaps to the laywomen the invisible pink unicorn is self-contradictory but there is some nuance that you are missing.For example, Jesus, god, and the holy spirit are "different" but of the same 'substance" (trinity). Yet no one argues that these things can't exist because it's contradictory to have "one god in three persons". Likewise, the invisible pink unicorn is both invisible and pink in one unicorn! Unicorn scholars call this "uni-stasis". The elegance of this logic is further proof of the perfection and beauty of our hoofed creator.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 203 by Star]

Pink is a color on the visible spectrum. If something is pink it is not invisible. Therefore invisible pink unicorns do not exist. QED

NO! No! No! They are indeed both pink and invisible. The are pink in the abstract. They appear pink to those to whom they are visible, while they remain invisible to others.

You simply cannot prove that the invisible pink unicorns are not visible to someone.

Well, it seems to me that in this context, 'invisible' is a property of the unicorn; that is, the unicorn is invisible, and if it is invisible at all it is invisible to all. Otherwise one would have to use a different adjectival phrase, such as 'invisible to all but (insert privileged few here).

In that case, then it must be true that an invisible unicorn cannot be both invisible and pink.

Y'know, I've never thought of that before, the internal contradiction of 'pink' and invisibility' applied to the same object.


I'd say that was amazing, my missing that obvious problem, except that I miss stuff like that all the time.

I think both Help and I were having a bit of fun, but there was a serious point to my effort. "Invisibility to all" was never an explicit given. More importantly there is a parallel with the Christian argument that God exists and I can sense his presence, even tho' He is 'invisible' to you.

God is an invisible pink unicorn. To the one who claims special sight, this unicorn is visible and pink. To the non theist there simply is no unicorn, invisible or pink or both or otherwise. The theist says that if you use your inner faith or your secret sight or your 'swelling of the bosom' or your 'faith' you can see that the invisible pink unicorn is visible and pink.

The non theist simply says, you are deluded by your youthful programing. There is no unicorn, whether you think him pink or not. Since he does not exist he has no properties at all. You can make Him both invisible and pink, omnipotent and good, or whatever contradictory qualities you want, because you are engaging in a fantasy.

That is the very point of unicorns that are both invisible and pink.

[Star]

[Replying to post 203 by Star]

Pink is a color on the visible spectrum. If something is pink it is not invisible. Therefore invisible pink unicorns do not exist. QED

Why do such advanced beings have to make sense to us mere mortals? They're pink to believers who are able to see them, but invisible to everyone else.

It's kind like how Jesus is a good-looking white man with blonde hair and blue eyes, yet, he's currently invisible to non-believers. Similar to religionists, I can fabricate a silly excuse for every objection you can raise to my nonsense.

To see them, you must first have faith. First believe, and then you will believe.

If you still can't "see" them, then you're not trying hard enough. Open your mind, bla, bla, bla...

So, feckless burden shift back to you: Prove they don't exist.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 203 by Star]

Pink is a color on the visible spectrum. If something is pink it is not invisible. Therefore invisible pink unicorns do not exist. QED

NO! No! No! They are indeed both pink and invisible. The are pink in the abstract. They appear pink to those to whom they are visible, while they remain invisible to others.

You simply cannot prove that the invisible pink unicorns are not visible to someone.

Well, it seems to me that in this context, 'invisible' is a property of the unicorn; that is, the unicorn is invisible, and if it is invisible at all it is invisible to all. Otherwise one would have to use a different adjectival phrase, such as 'invisible to all but (insert privileged few here).

In that case, then it must be true that an invisible unicorn cannot be both invisible and pink.

Y'know, I've never thought of that before, the internal contradiction of 'pink' and invisibility' applied to the same object.


I'd say that was amazing, my missing that obvious problem, except that I miss stuff like that all the time.

A-unicornists need to be a bit more careful before making such amateur mistakes like assuming such a simplistic assessment of the unicorn's properties is sufficient to dismiss its existence. Perhaps to the laywomen the invisible pink unicorn is self-contradictory but there is some nuance that you are missing.For example, Jesus, god, and the holy spirit are "different" but of the same 'substance" (trinity). Yet no one argues that these things can't exist because it's contradictory to have "one god in three persons". Likewise, the invisible pink unicorn is both invisible and pink in one unicorn! Unicorn scholars call this "uni-stasis". The elegance of this logic is further proof of the perfection and beauty of our hoofed creator.

