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).

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 6 by The Tanager]

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
Assumes facts not in evidence. Argument fails.

The fine-tuning of the universe

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
The reason for alleged fine tuning of the universe has not been established. Argument fails.

The moral argument

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
The existence of objective moral values has not been established. Argument fails.

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.
These are only unverified claims and not established facts. Argument fails.

The Cosmological 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.
The explanation for the existence of the universe is unknown. Argument fails.

The Ontological Argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
It is not known if such a being is even possible. Argument fails.

So far, no gods necessary.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Let me tell a scientific story for God's existence based on modern radiology.

Ghosts can be revealed by modern radiology on a given frequency or range of frequencies.
Radio-telescopes are set on ghost frequency range and directed toward Sloane's Wall at the rim of the Universe.
Sloane's Wall reveals a massive count of "souls" or "ghosts".
Since there is no logical reason for massive count of souls there, we have to conclude that we are looking at Heaven.
Since Heaven is the home of God, we have to conclude we are watching God's being directly.
Science has proven God's existence.
God exists!

Hah! So there!

[benchwarmer]

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.

Member brunumb has already shown a failure in each, but I would also like to point out:

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.

Well look at that, assuming your desired outcome. I could just as easily substitute "then an uncaused group of friendly, super intelligent skunks"

5. Therefore, an uncaused, friendly group of super intelligent skunks outside of the universe exist, who sans the universe are beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

What do you know, we just 'successfully argued' the universe was created by super intelligent skunks! At least we know skunks are possible.

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.

Blatant assertion that conveniently leaves only the desired outcome.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.
4. If the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design, then God exists.

Again, inserting your desired outcome. What about the skunks from Kalam?

So far you have proven the OP.

The moral argument

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Again, assuming your God. Assuming for one moment that objective morals exist (they don't appear to), they could have been put in place by the skunks again.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

Baseless, simple assertion.

3. Therefore, [strike]God[/strike] super intelligent skunks exist.

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.

Not a single one of these is a fact. In fact, all three of them are nothing more than hearsay, written down by primarily anonymous sources. Facts? I don't think so

2. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts.

And here we go again. Assuming just for the sake of argument someone was raised from the dead, given we have no verifiable evidence for God, it could just as easily be that band of skunks again.

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.

There you go again, inserting your desired outcome.

"]
The Ontological Argument

I'll fix this up for you:

1. It is possible that a maximally great band of super intelligent skunks exist.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great band of super intelligent skunks exist, then a maximally great band of super intelligent skunks exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great band of super intelligent skunks exist in some possible world, then they exist in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great band of super intelligent skunks exist in every possible world, then they exist in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great band of super intelligent skunks exist in the actual world, then a maximally great band of super intelligent skunks exist.
6. Therefore, a maximally great band of super intelligent skunks exist

EVERY single argument posed here assumes the desired outcome in one way or the other. Each one is also fatally flawed in one way or the other and can be used, with their existing flaws, to argue anything (like the skunks) exists. i.e. these arguments are useless in trying to show God exists.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Let me tell a scientific story for God's existence based on modern radiology.

You're right, this is a STORY.

Ghosts can be revealed by modern radiology on a given frequency or range of frequencies.

Peer reviewed link to said science? If not, you are just pulling the same thing. i.e. planting your desired outcome in the premises of your argument.

Fail.

Though it does nicely show that we can make anything seem valid if we insert our desired outcome in the argument using bad logic, unsupported assertions, or just plain old misdirection.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 10 by brunumb]

So, we might be understanding different things about the question for debate. I understand it to mean that theistic arguments actually beg the question by assuming God's existence in one of the premises, rather than arguing towards God's existence as a conclusion. Your response seems to be that the arguments don't prove their conclusions with certainty. Please correct any misunderstanding.

It also doesn't matter to me which of us is right about how Zzyzx intended it, so I'm not arguing about that. I'm just trying to clarify different ways to take the question under debate and get clarity on which way people want to discuss it before responding further.

[The Tanager]

Well look at that, assuming your desired outcome. I could just as easily substitute "then an uncaused group of friendly, super intelligent skunks"

That's because I didn't lay out the support for every premise, but just mentioned the basic premises. If I laid out all the support, objections, and responses to those objections, you would have had to read a book-length response. I'm willing to talk further about such supports as we go along, should anyone wish. That the cause of the universe is uncaused and personal is not simply assumed, but argued for. This is the same with your critiques of the other arguments as well.

I laid out different ways the question under debate could be taken. My view that God's existence is not assumed, but argued towards and another view (possibly brunumb's) that these arguments don't give us certainty for their conclusions. One could also agree that God's existence is not assumed, but that the arguments are weak or implausible and want to discuss that. Which of these (or a different approach) do you want to discuss with me?

[benchwarmer]

Well look at that, assuming your desired outcome. I could just as easily substitute "then an uncaused group of friendly, super intelligent skunks"

That's because I didn't lay out the support for every premise, but just mentioned the basic premises. If I laid out all the support, objections, and responses to those objections, you would have had to read a book-length response.

Let's be real here. There is NO verifiable evidence for the God you have inserted in the given arguments. If there were, there would be no need for book length responses. The reason those responses would be book-length is that they are also no doubt filled with assumptions that follow to the desired result.

All of these arguments have been hashed over ad naseum in these threads. If one happened to be convincing due to the evidence behind it, only one would need to be offered. The fact that this has to be argued from so many angles is telling.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

Yes, let's be real. Scientific knowledge would cover multiple books, but that doesn't mean they are "no doubt filled with assumptions that follow to the desired result." That physical realities are argued from so many angles is not telling in the way you think multiple angles for God's existence are. I'm willing to discuss our claims rationally, offering support for my views and to respond to any objection. If you are willing to do that, instead of just sharing our final conclusions, let me know which angle you want to take concerning these arguments. If it involves this concept of "verifiable evidence," you should define that term so that we are on the same page.

[1213]

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.

Bible tells God is spirit. Spirit is not physical matter. I have no reason to assume spiritual matters need creator. But, I can observe nature and physical world and if it would have the ability to create life from dead material, it should be possible to observe it happen in nature.

[1213]

Valid reasoning begins with factual information based upon verifiable evidence

Please show one example of verifiable evidence? I would like to see do you think such thing exist at all.

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.

Thanks for the word, it seems this forum is full of atheists with Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

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?

Do you know some Leprechaun who claims he has created this world?