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).

[benchwarmer]

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?

I'm not sure how I can be any more clear based on the bolded part of your comment. Did you or did you not write this:

Spirit is not physical matter. I have no reason to assume spiritual matters need creator.

If spiritual matters don't need creators, then anything spiritual would not require a creator. Is your soul spiritual? If not, what is it? If so, it didn't need a creator by your own logic.

Ergo, you have just unintentionally argued that our 'souls' or spiritual essense has no need of a creator. You've just opened the door to arguing, based on your logic, that all of us have potentially always existed just as God has and have no need to be created. We, if spiritual, can be uncreated as well.

Basic logic. I realize it's awfully inconvenient for the other arguments now, but that's the trap you created for yourself trying to dance out of one of the problems.

[The Tanager]

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

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/is-the- ... uments-for...

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

They are his wordings. I think he has given these lots of thought and provided the kind of careful wording needed. Why is careful wording a bad thing?

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.

I think the wording helps us to focus on the real issue about objective moral values: what grounds them as objectively true? If atheism is true, what is there to ground them? Theoretically, I think something could, but I believe the case for moral platonism or a physical reductionism is extremely weak. If it was worded the other way, people may miss that connection. The wording itself doesn't make it harder to refute, however.

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.

"Begins to exist" is not vague, nor does Craig rely on people misunderstanding it to get his point across. He does the complete opposite. People need to understand it so that they don't make a category mistake and refute a straw man, making them believe they are rational in rejecting Craig's argument.

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.

That's why I asked about certainty. I never claimed they were sound deductive arguments. Craig doesn't either. They are inferences to the best explanations.

[The Tanager]

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.

If you mean that my arguments were God-of-the-gaps type arguments, then you don't understand them. Please explain why you think they are. Explain why the resurrection is a trick of a primitive preacher, using verifiable evidence. Which argument did I offer from claims of angelic visions?

[The Tanager]

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.

I'm talking about the God argued towards in the arguments I gave. The Kalam directly argues towards an immaterial being. So does the cosmological argument from contingency. Whether the Bible depicts a bodily God is a separate question that could be had down the line, but almost everyone agrees (and for good reasons) that the Biblical God is immaterial.

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.

I'm talking about certainty because your standard was unclear to me. We need to make the context of our claims more clear so that we can dialogue about the same thing. I approach the arguments I gave as inferences to the best explanation. Do you think it reasonable to believe inferences to the best explanation? If so, then these arguments can fit that standard of warranted belief.

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

We haven't gotten to the support offered beyond the premises I listed because I'm still trying to understand the ground rules you are making your conclusion of "no verifiable evidence" on. I'm trying to avoid smoke and mirrors and get substantive here. If we keep talking about how the arguments basically make this mistake and it's so obvious before even getting the initial understanding down, then we are only fooling ourselves. Let's get this step down and then look at the actual arguments in depth. Or you can jump ahead and be grasping at smoke.

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.

If direct scientific observation is all that is allowed as "verfiable evidence," then of course there is no "verfiable evidence" for God's existence. To expect that there would be or that the lack thereof means anything of significance is silly. Not only that, but to believe that scientific evidence is all that is allowed as "verifiable evidence" is itself a hopeless, self-defeating position.

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.

It's the cause of the universe. It's the cause of morality. It fine-tuned the universe. It resurrected Jesus. Some of those effects involve scientific data, logic based off of observations, historical data. I think those are "verifiable evidence" within the context of inferences to the best explanation.

[Note: I personally don't think the ontological argument is a good one, but I haven't explored Plantinga's version that much. I only shared that one because I took Zzyzx's original question to be that God's existence was assumed from the start; it's not in the ontological argument.]

[FarWanderer]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 751#998751]The Tanager[/url]"]
[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 617#998617]FarWanderer[/url]"]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.[/quote]

I think the wording helps us to focus on the real issue about objective moral values: what grounds them as objectively true? If atheism is true, what is there to ground them? Theoretically, I think something could, but I believe the case for moral platonism or a physical reductionism is extremely weak. If it was worded the other way, people may miss that connection. The wording itself doesn't make it harder to refute, however.[/quote]

Calling it the real issue is just an excuse to focus on the difficulties in the opposing position rather than ones own.

Objective morality is grounded in common identity, such as shared humanity, shared familial bonds, shared ideology, etc. Its contextual to the individual because individuals have differing, though overlapping, identities. Morality has a subjective element as well, which is the hierarchy of identity. For example, is the well being of the family to which you belong more important than that of humanity in general to which you belong? Sometimes you may be forced to choose which is more important.

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 751#998751]The Tanager[/url]"][quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 617#998617]FarWanderer[/url]"]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.[/quote]

"Begins to exist" is not vague, nor does Craig rely on people misunderstanding it to get his point across. He does the complete opposite. People need to understand it so that they don't make a category mistake and refute a straw man, making them believe they are rational in rejecting Craig's argument.[/quote]

His argument should simply read begins to exist ex nihilo. If he did that he would never be strawmanned in this way. Ever.

