The Topic of God Has Been Settled!....

[POI]

...According to a theist....

Otseng: Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.

POI Therefore, the agnostic/atheist/other is:

a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Meaning, the theists have won. At this point, it's as futile as debating the shape of the earth with a flat earther. In this scenario, the doubter is the 'flat earther.' Is this how settled the topic is regarding God's existence?

For debate:

1) If the skeptic/doubter does not agree with the title of this thread, they are one of the given options in <a) though d)> above, maybe like that of a "flat earther"? Please agree or disagree and explain your given response.

2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

*******************

As a side note, I may or may not engage myself with this topic. I'd rather see what everyone else has to say, since I personally feel all such arguments are nothing new. I guess this makes me the 'flat earther', since I remain unconvinced

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

For me, the "Topic of God" (assuming we are talking about the Jewish/Christian God portrayed in the Bible) is definitely settled. It doesn't and can't exist unless logic and reason are thrown out. Maybe that wasn't the answer you were looking for

I think the "flat earther" analogy is actually quite apt, but obviously backwards. We can have the flat earther attach their own trusted camera to a rocket and fire it high enough to take pictures of a spherical Earth. At that point, they have to rationalize why the evidence they are collecting doesn't line up with their preconceived belief of a flat earth.

I welcome a Christian to provide a similar experiment for us 'heathens' so that we will have to face the evidence head on. Keep in mind that:

1) I have already read the Bible cover to cover and am familiar with most apologetic arguments (quite unlike many everyday Christians).

2) I was a practicing Christian (initially Protestant, finally confirmed Roman Catholic) for over a decade. I wasn't a 'cultural Christian', I was a go to service/mass every week, go to Bible studies, read the Bible, pray daily, argue with other Christians about doctrinal differences kind of Christian.

3) I deconverted/lost my faith not because I was mad at God, wanted to sin, or whatever other silly reason some Christians like to lash out with. It was my continued study and willingness to ask the hard questions that finally made it all fall apart. Ironically, in the process of trying to become a better Christian I could no longer continue being one. A very common side effect of those really digging deeper into their religion.

At this point, barring something I haven't seen or considered, the question is settled. Now, there may be some other god (not the Bible one) and if so then I'm fine with that. I'll believe in that one just like I believe in anything else after I've been presented enough convincing (to me) evidence.

As a side point: Some may ask why someone like me who thinks the question is settled would 'waste time' on a site like this and debate about it all. The answer is (though I admit I spend a lot less time doing it as time goes on) I do it to provide the 'opposing voice' and hopefully help others at least realize they are not alone in questioning these things. I wish I had met someone like me now when I was younger and I would have saved myself (pun intended) from a lot of unnecessary emotional pain and wasted time/effort/money.

[Mae von H]

Thanks for the account. The problem can best be represented by a similar account although there’s foundational understanding that might be an obstacle. First thing is believing something (anything) for the clear thinking honest person IS a choice we make. It is, if you will, the outcome of considering the evidence. It is not unconscious or a direction that occurs passively. In short, one can nurture a faith or nurture a doubt. One can feed a faith or feed a doubt. That is the choice we make. We are not innocent of the outcome.

I watched a neighbor make choices that ended in divorce. We weren’t close, but if we were and she’d come to me, I could have given her good solid reasons to maintain. I could have given her facts. And I heard her enough to know she’d downplay all facts. She was bored and wanted excitement. I could never have convinced her by data that the choice she was making would not turn out well. The choice to stay carried a great deal of weight and facts won’t do it.

Convincing a man God is there by facts won’t succeed because the choice to believe carries too much commitment. It’s life changing.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. I won't comment on the OP other than to totally reject the accusations slung at the doubters. And I would rather not get into discussion of how to save marriages. The question is which of two choinces to make - beleive the gos -claim or not.


* Life changing. Trust me, atheism has made such a difference to my life.
* evidence for a god. There is virtually no good, valid evidence for a god.
" which god? Even if the gaps for god (e.g cosmic origins) were validated, that still wouldn't tell you which god.
* the Bible, claims of historicity, eyewitness testimony and prophecy fail under examination.

The topic of god has indeed been settled. There is no good evidence for a god, and even if there was it wouldn't say which one.

I have made unilateral declarations myself, like the morality debate is over, the Creationism debate is over and the gospel veracity debate is over.

That doesn't stop dissenters from disagreeing and it comes down to the case made, not to what faithclam assertions can be made.

I suppose we will get yet another ID discussion, but then apologetics goes the same way. Make a claim, discussion, evidence debunks the claim, supports dissent, denial, rejection of evidence, science, logic (even aside from a wad of personals about bias, lack of morals and scientists paid by Corporations to lie) and eventual changing or dropping the discussion and the same debunked faithclaims popping up again and the same debunks being made, ignored and denied.

