╌>

The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 8: God, the biggest fallacy of them all?

  
By:  Gordy327  •  4 years ago  •  120 comments


The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 8: God, the biggest fallacy of them all?
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)

Leave a comment to auto-join group Religious and not News Chat

Religious and not News Chat


Up until now, the fallacy of biblical stories series has focus on specific biblical stories. For Part 8, I will examine the one thing that connects them all: God. After all, God is the central figure in the bible. He's the main man. The head honcho. The big Kahuna. The top banana. Numero uno. Well, you get the idea. But he's always broke and needs money (George Carlin reference). In the bible, God is purported at times to actively intervene (or interfere) with people and events. Other times, he takes a back seat and observes while someone else plays his middle man. I think Al Pacino's character said it best in The Devil's Advocate (1997, Warner Bros.):

" Well, I tell ya, let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do? I swear, for His own amusement, His own private cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Aha ha ha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is He doin'? He's laughin' His sick, f*ckin' *ss off. He's a tight-*ss. He's a sadist. He's an absentee landlord

But that begs the question: Does the God of the bible exist? Is the God of the bible real? Or is God just another fallacy like the stories I've covered thus far? After all, God is a concept which has permeated human cultures and societies throughout history. The belief and worship of God can be traced back thousands of years. While the belief in God helped bring communities closer together or used to explain natural phenomenon which ancient humans did not understand (it also divides communities and societies too), it's unlikely that the God of the bible actually exists. After all, the previous bible stories covered did have possible alternative explanations for their particular events that did not necessitate God. That means God isn't actually necessary and casts doubt as to the actual existence of God. While the focus of this article will be on the monotheistic God, it can also be applied to any gods that other cultures believed in and worshipped. So let's look at God and see if he's just another fallacy. I'll try to keep the explanations as brief as possible.

1. There is no objective, empirical evidence for God :  Religion and belief in God has existed in human societies for thousands of years. Yet, in all that time, not one religion or person has ever substantiated any claim for the existence of God. One would think that over thousands of years of belief and worship of god/s, one would at least be able to come up with a shred of empirical evidence to substantiate the basis of belief and/or claims made based on it. But that clearly not the case. The best anyone can come up with is usually along the lines of belief, a feeling, or simply accepting God exists because someone told them so. But that is subjective and anecdotal and is not actual evidence. Without any evidence, there is no logical reason to assume God exists, or has ever existed. 

2. God is a supernatural entity : That is an explanation I sometimes hear explaining why there cannot be evidence of God. God exists outside of our physical universe (in another dimension perhaps?). But if that is the case, then God cannot interact or appear in our physical universe, as he is often depicted of doing (frequently) in the bible. If God could interact and affect our physical universe or our world, then by default he is no longer supernatural and can thusly be detected or evidenced. We can observe and explain natural phenomenon. But there is nothing to empirically suggest a divine entity is behind it. The more we are able to explain our world and understand it, the less God is needed as an explanation.

3. The bible says so : That is perhaps the weakest "evidence" for God. R eligious texts or sources are often cited as "proof" of God. What some people fail to understand is that citing such works as "proof" is not actually proof of anything. It's a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies like that do not make a compelling case for the existence of god/s. It's essentially ancient people writing down their beliefs and trying to sell it to you, nothing more. Or maybe because such individuals are "authorities" on God or their religion, people simply accept whatever they claim, no questions asked. Also, many cite "miracles," unusual or extreme events, or their own "experiences" as proof of God. Of course, such things are subjective and anecdotal, based on something along the lines of "because I (or they) said so." Such experiences are often personal and based on emotion and/or ignorance. And no, using the bible to prove god does not count, as that is circular reasoning.

