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).

[marco]

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?

And your proposals are attempts to make conclusions about a non-physical world from conclusions reached about the physical world. God is the explanation for human ignorance about starts and finishes. He does not arise from complex integrals but from the same premise that gave us sun and moon gods as explanation for our earlier ignorance. Perhaps in a brave, new world, we will not need to invent a god but one would have thought that had he existed independently, he would have offered a few better hints than the appearance of a primitive preacher versed in a few tricks or an Arab trader stuck in cave with an angel.

[FarWanderer]

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

These look a lot like WIlliam Lane Craig versions of these arguments.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/is-the- ... o/10099704

He very carefully words his arguments in certain ways that make them more work to refute, which I find a bit disingenuous. Take, for example, his formulation of 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.

It would be more straightforward if it were just:

1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Arguing with Craig is just a matter of endlessly slogging though stuff like this. With the Kalam, for example, he's perfectly happy to let vague phrases like "begins to exist" be misunderstood if it serves his purposes.

And as other posters have already said in as many words, if you have a sound deductive argument then you only need one. Not 5 or 7 or whatever. Anything else only serves to make things more convoluted, which apparently is in the Apologist's interest.

[benchwarmer]

These look a lot like WIlliam Lane Craig versions of these arguments.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/is-the- ... o/10099704

He very carefully words his arguments in certain ways that make them more work to refute, which I find a bit disingenuous. Take, for example, his formulation of 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.

I actually find this particular argument pretty easy to rip apart.

The first premise is just a bald assertion. If objective morals do exist, they do not necessarily have to be the work of 'God'. Maybe it would be a band of gods, 3 angry pixies, 2 leprechauns, a drunk unicorn, etc. Who knows. In other words, you can substitute anything you want.

The second premise is also just an unsupported assertion.

The conclusion, therefore, is based on faulty premises.

Here's my version which is just as valid and just as useless:

1. If a band of supreme, all powerful skunks don't exist then objective morals don't exist.
2. Objective morals exist.
3. Therefore, a band of supreme, all powerful skunks exist.

It becomes obvious when you simply replace 'God' with whatever other unevidenced idea you would like to 'prove'. Arguments like these are laughable.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 32 by benchwarmer]

Well, the difference between God and a squad of skunks is that God is defined as the source of objective morality.

1. If objective moral values do not exist, the source for objective moral values (a.k.a. "God") does not exist.

Obviously true, so the apologist thinks they have a solid argument, and the argument is for "God" so they think it's an argument for God. A solid argument for God.

Problem is this God is not established by this argument to be anything more than some rather generic "source for objective moral values". It doesn't establish personhood or any other attributes, but the apologist will be convinced that it does simply by virtue of the word they use. In other words, it's a rather informal equivocation fallacy.

It's all very typical of these apologist arguments. Usually they can be read in a way that makes them true in some trivial sense; or they can be read in a way that makes them false/arbitrary, but with an interesting conclusion. Apologists usually conflate the two inadvertently, by equivocation, convincing themselves that they have both strong arguments AND interesting conclusions. Unfortunately, the trivial versions of these arguments are so indisputably true that it makes it very difficult for the apologist to doubt them, so we get endless meaningless debate.

[1213]

That's an interesting loophole.

How is that a loophole? Are you claiming that spirit is physical matter?

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

Why do you think it should be possible to observe spiritual matter in nature, when it is not natural matter?

Anyway, I think God can be observed in nature similarly as gravity can be observed in nature, even though gravity is not directly visible. It is possible to observe God by His influence. And this world and the Bible are because of His influence. I believe the real problem in this is that you dont know God and that is why, even if God would be right in front of you, you would not recognize Him.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

[1213]

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

I dont think so, please explain why do you think so, even though there is no good reason for that?

[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.

Intersting however, according to the Bible, God is spirit and love. So, the spirit is love. Love could be compared to light, but I think it is something else.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

[1213]

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

Ok, in that case I think it is better not to ask verifiable evidence for God, for you, because I dont want God to hit you.

How do you KNOW that your favorite among the thousands of 'gods' did it?

By that no other shows the level of wisdom and knowledge to be the one who created. Also, about 99,999 % of the alleged gods are basically same as calling your left foot shoe as god. I have not seen a shoe, or something that is on level of shoe to do anything, which is why I also can easily ignore them.

[Tcg]

That's an interesting loophole.

How is that a loophole? Are you claiming that spirit is physical matter?

Nope. You are the one making claims about spirit and making special, illogical exceptions based on those claims.

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

Why do you think it should be possible to observe spiritual matter in nature, when it is not natural matter?

More loopholes for spiritual matter aren't evidence that it exists.

Anyway, I think God can be observed in nature similarly as gravity can be observed in nature, even though gravity is not directly visible. It is possible to observe God by His influence. And this world and the Bible are because of His influence.

You've just contradicted your earlier objection. You are now claiming he can be observed in nature. Which is it?

I believe the real problem in this is that you dont know God and that is why, even if God would be right in front of you, you would not recognize Him.

You just contradicted your earlier objection again. Earlier you implied that spirit is not observable in nature. Now you are blaming me for not being able to see that which isn't observable in nature.

The bigger problem of course is that is simply the tired old ad hominem all to many theists rely on when they fail to present any verifiable evidence.


Tcg

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 32 by benchwarmer]

Well, the difference between God and a squad of skunks is that God is defined as the source of objective morality.

1. If objective moral values do not exist, the source for objective moral values (a.k.a. "God") does not exist.

I get your point, but WHERE is God defined as the source for objective moral values? Is it not in this first premise?

I could just as easily say:

1. If objective moral values do not exist, the source for objective moral values (a.k.a. a band of all powerful skunks) does not exist.

Obviously true, so the apologist thinks they have a solid argument, and the argument is for "God" so they think it's an argument for God. A solid argument for God.

Not obviously true. I understand what you are saying, but when the apologist defines something themselves with the desired conclusion built in they end up (surprise, surprise) with their desired conclusion.

My desired conclusion with this particular apologetic is that objective morals are defined as coming from a band of all powerful skunks. The apologist's definition has no more evidence (i.e. zero) than mine so they are both as 'useful'.

Problem is this God is not established by this argument to be anything more than some rather generic "source for objective moral values". It doesn't establish personhood or any other attributes, but the apologist will be convinced that it does simply by virtue of the word they use. In other words, it's a rather informal equivocation fallacy.

Agreed, 100%. It only becomes that when, in some of the other arguments proffered, they also insert this desired outcome of 'personal creator' by simple assertion.