They just don't get it.

The self-authenticating spirit of the IPU confirms it's existence, and, how else do we explain the existence of everything: Life, Universe, Logic, etc?

Only a IPU could be the source of all of this.

[dianaiad]

A-unicornists need to be a bit more careful before making such amateur mistakes like assuming such a simplistic assessment of the unicorn's properties is sufficient to dismiss its existence. Perhaps to the laywomen the invisible pink unicorn is self-contradictory but there is some nuance that you are missing.For example, Jesus, god, and the holy spirit are "different" but of the same 'substance" (trinity). Yet no one argues that these things can't exist because it's contradictory to have "one god in three persons". Likewise, the invisible pink unicorn is both invisible and pink in one unicorn! Unicorn scholars call this "uni-stasis". The elegance of this logic is further proof of the perfection and beauty of our hoofed creator.

Beautiful argument...and it might actually be effective if you were using it on a trinitarian.

Because you are not (or at least, I"m not, trinitarian, that is) I can't actually argue against you with this. Darn.

[Ooberman]

A-unicornists need to be a bit more careful before making such amateur mistakes like assuming such a simplistic assessment of the unicorn's properties is sufficient to dismiss its existence. Perhaps to the laywomen the invisible pink unicorn is self-contradictory but there is some nuance that you are missing.For example, Jesus, god, and the holy spirit are "different" but of the same 'substance" (trinity). Yet no one argues that these things can't exist because it's contradictory to have "one god in three persons". Likewise, the invisible pink unicorn is both invisible and pink in one unicorn! Unicorn scholars call this "uni-stasis". The elegance of this logic is further proof of the perfection and beauty of our hoofed creator.

Beautiful argument...and it might actually be effective if you were using it on a trinitarian.

Because you are not (or at least, I"m not, trinitarian, that is) I can't actually argue against you with this. Darn.

I would like others to consider Di's statement about not being able to argue against it, then, imagine how strongly she believes the IPU isn't real.

This is how I, at least, feel about theistic arguments. It's a lot of nice words but in the end it comes across as sophistry.

None of it is convincing, for IPUs or Gods.


And, consider, a Platonist might argue IPU's do exist because they exist as a concept, and if it's a concept, it must exist "somewhere" in a perfect state... And, existence is a more perfect state than non-existence...

See how theistic arguments can be used to prove anything?

Please, everyone - especially theists - take note.

[Danmark]

A-unicornists need to be a bit more careful before making such amateur mistakes like assuming such a simplistic assessment of the unicorn's properties is sufficient to dismiss its existence. Perhaps to the laywomen the invisible pink unicorn is self-contradictory but there is some nuance that you are missing.For example, Jesus, god, and the holy spirit are "different" but of the same 'substance" (trinity). Yet no one argues that these things can't exist because it's contradictory to have "one god in three persons". Likewise, the invisible pink unicorn is both invisible and pink in one unicorn! Unicorn scholars call this "uni-stasis". The elegance of this logic is further proof of the perfection and beauty of our hoofed creator.

Beautiful argument...and it might actually be effective if you were using it on a trinitarian.

Because you are not (or at least, I"m not, trinitarian, that is) I can't actually argue against you with this. Darn.

What DO Mormons believe regarding this issue?

Do they believe:
"Mormons never use the word trinity because we believe in the Godhead as explained in the first article of faith; We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. We believe they are separate beings but one in the same purpose; providing a plan of salvation for mankind."
http://iamamormon.wordpress.com/2011/03 ... y-trinity/

What does THAT mean? If it is not the 'trinity' then it certainly is not monotheism.

Seems to me this is the same mess the early Christians contended with; 'How do we reconcile God the son with God the father + what is this 'holy spirit' thing and how is that reconciled with the other two and monotheism.

It really is a hopeless mess, whether you take a 'Mormon' perspective or a traditional trinitarian approach. Any effort to go beyond a strict monotheism erodes monotheism.

The Mormon's hardly handle this problem better than the Roman Catholic church did.
Either Jesus is a human who died, or he is part of the godhead which destroys the idea of monotheism. Why Christians can't face up to this is beyond me. Why they have to insist that 'God the Father' and God the Holy Spirit' are separate entities has also always eluded me, even from the days when I was a 'true believer.'

You can wiggle, you can squirm, but you can't come up with any non laughable scenario where there is one god, and also three. And the Mormon 'fix' is no better than the orthodox silliness.