4. God as a contradiction or paradox: God is depicted with certain attributed befitting a deity of his status, namely: all powerful (omnipotence), all knowing (omniscience), and everywhere (omnipresent). However, these attributes comes certain logical contradictions. First, regarding omniscience, it is apparent that god becomes surprised by the actions of us mere mortals in the bible. He says don't do this or do that and then seems angry when we do not obey, even though he already knew we wouldn't. Of course, an omniscient god also negates the possibility of free will. But that is an entirely different discussion. Also, if god is all knowing, can God learn anything new? Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow and can he change his plan?  Being omnipotent, God is essentially a cosmic He-Man. One would need to be all powerful to create the universe and all of existence, right? But I am reminded of a paradox: can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it? Can God create a square circle? Think about that carefully before you answer. If God is omnipresent, does that mean God is in Hell too (irony alert here)?  Mark Noble brings up an interesting point regarding omnipresence, " If said entity [God] was to be in all possible places at once, said entity would occupy every single occupiable location in both the cosmic and the quantum. Every component, of every thing would be entirely occupied by one thing.
Therefore everything would have no other ingredients than this sole-entity. Would not everything then be ONE thing? leading to the truth that - everything is said entity. If god is everywhere, then God is Everything, And if God is everything, then everything is God ?" Now there's an interesting thought. God is the ultimate peeping Tom too. I guess omnipresence means God does not need a mirror to check himself out. God has himself covered.

Basically, the bible portrays God as performing feats that are logically contradictory or impossible, based on the attributes assigned to God. Now, if you take away those attributes so God is not infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, or everywhere at once, then there are no contradictions or paradoxes. A God without a God-Mode is more plausible than the one as depicted in the bible. 

5. There were lots of other gods before God : I know I said I would focus on the monotheistic God and not on other gods. But bear with me on this one. Before the idea of a singular God became popular, many cultures such as the ancient Greeks and Egyptians believed in and worshipped other gods. Many of these gods has specific functions or duties in their respective societies. And there was often a "ruling" god over the other gods, like Zeus in ancient Greek mythology. So it's not implausible that somewhere along the way, someone decided to streamline the pantheon by having one God do everything. It certainly simplified belief and worship practices. Essentially, it's an ancient one God fits all sale. And clearly many people bought it. Since these gods predate the monotheistic god, it's not surprising that they would lead to the concept of only one God. 

6. But billions of people worldwide believe in and worship God : An argumentum ad populum fallacy . 'Nuff said.

So, if the God of the bible is capable of existing outside of our space-time universe as a supernatural entity and/or is capable of performing feats that are logically impossible, as God is not beholden to logic, then that means God is unknowable. That means no one, including biblical authors or the people of then and now, are capable of knowing or understanding God in the slightest. Especially if there is no evidence of God. So any claims, writings, or explanations about God are totally unfounded and lack and support or credibility. It's basically pure guess work or pure imagination that caught on and became popular. However, if God does exist within our space-time or has limitations, then it is possible to evidence God and understand something about God, even if a little. But that means God is not the God of the bible as God is portrayed. Either way, the fallacy of God is quite apparent.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1  author  Gordy327    4 years ago

There could be a god. Just not the one you think or imagine. Either way, I remain unconvinced without evidence.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gordy327 @1    4 years ago

But Gordy, if there isn't a god, who's going to bless The United States of America?

What amuses me is that there are people around here who worship Trump. 

By the way, Devil's Advocate was a pretty good movie - Pacino sure fit the image.  "My favourite sin - vanity."

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    4 years ago

Very good movie.

He made a good point about vanity. One could consider it the root of all sin

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    4 years ago
But Gordy, if there isn't a god, who's going to bless The United States of America?

That's what we have Trump for. 

What amuses me is that there are people around here who worship Trump. 

The @ss kissing of Trump seems quite prevalent.

By the way, Devil's Advocate was a pretty good movie

Agreed

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    4 years ago
if there isn't a god, who's going to bless The United States of America?

"When about a third of the people saw that Jesus was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around conservative Republicans and said, “Come, make us a god who will go before us. As for this fellow Jesus, who nobody's seen for 2000 years, we don’t know what has happened to him.”

The Republicans answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So a third of the people took off their earrings and brought them to the Republicans. They took what they handed them and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a golden fat man, fashioning him into a total tool. Then they said, “This is your god, conservative Christians, who brought you up out of liberal progressive secular rule!” - Exodus 32:1-4 (paraphrased)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.3    4 years ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.3    4 years ago

Yeah, I've seen a picture of it.