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 753#998753]The Tanager[/url]"][quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 576#998576]benchwarmer[/url]"]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.[/quote]

It's the cause of the universe. It's the cause of morality. It fine-tuned the universe. It resurrected Jesus. Some of those effects involve scientific data, logic based off of observations, historical data. I think those are "verifiable evidence" within the context of inferences to the best explanation.[/quote]

These are all allegedly caused by miracles. Miracles are by definition a suspension of natural laws. Scientific data assumes the universality of natural laws in order to even function in the first place, so how do you use scientific data to prove a miracle? How is it even possible [b]logically[/b]?

[1213]

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

By His influence. Even though God is not physical matter, His influence can be.

[1213]

Ergo, you have just unintentionally argued that our 'souls' or spiritual essense has no need of a creator. You've just opened the door to arguing, based on your logic, that all of us have potentially always existed just as God has and have no need to be created.

Luckily I know well that I have not existed always.

[The Tanager]

Calling it the real issue is just an excuse to focus on the difficulties in the opposing position rather than ones own.

Both positions' difficulties are still able to be engaged, just as easily. The wording doesn't change that. One who disagrees with the argument can argue for a source of objective morals within an atheistic worldview or argue that theism does not lead to objective morality.

Objective morality is grounded in common identity, such as shared humanity, shared familial bonds, shared ideology, etc. Its contextual to the individual because individuals have differing, though overlapping, identities. Morality has a subjective element as well, which is the hierarchy of identity. For example, is the well being of the family to which you belong more important than that of humanity in general to which you belong? Sometimes you may be forced to choose which is more important.

Objective morality (as most Christian theists have talked about it) requires a source for human morality outside of human mind or opinion. What you seem to be describing comes out of human minds and conflict with the identities, bonds, idealogies, etc. of other human minds that have also grouped themselves together. This is subjective morality.

His argument should simply read begins to exist ex nihilo. If he did that he would never be strawmanned in this way. Ever.

There are multiple misunderstandings concerning the Kalam as well as the other theistic arguments. As to why the first premise of the Kalam should be changed to "Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause," why do you think this is needed?

These are all allegedly caused by miracles. Miracles are by definition a suspension of natural laws. Scientific data assumes the universality of natural laws in order to even function in the first place, so how do you use scientific data to prove a miracle? How is it even possible logically?

That's either a bad definition or you are misapplying the term in some of the arguments. The creation and fine-tuning of the universe would not be a suspension of natural laws, but the beginning of natural laws and the matter for them to work upon. We have scientific data that points to a beginning of space-time. We then apply logic (which science already relies upon) to this kind of idea. It points back to an immaterial (etc.) cause. The resurrection is based on historical data, not scientific data.

[benchwarmer]

Ergo, you have just unintentionally argued that our 'souls' or spiritual essense has no need of a creator. You've just opened the door to arguing, based on your logic, that all of us have potentially always existed just as God has and have no need to be created.

Luckily I know well that I have not existed always.

How do you know that? I don't even remember being born here on this planet, do you?

[FarWanderer]

Objective morality is grounded in common identity, such as shared humanity, shared familial bonds, shared ideology, etc. Its contextual to the individual because individuals have differing, though overlapping, identities. Morality has a subjective element as well, which is the hierarchy of identity. For example, is the well being of the family to which you belong more important than that of humanity in general to which you belong? Sometimes you may be forced to choose which is more important.

Objective morality (as most Christian theists have talked about it) requires a source for human morality outside of human mind or opinion. What you seem to be describing comes out of human minds and conflict with the identities, bonds, idealogies, etc. of other human minds that have also grouped themselves together. This is subjective morality.

I'm not talking about opinion. What are you? It is an objective question. Unless we want to talk physical composition, the answer is your bonds and relationships with other things and other people. "You" is meaningless without "not you".

Even Christianity itself uses a human <> God bond as the basis for human value, right? We are His Divine Creation and "seeking a relationship" with him is literally the meaning of our existence.

His argument should simply read begins to exist ex nihilo. If he did that he would never be strawmanned in this way. Ever.

There are multiple misunderstandings concerning the Kalam as well as the other theistic arguments. As to why the first premise of the Kalam should be changed to "Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause," why do you think this is needed?

Both premises need the change. It avoids risks of strawmanning and equivocation. It reduces confusion and misunderstandings.

Put another way, it's because an ex nihilo beginning is an extraordinary claim and what's actually being claimed, so why word it in such a way that passively appeals to common sense ex materia beginnings?

These are all allegedly caused by miracles. Miracles are by definition a suspension of natural laws. Scientific data assumes the universality of natural laws in order to even function in the first place, so how do you use scientific data to prove a miracle? How is it even possible logically?

That's either a bad definition or you are misapplying the term in some of the arguments. The creation and fine-tuning of the universe would not be a suspension of natural laws, but the beginning of natural laws and the matter for them to work upon.

Right. I know. I was aiming for brevity.

You are making a distinction without a relevant difference. The base assumption of science is that the natural laws are universal. Whether we are talking the laws' suspension or their creation is irrelevant to the point, since in either case science does not apply.

We have scientific data that points to a beginning of space-time.

This "scientific data" that you speak of is based on General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, both of which completely defy common sense, in particular with regards to time. In other words, you have to adopt certain assumptions that redefine what "beginning" even means before you can claim science points towards one.

We then apply logic (which science already relies upon) to this kind of idea. It points back to an immaterial (etc.) cause. The resurrection is based on historical data, not scientific data.

"Historical data" is just claims by people long ago. Do people always tell the truth? No. Do they always lie? No. So how do you evaluate it?