[benchwarmer]

First thing is believing something (anything) for the clear thinking honest person IS a choice we make.

On this we completely disagree and, if you are willing and honest, I think I can prove it to you.

For the next 7 days only (don't worry, you can re-choose afterwards), I want you to simply chose to believe that Santa Claus is actually the only one and true God.

That's it. Make the choice on day 1 and then have no issues with the choice for 7 days. Believe it without reservation or question. Like you said, belief is a choice so it shouldn't be an issue for you.

I'm willing to bet almost anything you can't honestly do that. Sure, you can pay lip service to it. i.e. if anyone asks you then you would say Santa is God. However, deep down you will be thinking this is ridiculous and know full well this is not what you REALLY believe and know within your heart that the Bible God is the one true God.

I will agree with you only in that what we learn about definitely drives our beliefs. If we don't allow ourselves to question anything and everything and remain in a 'bubble' then we are in a way choosing from a limited outcome of beliefs. For example, if you never let yourself really examine whether the Earth is spherical, you could maintain a belief in a flat Earth. However, it's not that you are choosing to believe in a flat Earth, you are instead choosing what data and logic to use when determining truth. How you process the data you receive is what ultimately drives your belief.

Another counter point. You likely currently don't believe in flying pigs. However, if one flew by and circled long enough for you to get a clear look, you would start believing (or at least be open to the idea since you just witnessed it). You did not choose for that flying pig to fly by, it just did and now you have to process what you just saw.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. In fact the idea of choosing what to believe is a known apologetics fail. We are either convinced or not. Though I recall how I switched from disapproving of Trick or treat being imported to the UK, probably though US TV shows, but changed to supporting it simply when I heard how annoyed some kinds of Christians were getting annoyed that it was an accepted Festival.

But that's for a reason, and believing something or not is no doubt for a reason. And it is a choice in the end. We can choose to follow logic and evidence, or rejects logic and evidence. That is the choice we make. To follow the evidence, or try to lead it to where you want it to go.

That latter explains everything about denial, rejection of evidence (and the science behind it) while also claiming the science that apparently supports it, even if that science is wrong. I mentioned just now the Creationist apologetic that there is a genetic barrier between kinds. There is no such genetic barrier. They have also made a big deal of infertility where interspecies breeding happens. True, but that is not how evolution works.

Why do Bible apologists seem to not understand the science they claim to be arguing against?

I have a theory... that is related to the 'ghost Bible'. It is a Faithbased mental picture of reality in the head, and logic, science and - yes - even the Bible has to be altered and fiddled to agree with this.

It is common to theist apologetics, from denying that the Bible says daylight was made before the sun was created, to making slavery in the Bible something else (which credit due is better than saying that slavery is ok...though some have come close). And of course the inventing of excuses from Tyre was not rebuilt (supported with a lot of wrong information) to trying to excuse the 'Mary' contradiction by inventing stuff not in the Bible .. this odd 'the Marys split up/Mary did not go into the tomb' which is not only not in the Bible but is contradicted, and I showed how that bit was omitted in a post explaining it and it was denied it had been omitted when I showed it had been.

A particularly good, bad example, but this denial of everything in favor of the Faith is the common method. This is the choice, not whether to believe or not but whether (having the faithclaim in mind) to follow the evidence or to fiddle, misrepresent and deny it on Faith.

That's the Choice.

[Mae von H]

First thing is believing something (anything) for the clear thinking honest person IS a choice we make.

On this we completely disagree and, if you are willing and honest, I think I can prove it to you.

For the next 7 days only (don't worry, you can re-choose afterwards), I want you to simply chose to believe that Santa Claus is actually the only one and true God.

That's it. Make the choice on day 1 and then have no issues with the choice for 7 days. Believe it without reservation or question. Like you said, belief is a choice so it shouldn't be an issue for you.

I'm willing to bet almost anything you can't honestly do that. Sure, you can pay lip service to it. i.e. if anyone asks you then you would say Santa is God. However, deep down you will be thinking this is ridiculous and know full well this is not what you REALLY believe and know within your heart that the Bible God is the one true God.

The problem here is you are bypassing the process by which an honest and intelligent person evaluates the evidence to arrive at the truth. Essentially you are saying “be dishonest and ignore the whole body of evidence you’ve examined over many years (perhaps) and decide against the obvious conclusion.” It is like asking a jury to ignore the evidence and decide guilt or innocence in full denial of the evidence. You’re asking for dishonesty.