800

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.5    4 years ago

That certainly seems to have some basis of truth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.1    4 years ago
He made a good point about vanity. One could consider it the root of all sin

I find it rather telling that the God of the bible is depicted with the same emotions and emotional failings as humans. That should raise a red flag about the veracity of God. It's as if God is the mirror of the ancient men writing about him, but with superpowers. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    4 years ago

I know, right? God is not human, so why does he display so many human emotions and fallibilities?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.8    4 years ago

Exactly. One would think an omnipotent deity would be above such petty things. And yet, the bible depicts a God who is petty, vindictive, narcissistic, jealous, angry, ect.. All human characteristics. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  cjcold  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    4 years ago

My favorite sin used to be vanity but vanity takes lots of work and is very expensive so switched over to gluttony and sloth. 

The rules are much easier and a new pair of underwear on occasion is my only clothing expense. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.11  author  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @1.1.10    4 years ago
My favorite sin used to be vanity but vanity takes lots of work and is very expensive so switched over to gluttony and sloth. 

I'll take lust, aka a normal human drive.  It activates automatically and is quite easy, and fun, to utilize jrSmiley_16_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.12  Raven Wing  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.5    4 years ago

Uhh....why does Trumps' golden calf have utters? Is it a half-way transgender? jrSmiley_74_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.12    4 years ago

Well, we established elsewhere that for God to have made both man and woman in his image, he'd have to be intersex.  Makes sense that other gods created by man would be the same.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.12    4 years ago

His followers gain their sustenance from sucking on his teats 4 at a time - better than just one at a time, don't you think?  Not everyone is like that guy who molested the gorilla. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.15  Raven Wing  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.13    4 years ago
Well, we established elsewhere that for God to have made both man and woman in his image, he'd have to be intersex.

Hmm...I thought God made Man in his own image, and made woman using one of Adams ribs. So, can it be said that God made woman in his own image? And if he made woman in Adams' image through one of his ribs, would she not be a he too? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.16  Raven Wing  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.14    4 years ago
His followers gain their sustenance from sucking on his teats 4 at a time

I wonder if Trump charges them for each teat they choose? He never gives anything for free ya know.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.15    4 years ago
And if he made woman in Adams' image through one of his ribs, would she not be a he too? 

She would be a transgender clone, but without the benefit of surgery, it seems to me that she'd still look an awful lot like Adam.  And even with surgery, she couldn't have become pregnant, so no Cain, Abel, or Seth.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Gordy327 @1    4 years ago

There could be a god. Just not the one you think or imagine.

There could also be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why that god does not communicate with humans, ever.  Maybe the god is only concerned for squirrels, and humans are as inconsequential and meaningless to it as squirrels are to humanity’s numerous concepts of god.  Or maybe the god’s only concern is for vegetation, and all other life forms are only here simply to exhale and otherwise provide the life-giving, precious CO2 that makes it’s true children thrive.  If a plant could talk to us, it might say “I can’t believe you can’t converse with god, we talk all the time.”  The possibilities are endless, but I have less than zero reasons to believe in a god that cares about humanity.  If it exists and cares at all, then it needs to stop failing.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.2    4 years ago

I think God only speaks to dolphins.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.2.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.1    4 years ago

I’ll take Sea World over church any day of the week.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.2    4 years ago
There could also be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why that god does not communicate with humans, ever.  

Funny how some people claim that God speaks to them?

 If it exists

A big if.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.1    4 years ago
I think God only speaks to dolphins.

Or through them...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.4    4 years ago

I was thinking Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when I said God only speaks to dolphins

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.5    4 years ago

Thanks for the fish. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.7  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.1    4 years ago

Swam with dolphins once. Like a friendly wolf pack. One (playfully) tore my snorkel and mask off and then brought them back completely destroyed. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1    4 years ago

Arguments for God’s existence can be demonstrated by the ordinary method of scientific inference

MICHAEL EGNOR MARCH 22, 2020
Share
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.3.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3    4 years ago

Unfounded assertions are not evidence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.1    4 years ago

… and sourced from a site that insists the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs coexisted with human beings.   One step away from flat-Earthers.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3    4 years ago

Atheist Jerry Coyne has replied to my post last Sunday about prayer and the coronavirus pandemic. I argued that prayer makes sense because God exists, and His existence is demonstrable via the ordinary method of scientific inference. There’s a name for this demonstration—natural theology, which is the science of demonstrating God’s existence using evidence and logic. Natural theology may be contrasted with revealed theology, which is the study of God via revelation in Scripture.

