[ndigila]

ATLian and Chota.. is it blind faith to believe the testimonies of the closest followers of Jesus, and the disciples of the closest followers of Jesus and the disciples of the disciples...? As far as I know, apart from an insignificant minority, everyone accepts that Jesus existed, they just deny the miracles and the ressurrection.

[ernestombayo7]

ATLIAN

You're dead wrong on that one. Even Jesus himself said to Thomas:

John 20: 29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Blind faith is not only a requirement of religion, it is highly praised!

check grip_daddy's answer to this.

True, but that doesn't change the definition of "evidence". I have heard Christians who claim that "the sky is blue and the sun is shining" is evidence of god existing. What hogwash.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion

But for you it seems the only evidence that counts is Physical tangible evidence.

Philosophically evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable.

1)for example how can we ever prove the existence of a wormhole?it can't be observed,because its lifetime is too short,and we do not have the technology to observe wormholes.But mathematically,they have been proven to be a possibility.

2)Atheist like to explain the source of the universe with the multi verse theory.Which says that our universe is just part of many universes in a larger multi verse.But how could we ever prove the existence of another universe outside our universe?.Physical evidence of another universe is impossible.

3)How do we know that Humans have a mind?i.e thoughts,and consciousness.The mind is not directly observable.We can observe the brain,the neurons and grey matter,but wer can't see,weigh or touch thoughts.We cannot observe an idea under a microscope.

So,if we use your methodology of evidence,then it reduces your world to a material world.And i could turn around and ask you the same questions theists are asked.

a)show me evidence of a multi verse.
b)take a picture of a thought in your mind and show me.in the process tell me how much the idea that," Religion is Blind faith." would weigh in gramms or kgs.

Now despite you knowing very well,that the best thinkers of all time were Christian philosophers from St.Anselm,St.Augustine,St.Thomas Aquinas etc and even Isaac Newton and many scientists,you still insist that Christianity is blind faith.

There are currently about 17 arguments for the existence of God.I even started a thread on one of the strongest arguments for the existence of Gods.And you still chose to hold to your assertions without providing any basis for them.

IT all boils down to what evidence is sufficient for belief in God.Christians think there is sufficient reasons to belive in God.infact the very fact that we are here and can reason about God is evidence that a creator exists according to Christianity.

That's the hogwash I refer to. That's the same "evidence" Muslins use, same evidence believers of the other 33,000 gods have used over the years.

Please define what is your definition of evidence,if its the same as above,then refer to the above scenarios.

infact the very fact that we are here and can reason about God is evidence that a creator exists according to Christianity[/b].

If you have a problem with this then continue to this thread i started earlier.Don't just assert your position as if you have reasons.

Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

[ATLian]

But for you it seems the only evidence that counts is Physical tangible evidence.

Ernest,

not really. I have evidence that my family loves me, and it isn't tangible or physical evidence. If you take two crack-head friends, Crack-head 1 can swear that pink winged horses exist because Crack-head 2 saw them during a high episode. For Crack-head 1, whatever Crack-head 2 says is absolute evidence. For us, we would immediately dismiss that "evidence" as rubbish. Kids believe in the Tooth Fairy based on the evidence of other kids who left their teeth under their pillows and got a dollar when they woke up. So yes, evidence can constitute almost anything depending on who you ask.

But in our case, we are having an intellectual argument here. Therefore, in our case, we will use intellectual evidence. And the more intellectual an argument is, the stonger and more credible evidence you need. That is why science requires the most tangible, irrefuteable andempirical evidence that one can provide.

Another thing to know if the bigger your claim, the more evidence you need to have to support it. God is the biggest claim ever put forward by man, yet there is absolutely no intelligent tangible, physical or empirical evidence to support those claims. The proponents insist on blind faith and strongly discourage scientific research on those claims. Doesn't that tell you something?

[grip_daddy]

The proponents insist on blind faith and strongly discourage scientific research on those claims. Doesn't that tell you something?

You want a tangible scientific data that can verify God? How would that experiment be set up and by who?

[ATLian]

for example how can we ever prove the existence of a wormhole?it can't be observed,because its lifetime is too short,and we do not have the technology to observe wormholes.But mathematically,they have been proven to be a possibility.

There are many things that are provable mathematically but are not yet observable. Mathematical evidence is credible evidence. Think of the thousands of things that were first proven to be possible by mathematics, and are now being realised when science puts that maths into practical use. One day we'll have the technology to observe the wormholes!