I will agree with you only in that what we learn about definitely drives our beliefs. If we don't allow ourselves to question anything and everything and remain in a 'bubble' then we are in a way choosing from a limited outcome of beliefs. For example, if you never let yourself really examine whether the Earth is spherical, you could maintain a belief in a flat Earth. However, it's not that you are choosing to believe in a flat Earth, you are instead choosing what data and logic to use when determining truth. How you process the data you receive is what ultimately drives your belief.

I totally agree and am impressed with this fine bit of reasoning. What we learn, a choice we can make, drives our beliefs.

Another counter point. You likely currently don't believe in flying pigs. However, if one flew by and circled long enough for you to get a clear look, you would start believing (or at least be open to the idea since you just witnessed it). You did not choose for that flying pig to fly by, it just did and now you have to process what you just saw.

This again defies the known laws of gravity. But I could ask you. If you witnessed a real miracle, no show, a severely injured/sick person suddenly made whole/well, you would have to process that, right? Or would you choose to ignore it? I am curious.

[benchwarmer]

The problem here is you are bypassing the process by which an honest and intelligent person evaluates the evidence to arrive at the truth.

No, I'm going by exactly what you said. I even quoted it in my reply. You said that beliefs are a choice. Perhaps that's not really what you meant?

I fully understand and even explained that what we observe and learn about drives our beliefs, but the belief itself is not a choice. We believe something because we have become convinced by something.

i.e. I let go of a hammer over my foot by accident and smashed my toe. I guess gravity is a real thing. I believe in gravity. I didn't choose to believe in gravity first, my belief was driven by experience.

Essentially you are saying “be dishonest and ignore the whole body of evidence you’ve examined over many years (perhaps) and decide against the obvious conclusion.” It is like asking a jury to ignore the evidence and decide guilt or innocence in full denial of the evidence. You’re asking for dishonesty.

No. You have missed the point. You said belief is a choice full stop.

Now you are tap dancing around what we both know. Belief is in fact not a choice, but a byproduct of our lived experiences and the input we receive from various sources.

Yes, if we only consume one side of the story, we are likely only going to believe whatever that data points us at. This is the central issue with many Christians including myself when I was one. I only consumed Bible study material from Christian sources. Lo and behold those Bible studies never mentioned or focused all the contradictions (2 different creation stories to name one of dozens), the likely dating of when these materials were written and by who (anonymous gospels written decades after the fact - if any of it was even fact), the blatant plagiarism among some of them (synoptic problem), the wrong understanding of some of the authors on previous scriptural materials (bless Matthew and riding on two animals at once LOL), and the practical complete lack of extrabiblical materials to corroborate any of the wild tales.

I do get your point that we choose what to question, what to read, what to study, etc. However, the belief that falls out of all that is not itself a choice. We are simply convinced one way or the other and there's no way around it. New data can change a belief. Simply wanting to believe something cannot.

This again defies the known laws of gravity. But I could ask you. If you witnessed a real miracle, no show, a severely injured/sick person suddenly made whole/well, you would have to process that, right? Or would you choose to ignore it? I am curious.

First, flying pigs do not defy the known laws of gravity. I assume if a flying pig were to exist it would likely have wings. This is beside the point and you know it. If you saw 'something' that you believed impossible before, you would now have no choice but to process it correct?

As for the sick person becoming suddenly well. Of course I would have to process it. Unlike you though, I would not immediately jump to "it's a miracle of God!" because I don't believe in gods. If you asked me what actually happened, not being a medical doctor I could only tell you what I saw. Sally was on her death bed and now she is dancing in the street. That doesn't mean the God of the Bible had anything to do with it. Could be. Could also just as likely be another god, aliens, or more likely a natural process we don't understand yet. I would be perfectly fine saying "I don't know what happened, but something certainly did".

How about you? Would you simply jump to the conclusion that your God cured Sally when you for a fact don't actually know what happened? Unless of course God chose to give you a call and explain it was Him?

[Mae von H]

The problem here is you are bypassing the process by which an honest and intelligent person evaluates the evidence to arrive at the truth.

No, I'm going by exactly what you said. I even quoted it in my reply. You said that beliefs are a choice. Perhaps that's not really what you meant?

I fully understand and even explained that what we observe and learn about drives our beliefs, but the belief itself is not a choice. We believe something because we have become convinced by something.

i.e. I let go of a hammer over my foot by accident and smashed my toe. I guess gravity is a real thing. I believe in gravity. I didn't choose to believe in gravity first, my belief was driven by experience.

Essentially you are saying “be dishonest and ignore the whole body of evidence you’ve examined over many years (perhaps) and decide against the obvious conclusion.” It is like asking a jury to ignore the evidence and decide guilt or innocence in full denial of the evidence. You’re asking for dishonesty.