Natural theology has a massive history—it goes back at least to the ancient philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) (the Prime Mover argument). A high point in natural theology was Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, which are scientific (i.e. evidence-based) arguments for God’s existence. In fact, the cornerstone of Aquinas’ metaphysics is that essence (what a thing is) is utterly distinct from existence (that a thing is).

Existence is not a property, in the sense that “Bob exists” is not the same kind of assertion as “Bob is 49 years old and has blue eyes.” Existence is prior to any and all categories. This sounds esoteric, but it has a profound implication: God’s existence is, and must be, provable via ordinary methods of science—by the pattern of evidence-logic-inference.God’s existence cannot be proven by mere logic or reason alone. You can’t prove that anything exists merely by logic. You cannot reason from pure essence (logic) to real existence (evidence). You can’t prove that the pyramids of Egypt exist merely by the Euclidean geometry of triangles. You can only prove the existence of actual pyramids by providing physical evidence for them.

Proof of God’s existence is and must be the same: it must be inferential—it must come from evidence. Natural science uses exactly the same inferential structure: evidence-logic-inference

Here’s a précis of the scientific argument for the Big Bang:

1) Galaxies show red shift, which is proportional to distance from the earth (evidence)
2) This implies that galaxies are moving away and, by inference, that the universe in the past was a single point (logic and Einstein’s tensor equations of gravitation (logic)
3) The universe began with a Big Bang singularity (conclusion)

Here’s Aquinas’ First Way:

1) Change exists in nature (evidence)
2) Change is the actuation of potentiality and an essential chain of actuations cannot go to infinite regress. A fully actual Prime Mover is necessary (logic)
3) That Prime Mover is what all men call God (conclusion)

Note that both scientific theories have the exact same structure:

1) Evidence from nature
2) Logical (or mathematical) framework
3) Inference to conclusion

Coyne acknowledges this identity but he doesn’t agree with the logical structure of Aquinas’ argument. Coyne argues: “There is no reason a chain of actuations cannot “go to infinite regress”. If there’s a multiverse, that’s more or less what you get. See Sean Carroll’s discussion below.” (Sean Carroll, Does the Universe Need God? )

Neither Coyne nor Carroll understand the argument—Aquinas’ argument has nothing to do with a multiverse and is valid whether or not a multiverse exists.

There are four (explicit and implicit) components to Aquinas’ First Way (Aquinas at right).

First the evidence:

1) Evidence for change in nature. This is obvious. Things change all the time—atoms vibrate, water flows, leaves turn yellow, men get older. Change is everywhere, and the evidence part of Aquinas’ First Way is ubiquitous and more extensive than the evidence for any other scientific theory.

Then the logic:

2) Change is actuation of potency.
3) Instrumental (essential) causal chains exist in nature, and they cannot go to infinite regress.
4) The law of the Excluded Middle: a thing cannot be, and be its contrary, in the same respect at the same time. Something is either A, or not A, but not both simultaneously.

Let’s take the logic one step at a time, because this is what Coyne and Carroll don’t understand.

2) Change is actuation of potency: This is perhaps Aristotle’s most fundamental metaphysical insight. Aristotle observed that there are three ways of describing existence: there is non-existence, there is actuality, and there is an intermediate state he called potency. An example will make this clear. I’m a 64-year-old man. That is what I actually am. I am potentially 65 years old. If my health holds out, I’ll be 65 in a while. I am not, however, a dog. I will never become a dog. For me, “dog” is not a state of my existence, either actual or potential. So I am 64 years old (act), potentially 65 years old (potency), and not and never can be a dog (non-existence). When Aristotle and Aquinas say that change is actuation of potency, all they mean is that when something changes in nature, it goes from potentially something to actually something. A green leaf goes from potentially yellow to actually yellow in the fall. An acorn goes from potentially an oak tree to actually an oak tree when it grows. It’s an obvious concept and Aristotle’s contribution was to make it a precise metaphysical principle. There are remarkably profound principles that follow from the simple metaphysics of potency and act. One is that it provides proof of God’s existence, as we will see.