Atheist like to explain the source of the universe.....

Again, an atheist is one who doesn't believe in any gods. There is nothing like an atheists view ama explanation of the universe, just like (to use my oft-used example) there is nothing like a moustache-wearers view of the origin of the universe! So don't lump what one or some atheists think about other issues on all atheists!



How do we know that Humans have a mind?i.e thoughts,and consciousness.The mind is not directly observable.We can observe the brain,the neurons and grey matter,but wer can't see,weigh or touch thoughts.We cannot observe an idea under a microscope.

You don't have to see something to know it exists. We don't see wind, ama heat from the sun, but we know they exist. Come on man, that is a Primo School level argument! You cannot be serious that you actually wrote that on Mashada as a serious point!

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

You want a tangible scientific data that can verify God? How would that experiment be set up and by who?

By the proponent of the claim "God Exists!" You tell me that god exists, then you should prove it to me.

[ATLian]

Now despite you knowing very well,that the best thinkers of all time were Christian philosophers

Most of the best thinkers of all time were also WHITE. Do you think they were great thinkers coz they were white? Do you think that it's the Christianity of these thinkers and scientists that made them great? Of course not. Don't forget that in those days, you had to be a Christian in Europe, or you would die. Everything was Christian run, even the schools and universities. Therefore most thinkers and scientists grew up as Christians and went to Christian schools. But, their Christianity and their Whiteness did not in ANY WAY contribute to their thoughts being great. If anything, Christianity tried to shut down their thoughts because their thoughts were totally contrary to what Christianity said.

Read about Gallileo having to hide evidence of the earth being round. Ama Copernicus having to say that "the sun and planets revolve around the earth", despite knowing full well that that was not true. They had to say that to avoid being burnt at the stake for heresy. Not to mention that sometimes Christianity bogged down brilliant minds as they tried to link their thoughts to the concept of god. Read some about Newton, arguably the brightest man to ever exist, and you will realize how much his belief in a creator bogged down his quest to solve many scientific issues! Once latter scientists removed the need for a god in the equation, many of Newton's theories finally made sense.

Scientists thrived in spite of Christianity, not because of Christianity. If there was no Christianity to bog down science for hundreds of years in the "Dark Ages", right now we'd be living in a way more advanced world than we currently are!



you still insist that Christianity is blind faith.

Hello, that is common sense. ALL RELIGIONS require blind faith! Period. You cannot argue against that. Read your Bible, it's all over. Those with blind faith are praised and revered, and it's encouraged and recommended by god and jesus!



There are currently about 17 arguments for the existence of God.I even started a thread on one of the strongest arguments for the existence of Gods.

17? I've read of 42 arguments! You need to catch up on your Christian argments.

That said, I have told you they are weak arguments, they have all been shown to be fallacies! Even your Cosmological Argument. Please just read about the weaknesses of those arguments. have you also ever asked yourself why the only people who consider them to be legitimate arguments are Christians?

[ATLian]

ATLian and Chota.. is it blind faith to believe the testimonies of the closest followers of Jesus, and the disciples of the closest followers of Jesus and the disciples of the disciples...?

Almost every major religious figure had his disciples. Mohammed had his men who took over from him, so did the Buddha, the Indian gods had their witnesses and disciples, etc. If you claim that testimonies should be believed because they were being offered by the people closest to the religious figure, then that argument has to hold across all relions, not just your religion of choice!



As far as I know, apart from an insignificant minority, everyone accepts that Jesus existed, they just deny the miracles and the ressurrection.

I'm sure Jesus existed as a historical person. Most people don't deny this. They just deny what you wrote above (miracles and resurrection), plus that he was the son of god, that he was born of a virgin, that he ascended, that he is god, etc.

[ernestombayo7]

not really. I have evidence that my family loves me, and it isn't tangible or physical evidence. If you take two crack-head friends, Crack-head 1 can swear that pink winged horses exist because Crack-head 2 saw them during a high episode. For Crack-head 1, whatever Crack-head 2 says is absolute evidence. For us, we would immediately dismiss that "evidence" as rubbish. Kids believe in the Tooth Fairy based on the evidence of other kids who left their teeth under their pillows and got a dollar when they woke up. So yes, evidence can constitute almost anything depending on who you ask.

But in our case, we are having an intellectual argument here. Therefore, in our case, we will use intellectual evidence. And the more intellectual an argument is, the stonger and more credible evidence you need. That is why science requires the most tangible, irrefuteable andempirical evidence that one can provide.

