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).

[Tcg]

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.

That's an interesting loophole.

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.

If a God existed, it should be possible to observe it in nature. No such observation is possible.


Tcg

[benchwarmer]

[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.

Do we need multiple scientific books to determine if skunks are real?

Verifiable evidence: Evidence that can be checked.

Example: I claim skunks are real. You demand verifiable evidence. I describe a skunk and then point you to the closed zoo/nature park/etc where skunks are available for observation. You go see (and/or smell) for yourself if the thing I speak of is real or I made it up.

Now, do you have any such evidence of God that we can examine? Footprints, residual energy signatures, etc.?

We all know this very website exists because there is no such verifiable evidence.

[benchwarmer]

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.

Congratulations, you just defeated the argument that we have eternal souls created by God. Oops.

[Clownboat]

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?

I do!
If only you were able to understand my explanations. However, due to your sinful nature you are blinded to the truth.

Good luck with your fake god. If you ever want to learn about the one true God that is Truth, you first will need to open your heart before you will be able to understand. You will need to give up your sinful nature.

1213: Can't you just try to explain?
Clownboat: No, far to sinful are you. Truth hides from evil. It's not that the explination is bad though, it's just your sinful nature that doesn't allow understanding.

Sure hope that doesn't come off as patronizing.

1213: I dont believe people could imagine Bible God. I think people are too evil and know so little to be able to imagine Bible God. also, if Bible would be just human imagination, atheists would understand what Bible is saying and they could show mistakes in it.
viewtopic.php?t=36803&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10
Post 20

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 18 by 1213]

There is good reason for saying that spirit consists of photons, actually, with sound science in hand.

Modern radiology has the most astonishing images of people who are radiating photons, also as they die, also of their "ghosts", their former selves.

No kidding. "Atheism" must update instead continuously repeating base sentences of science so as to sound scientific when they are not particularly excellent at science at all!

[The Tanager]

Verifiable evidence: Evidence that can be checked.

Example: I claim skunks are real. You demand verifiable evidence. I describe a skunk and then point you to the closed zoo/nature park/etc where skunks are available for observation. You go see (and/or smell) for yourself if the thing I speak of is real or I made it up.

Now, do you have any such evidence of God that we can examine? Footprints, residual energy signatures, etc.?

Checked how? Your examples are physical checks. Such an absence for a non-physical being would tell us nothing about it's existence. Is the principle of causality a proper check, in your view? If not, why not? The same goes for the following: scientific evidence that the spatio-temporal universe began to exist, the logical impossibility that the spatio-temporal universe began to exist (or just logic in general as it comes into play in all of the arguments), historical evidence, introspective evidence?

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

Claim = you will feel pain upon striking your head hard with a hammer.
Verifiable evidence = perform experiment to verify " hit hard " observe pain as claimed.

(Disclaimer: If no pain is felt after repeated blows, you may be unable to process new information)

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,

You're welcome. I'm glad to help with some basic concepts of debate and reasoning.
Additional resources are available viewtopic.php?t=29308&start=0
viewtopic.php?t=9533&start=0

Thank you for demonstrating the fallacy to readers

it seems this forum is full of atheists with Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Of course, all those Atheists keep saying 'You can have eternal life because this book says so. They cannot show that the book is truthful or accurate.

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?

I do not know any Leprechauns or any gods (or what they claim to have created). Do you?

NOW, instead of shucking and jiving / ducking and weaving, try to answer " How do you KNOW that your favorite among the thousands of 'gods' did it?

Did a 'god' tell you that personally?
Did you read about it in a book? Was the book truthful and accurate? How do you know?
Did a preacher tell you? How did the preacher know?
Did you make it up by yourself?

Don't be shy. Tell readers how you know that your favorite 'god' created the universe, or 'this world'.

[benchwarmer]

Verifiable evidence: Evidence that can be checked.

Example: I claim skunks are real. You demand verifiable evidence. I describe a skunk and then point you to the closed zoo/nature park/etc where skunks are available for observation. You go see (and/or smell) for yourself if the thing I speak of is real or I made it up.

Now, do you have any such evidence of God that we can examine? Footprints, residual energy signatures, etc.?

Checked how?

By whatever method the claimant is claiming can be done.

Your examples are physical checks.

Of course they are. Observation of something requires its physical reality.

