Fatal Flaw

[Zzyzx]

.
Christian beliefs and arguments suffer from a major defect of logic in assuming that God exists (Assuming the Premise is true).

God created the universe (assumes 'God')
God wants / says . . . (assumes 'God')
Billions believe (they assume 'God' exists)

Basing arguments on a premise that cannot / has not been shown to be true is nothing more than speculation. For example:

We shall prove that God exists:

1. The order and magnificence of the world is evidence of God's Creation.
2. Therefore, we know that God exists.

Here, it is assumed that God exists in order to satisfy the premise that "God's Creation" is evidence of his existence. There is no standalone argument here that connects existence to God's creation except the conclusion, which is that God exists. Note the slight structural differences in the argument to simple circular reasoning " the order of the world isn't implied by God's existence, but trying to use it as evidence of God's existence must assume he exists in the first place.

Faith may be defined as belief unsupported by evidence. To justify his religious faith, that world-champion question begger, Saint Paul, offers the following rationale:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
"Hebrews 11:1

In other words, the argument boils down to this:

There are things we cannot see (God, Heaven, whatever).
There is no evidence these things exist.
We believe in them anyway.
Our faith (unsupported belief) is itself the evidence of these things not seen.
Therefore these things exist, because we believe they do.

Witnessed miracles

We know that the Bible is true because there was a miracle witnessed by 500 people.
We know that there was a miracle witnessed by 500 people because the Bible says so.

This argument has actually been made by several different people, one of them being Dinesh D'Souza. They tend to try to bolster these types of arguments by saying things like, "How could the Gospel writers have gotten away with claiming this if it didn't happen? Wouldn't someone have called them on it?" Oddly enough, pointing out that these accounts were written generations after the supposed miracles happened, in a time when ready communications weren't reliably available, has little effect on the bullshitter individual putting forth this argument.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Question for debate: Can ANY biblical argument be made that does not assume (without proof / evidence) that 'God' exists? If so, kindly specify the argument(s).

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Assuming the premises are true is required for basic propositional logic. If you don't know this then it might be a fatal flaw in reasoning for you.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Assuming the premises are true is required for basic propositional logic. If you don't know this then it might be a fatal flaw in reasoning for you.

Care to take a stab at the Question for Debate?

Question for debate: Can ANY biblical argument be made that does not assume (without proof / evidence) that 'God' exists? If so, kindly specify the argument(s).

[1213]

God created the universe (assumes 'God')

I think that actually assumes reason. The idea is, things like universe dont come without cause, because no observation shows that things come to exist from nothing, or that lifeless material would come on its own living.

1. The order and magnificence of the world is evidence of God's Creation.
2. Therefore, we know that God exists

I would rather say; the existence of created things is evidence for creator. That anything exists, is reason to believe God exists.

[Tcg]

The idea is, things like universe dont come without cause, because no observation shows that things come to exist from nothing,

You just argued for the non-existence of God. God, whom theists claim exists without a creator, couldn't exist without a creator.

God either doesn't exist or is the product of some other creator.


Tcg

[The Tanager]

Question for debate: Can ANY biblical argument be made that does not assume (without proof / evidence) that 'God' exists? If so, kindly specify the argument(s).

I'm assuming that "biblical" here includes the broader notion of what you said at the beginning of your post, namely, "Christian beliefs and arguments..." as played out by your examples like "Billions believe..." which isn't said in the Bible.

These are various theistic arguments. None of them assume God's existence, but argue towards it. I can understand one thinking the premises are untrue, but they don't assume God's existence.

The Kalam

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe begins to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.


The fine-tuning of the universe

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
4. If the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design, then God exists.


The moral argument

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.


Case for the historical resurrection

1. There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples' belief in his resurrection.
2. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts.
3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.
4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.


The Comsological Argument from Contingency

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universes existence is God.


The Ontological Argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists

[Elijah John]

Question for debate: Can ANY biblical argument be made that does not assume (without proof / evidence) that 'God' exists? If so, kindly specify the argument(s).

No, but it has been established that even here one does not need to prove that God exists for every single topic. Unless the topic in question is something along the lines of "Does God exist?".

We are permitted (even here on C and A) to start topics related to Christianity and Apologetics that assume the existence of God, for the sake of argument.

We can (and do) argue for or against Christianity without first establishing/proving God's existence. There are other ways to defend or refute the validity of Christianity without attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Yes, if one actually disproves the existence of God, that would refute the validity of Christianity.

But conversely even if one proves that God exists, it does not necessarily follow that Christianity is valid, or that it is the only true religion or even the best religion.

[Zzyzx]

.

Question for debate: Can ANY biblical argument be made that does not assume (without proof / evidence) that 'God' exists? If so, kindly specify the argument(s).

No, but it has been established that even here one does not need to prove that God exists for every single topic. Unless the topic in question is something along the lines of "Does God exist?".

We are permitted (even here on C and A) to start topics related to Christianity and Apologetics that assume the existence of God, for the sake of argument.

I agree 100%

However, I maintain that a fatal / fundamental flaw in Christian beliefs and arguments IS that they assume God exists (whether stated and argued directly or not).

We can (and do) argue for or against Christianity without first establishing/proving God's existence.

Agree " we do exactly that.

I do not say or imply that arguments must establish / prove God's existence.

There are other ways to defend or refute the validity of Christianity without attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Do attempts to defend the validity of Christianity assume that God exists?

Unless that is true (whether being discussed or not), no matter what arguments are presented, the religion is without validity. Do you agree?

Yes, if one actually disproves the existence of God, that would refute the validity of Christianity.

Isn't the burden of proof upon those who make the positive claim?

But conversely even if one proves that God exists, it does not necessarily follow that Christianity is valid, or that it is the only true religion or even the best religion.

Agree 100%

The ancient preachers and Bible writers may have gotten it all wrong. It is not unknown for religion promoters to exaggerate their knowledge of supernatural entities.

[Zzyzx]

.

God created the universe (assumes 'God')

I think that actually assumes reason.

Valid reasoning begins with factual information based upon verifiable evidence " NOT 'Take my word for it (or his or this book)'.

The idea is, things like universe dont come without cause, because no observation shows that things come to exist from nothing, or that lifeless material would come on its own living.

This is a textbook example of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.

Or, 'Because origin of the universe (or life) is not known; therefore 'Goddidit'.

1. The order and magnificence of the world is evidence of God's Creation.
2. Therefore, we know that God exists

I would rather say; the existence of created things is evidence for creator. That anything exists, is reason to believe God exists.

Notice that Zzyzx quoted Rational Wiki demonstrating Circular Reasoning.

To WHAT 'created things' do you refer?

See this rock (or this universe); therefore 'Goddidit'

Or perhaps Leprechauns did it. Of course, we do not know that Leprechauns (or something similar) actually exist or do anything. The same is true for 'God' or gods

How do you KNOW that your favorite among the thousands of 'gods' did it " and not Leprechauns, Extraterrestrial humanoids, some unknown / unrecognized 'god' or something that is totally unknown to us?

Truth be known, you do NOT know the origin of the universe or of life " but prefer your god hypothesis (taken from ancient writers) " and state your preference as though it was TRUTH.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

Our esteemed former moderator friend Dianiad used to say the burden of proof rests on the one making the absolute claim, not necessarily the positive one. I agree.