3) Instrumental (essential) causal chains exist in nature, and they cannot go to infinite regress: This is the part that is most subtle but it is true and vital. Causal chains exist in nature—things cause other things. Causal chains mean that potency is elevated so that it acts sequentially in things. A thing is in potency to be something, and it actually becomes that something because something else acts on it. A green leaf in potency to be yellow becomes actually yellow when the weather becomes colder in the fall, and the weather becomes colder in the fall because Earth orbits the sun with its axis not completely perpendicular to the plane of the orbit, and Earth orbits the sun because the momentum of the primordial solar system is conserved, etc.

Causal chains are of two types: some chains, called accidental chains, involve causes that need not be constantly present for the effect to occur. A classic example of an accidental causal chain is a family tree. My grandfather caused my father, my father caused me, and I caused my son. However, my son can exist even when all of his family tree dies. His great-grandfather and grandfather and father need not continuously exist to hold him in existence. My son’s causes can act, then go away, and the effect (my son) remains.

An instrumental (essential) causal chain is different. In an instrumental causal chain, each cause must continue to exist for the effect to continue to exist. If the cause does not simultaneously exist, the effect doesn’t exist. Aristotle (below left) used the example of a man pushing a rock with a stick. The stick is an instrumental cause of the movement of the rock: if the stick disappears, the rock stops moving. The stick is a necessary instrument to keep the rock moving continuously.

Infinite regress is possible for accidental (grandfather-father-etc.) causal chains. There is no logical reason why this causal chain can’t go back to infinity.

Infinite regress is impossible for instrumental (essential) causal chains. The reason is that an instrumental chain of causes (a chain of sticks used to push a rock) can’t get started by itself. Causation entails elevation of potency to act, but potency is not something that fully exists so it must be caused by something that does actually exist. An infinite regress of possibilities in an instrumental chain can’t do anything, so it can’t get started by itself. An infinite chain of sticks can’t move a rock. Someone must give the sticks a push. Something at the start of the chain must be actual in its own right and not depend on anything else to actuate it.

4) The law of the Excluded Middle: a thing cannot be, and be its contrary, in the same respect at the same time. Something is either A, or not-A, but not both A and not-A simultaneously: Some commentators have argued that a link in an instrumental chain of causes can activate itself—it can make itself go from potency to act. This is the perennial “the universe caused itself” argument. But that is not possible. Potency means “not actual”—if a thing is potentially something, then it’s not actually that something. If it were actually something, it would no longer be potentially so.

A thing in potency can’t activate itself because potency isn’t actual, and something not actual can’t cause anything else, even its own existence. If something could cause itself—if the universe could cause itself—and thus get a chain of instrumentally ordered causes going, it would have to be in potency to be the universe and in act to be the universe at the same time, which violates the Law of the Excluded Middle. To cause itself, the universe must potentially exist and actually exist at the same time. The universe can potentially exist, or actually exist, but it cannot simultaneouslypotentially and actually exist. It is logically and metaphysically impossible for something to cause itself. It is logically impossible for a chain of instrumentally ordered causes to cause itself.

An instrumental causal chain—and there are countless such chains in nature—requires a cause that is itself not caused—a First Cause (Aquinas’ Second Way) or a Prime Mover (Aquinas’ First Way). Aquinas’ First and Second Ways are subtly different in that the First Way reasons from change in nature and the Second Way reasons from cause in nature.

His Third Way—the proof from Necessary Existence—has a similar structure. Together, these proofs are called Cosmological Arguments, because they make an argument from the characteristics of nature (the cosmos) via logic to a Prime Mover, First Cause, or Necessary Existence.

The cosmological arguments follow the same formal structure as any theory in science. They invoke evidence from nature (things change, things are caused, things exist), analyze the evidence on a logical framework, and arrive at an inductive conclusion.

The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with morecertainly than we know of the existence of anything in science.

Coyne raises other questions about the cosmological arguments—how do we know that the Prime Mover is the God of revelation, why does everything need a cause, what caused God, etc. Aquinas answered these questions in meticulous detail (it comprises much of his Summa Contra Gentiles—here, we’ll call it Summa Contra Coyne) and I’ll address further questions in posts to come.


Further reading in the discussion between Michael Egnor and Jerry Coyne:

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/gods-existence-is-proven-by-science/

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3.4  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.1    4 years ago

Who said they are unfounded? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.3    4 years ago

This was rebutted by Dr. Coyne.   My guess is that you did not even bother to read Coyne's rebuttal.