Note that indirect observation still has some limited value as well. For example, when I shake this box, I observe (hear) something move inside the box. Even though I have not directly observed the contents, I can conclude there is something either inside the box or sound being made by something whenever the box is moved. Only direct observation by some means would let us actually know (verify) what it is.

Logical arguments based on nothing more than unverifiable claims does not poof things into existence. If you don't start with something 'solid', you can't arrive at anything solid either. At best you can say - well if my premises are indeed true, then my conclusion is true. Assuming of course there is not a fallacy in the logical argument.

Such an absence for a non-physical being would tell us nothing about it's existence.

Exactly. With no verifiable evidence, we can know nothing about it for sure. Or if "it" even exists at all.

Lack of evidence does not prove something doesn't exist, but lack of evidence surely doesn't help to prove that it does either. At this point it's called 'guessing'.

Is the principle of causality a proper check, in your view? If not, why not? The same goes for the following: scientific evidence that the spatio-temporal universe began to exist, the logical impossibility that the spatio-temporal universe began to exist (or just logic in general as it comes into play in all of the arguments), historical evidence, introspective evidence?

In my view, if I cannot verify a claim by some means then I cannot know if it is true or not. It may be true or false regardless of the ability to verify it, but the inability to verify a claim leaves it as just that - a claim.

Regarding your questions:

It depends exactly what you mean by the principle of causality. In reality, all we have as humans is the input to our brains to go by. This input is the result of nerve excitation by light, sound, heat, pressure, etc. All things caused by the transfer of energy. In this sense, causality is the ONLY thing we have to verify something since we need to use our brains in order to even have a thought.

As to the beginning of the universe, science has no answer beyond a certain point - yet (or maybe ever). Just because we observe that the universe seems to have 'began' from a single point does not mean there was nothing there before. We can't currently observe anything prior to a certain point. Anything beyond that is guessing. Inserting unobserved, magical beings into the equation is pointless and doesn't actually solve anything. It merely moves the problem space and causes some to stop looking for the real answer.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 27 by benchwarmer]

I'm still unclear if you are basically saying that science is the only way to gain knowledge about reality and what level of certainty you are after. The God argued towards in the arguments I shared is not a physical being, so it would be silly to expect physical evidence for this being like you want for skunks. The lack of physical evidence neither helps nor hinders the case.

The evidence offered in the arguments I listed involves logic applied to scientific observations, basic principles that are at the basis of science (like causality) and thought in general, historical evidence, etc. Do these satisfy "verifiable" as you mean the term?

These kinds of evidence will not reach 100% certainty, but pure mathematics is probably the only thing that does. Physical observation and probably all of science does not. So, also, what level of certainty are you after?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 27 by benchwarmer]

I'm still unclear if you are basically saying that science is the only way to gain knowledge about reality and what level of certainty you are after.

Science, at its core, is simply observation. How else do we determine if something is real in our reality? We can certainly make hypotheses based on other observation, but until we confirm something with observation, we can't really know.

The God argued towards in the arguments I shared is not a physical being,

Well that's just a claim. And not a biblical one.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

21 Then the Lord said, There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.

So, what god concept are you talking about and how do you KNOW that it is not physical in nature? I thought we were talking about the god described in the Bible.

so it would be silly to expect physical evidence for this being like you want for skunks. The lack of physical evidence neither helps nor hinders the case.

Can this god you speak of perform any feats within our reality? If so, we have the ability to observe these feats. This would be physical evidence, albeit of the indirect observational kind which is at least a start.

The evidence offered in the arguments I listed involves logic applied to scientific observations, basic principles that are at the basis of science (like causality) and thought in general, historical evidence, etc. Do these satisfy "verifiable" as you mean the term?

I didn't see any evidence offered in the arguments presented other than some baseless assertions.

These kinds of evidence will not reach 100% certainty, but pure mathematics is probably the only thing that does. Physical observation and probably all of science does not. So, also, what level of certainty are you after?

Why are you now talking about certainty? I'm talking about verifiable evidence. You claim X based on Y. I ask how to reproduce Y, you tell me. I go use your method and either observe Y or I don't. If I observe Y, I have some confidence in your claim X. If I don't I either didn't do something right or the claim is bogus.

This seems like nothing more than a show of smoke and mirrors and/or the usual dance when asked for some actual verifiable evidence.