Atlian your post is really confusing.First you concede that there are somethings that are not possible to prove physically and so we should do it intellectually.Then at the end of the post you say we need,"tangible, irrefuteable andempirical evidence."

You can't have it both ways.Chose a definition of evidence and stick to it.and we will work with your definition.

Another thing to know if the bigger your claim, the more evidence you need to have to support it. God is the biggest claim ever put forward by man, yet there is absolutely no intelligent tangible, physical or empirical evidence to support those claims.

Who said God is the biggest claim?What measure are you using?

The proponents insist on blind faith and strongly discourage scientific research on those claims. Doesn't that tell you something?

Who are the proponents?and where do they insist on blind faith?

There are many things that are provable mathematically but are not yet observable. Mathematical evidence is credible evidence.

so i guess there is no,"intelligent tangible, physical or empirical evidence." for wormholes?

Again, an atheist is one who doesn't believe in any gods. There is nothing like an atheists view ama explanation of the universe, just like (to use my oft-used example) there is nothing like a moustache-wearers view of the origin of the universe! So don't lump what one or some atheists think about other issues on all atheists!

Wao,so u don't think that most atheist like the multi verse theory?do some google and you will be surprised.

You don't have to see something to know it exists. We don't see wind, ama heat from the sun, but we know they exist. Come on man, that is a Primo School level argument! You cannot be serious that you actually wrote that on Mashada as a serious point!

Congratulations atlian! finally you got the point i was trying to put across.i was afraid you would not understand that not everything that existshas "intelligent tangible, physical or empirical evidence,"

Most of the best thinkers of all time were also WHITE. Do you think they were great thinkers coz they were white? Do you think that it's the Christianity of these thinkers and scientists that made them great? Of course not. Don't forget that in those days, you had to be a Christian in Europe, or you would die. Everything was Christian run, even the schools and universities. Therefore most thinkers and scientists grew up as Christians and went to Christian schools. But, their Christianity and their Whiteness did not in ANY WAY contribute to their thoughts being great.

Early Christian philosophers and thinkers came up with ideas exactly due to their faith.Read the history on St.Anselm,St. thomas aquinas,Sir Isaac newton spent most of his life researching Christianity and even wrote several papers on textual criticism of the bible.

Hello, that is common sense. ALL RELIGIONS require blind faith! Period. You cannot argue against that. Read your Bible, it's all over. Those with blind faith are praised and revered, and it's encouraged and recommended by god and jesus!

so you say.

17? I've read of 42 arguments! You need to catch up on your Christian argments.
That said, I have told you they are weak arguments, they have all been shown to be fallacies!

so you say.And we are supposed to take your word?

Even your Cosmological Argument. Please just read about the weaknesses of those arguments.

I have read them.Infact i have a whole blog dedicated to Philosophy of religion.I have taken philosophy classes and listened to many atheists and Christian debates.I started a thread here on mashada on the cosmological argument,and none of the atheists in this site were able to falsify it,including you.Its the same scenario in the Philosophy world,do some research and look for any successful counter arguments against the cosmological argument.And post on the thread.Otherwise your continuous assertions of how,"weak or fallacious the arguments are" is not adding any credibility to your claims.

have you also ever asked yourself why the only people who consider them to be legitimate arguments are Christians?

have you also considered why the only people who consider them to be illegitimate are atheists?

PS:there are 17 main arguments for the existence of God.the others are variations of the main ones.

[ATLian]

Atlian your post is really confusing.First you concede that there are somethings that are not possible to prove physically and so we should do it intellectually.

Clearly you did not understand my post. I was telling you that there are very many levels of what you can consider to be "good evidence". The more intellectual the discussion at hand, then the more credible the evidence has to be. That's why when it comes to the Tooth Fairy, all that counts as evidence is another kid's word. But when it comes to, say, "Drug X can Cure Disease Y", you clearly have to produce a heck of a lot of intellectual evidence! That is common sense, I'm sure you agree with that.



Who said God is the biggest claim?What measure are you using?

To quote christianity, god is the biggest and greatest thing ever. He has always existed, will always exist, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent and omni-everything, he created us, the universe, he exists outside time, he is infinite, infallible, etc etc etc. What other thing can be described in the same way. Come on man, you don't need to refute everything I say just because I don't follow your religion. That is an unarguable fact - that god is the greatest thing ever claimed. Period!