No. You have missed the point. You said belief is a choice full stop.

Now you are tap dancing around what we both know. Belief is in fact not a choice, but a byproduct of our lived experiences and the input we receive from various sources.

Yes, if we only consume one side of the story, we are likely only going to believe whatever that data points us at. This is the central issue with many Christians including myself when I was one. I only consumed Bible study material from Christian sources. Lo and behold those Bible studies never mentioned or focused all the contradictions (2 different creation stories to name one of dozens), the likely dating of when these materials were written and by who (anonymous gospels written decades after the fact - if any of it was even fact), the blatant plagiarism among some of them (synoptic problem), the wrong understanding of some of the authors on previous scriptural materials (bless Matthew and riding on two animals at once LOL), and the practical complete lack of extrabiblical materials to corroborate any of the wild tales.

I do get your point that we choose what to question, what to read, what to study, etc. However, the belief that falls out of all that is not itself a choice. We are simply convinced one way or the other and there's no way around it. New data can change a belief. Simply wanting to believe something cannot.

This again defies the known laws of gravity. But I could ask you. If you witnessed a real miracle, no show, a severely injured/sick person suddenly made whole/well, you would have to process that, right? Or would you choose to ignore it? I am curious.

First, flying pigs do not defy the known laws of gravity. I assume if a flying pig were to exist it would likely have wings. This is beside the point and you know it. If you saw 'something' that you believed impossible before, you would now have no choice but to process it correct?

As for the sick person becoming suddenly well. Of course I would have to process it. Unlike you though, I would not immediately jump to "it's a miracle of God!" because I don't believe in gods. If you asked me what actually happened, not being a medical doctor I could only tell you what I saw. Sally was on her death bed and now she is dancing in the street. That doesn't mean the God of the Bible had anything to do with it. Could be. Could also just as likely be another god, aliens, or more likely a natural process we don't understand yet. I would be perfectly fine saying "I don't know what happened, but something certainly did".

How about you? Would you simply jump to the conclusion that your God cured Sally when you for a fact don't actually know what happened? Unless of course God chose to give you a call and explain it was Him?

Dear Benchwarmer, it is a pleasure to interact with you, despite having different views. You think about matters to some depth and I appreciate that, I would like you to know. I decided to answer in one block instead of piece by piece which does get tiresome.

Starting backwards, gravity is not a matter of believing. What alternative is there? We do not believe in gravity same as we do not merely believe we need to eat and sleep. That is not a matter one believes but instead knows. It requires no explanation (which is good because even Newton could not explain what gravity is.)

Regarding God healing, if one asks God to heal and healing occurs, seems logical to assume He had a hand in it. If a dead person rises and walks around, definately. Same as someone lame who suddenly walks. Is there any other logical conclusion? And I work in medicine, and even doctors do not always how how someone ill is no longer ill. Sometimes they know and often they guess and sometimes they do not know at all. Doesn't make them doubt the sick person is now well.

You are still divorcing the process of coming to believe something is true from the conclusion although you do see that this process is a choice. Why then is the concluding process not a choice for you? Ten or more people can hear the exact same evidence and some believe and some do not. How is this possible if there is no choice? Some people choose to believe lies and some choose to believe the truth. It is possible because some believe the obvious conclusion of the evidence and some do not choose to believe the logical conclusion of the evidence. Can you see that your divorcing this choosing to believe the evidence from choosing does not work in real life? I think if someone you know decided to believe lies about you, you would not conclude that it was not their choice to believe lies about you. Do you see that your version does not work in real life?

Now pigs do not fly and pigs do not have wings. I notice from this and other things you wrote that you do not limit your explanations of matter to the known state of reality. That is, you allow yourself to imagine alternative answers that spring solely from imagination and no match in reality. In this we part ways. I am trained in science and do not use my imagination to come to understand matters presented to me in life. I look at what is known and limit myself to what is known to be true. Maybe you find that limiting but I find that knowing the truth sets me free, a kind of freedom those who allow imagination to present explanation sans testing are not. For them, all answers are on the table all the time. For me, I want the truth.

Lastly, I cannot speak as to why you chose to focus in on things that were not clear in the Bible, but one thing that seems to be the case and that is, you did not walk with God. That is, on the outside you did all the right stuff but on the inside there was no personal relationship with Him. Now I admit that is not so uncommon which is why some fall away from the faith. They are in the category of never having known Him. Some who fall away did know Him for a time and later I have heard them cry that they missed Him. He will tell them that this was their choice, not His and not chance. But that is another matter.

We disagree but I hope we can still cordially interact. You are a cut above the others on your side of the fence.

[1213]

...
2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

To me strongest evidence for God is the Bible and that life exists. I don't believe we would have those without God.