So what do expect someone to take away from you seeding this article within a comment?

That is, what point are you trying to make (if any)?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.4    4 years ago

Philosophical arguments for God (especially given they have been all shown to be flawed) are worthless.

Make a point.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3.7  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.5    4 years ago

No, he rebutted Dr. Coyne...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.3.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.4    4 years ago

Support them, then.

God doesn't exist just because you or anybody else says that he does.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3.9  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.6    4 years ago

The cosmological arguments follow the same formal structure as any theory in science. They invoke evidence from nature (things change, things are caused, things exist), analyze the evidence on a logical framework, and arrive at an inductive conclusion.

The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with more certainly than we know of the existence of anything in science.

https://thenewstalkers.com/gordy327/group_discuss/11235/the-fallacy-of-biblical-stories-part-8-god-the-biggest-fallacy-of-them-all#cm1467057

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.10  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.9    4 years ago
The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with more certainly than we know of the existence of anything in science.

Let's see your argument.   

Or, pick what you think is your strongest argument (if cosmological, then pick the variant you consider the best).   Be specific.  Don't just copy & paste an article into a comment.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.11  Ozzwald  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.9    4 years ago
The cosmological arguments follow the same formal structure as any theory in science.

They're reproducible?  Falsifiable?

The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive

Yet never presented.

the logic is impeccable

Yet never understandable.

the conclusion is inescapable

Yet never reached.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.3.12  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.10    4 years ago

Especially fascistic articles that just go on and on with no basis in fact.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.13  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.2    4 years ago
One step away from flat-Earthers.

Is that a step above? Or a step below? Hard to know which is floating higher in a cesspool. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.14  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.6    4 years ago
Make a point.

I doubt he has any. Just proselytization and religious parroting.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.15  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.9    4 years ago
The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with more certainly than we know of the existence of anything in science.

Ok, here's your chance! Present the evidence and your argument then! Let's see if it passes scientific scrutiny. Prove that you're not jus talking BS all the time.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.3.16  Raven Wing  replied to  Gordy327 @1.3.14    4 years ago
Just proselytization and religious parroting.

I thought that was against the CoC. But, I guess that does not count with XX. He does it endlessly and rarely ever gets called on it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.17  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.3.9    4 years ago
The cosmological arguments …

… are simply arguments following a basic pattern of logic.   None of them prove (or even provide evidence for) the existence of the Christian God.   Dr. William Lane Craig is one of the foremost presenters of arguments such as these.   His instance of the cosmological argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument which goes like this (per Dr. Craig):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

There really is no need for me to even break this argument down.   The reason is that its conclusion does not in any way provide evidence for the Christian God (much less proof).

I will, however, illustrate this:

Premise 1 is universally accepted as true:  it is simple cause and effect.   Our universe (best we can tell) came into existence at the event we call the 'Big Bang'.  Thus premise 2 is accepted as true (best we know).   It is accepted universally that something caused this event but nobody knows what that is.   However, there is nothing that suggests the cause is necessarily sentient.   It could have been a chain reaction precipitated by quantum fluctuation (one of several scientific hypotheses).  

So while the cause might be a sentient entity, there is absolutely nothing that suggests it must be or even that it more likely is .   Sentience is not evidenced in any way by this argument.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not even show the necessity of a sentient entity yet the Christian God is defined to be much more than a sentient entity:

  • sentient
  • omniscient
  • omnipotent
  • omnipresent
  • omnibenevolent
  • perfect
  • eternal

Clearly the Kalam is light years away from providing any support for the Christian God.   It has no chance to address these attributes.

Other than that, it is a perfectly sound argument.

Now show where my analysis is wrong.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.18  author  Gordy327  replied to  Raven Wing @1.3.16    4 years ago
I thought that was against the CoC.

Proselytizing is.

But, I guess that does not count with XX. He does it endlessly and rarely ever gets called on it. 

Oh, he does from time to time. One of his comments in this discussion was deleted for proselytizing. Of course, he'll probably complain that he's being censored or persecuted or something like that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.19  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.17    4 years ago
There really is no need for me to even break this argument down. 

I have a hunch that it might become necessary.

Now show where my analysis is wrong.

We might be waiting a long time on that one. Better get some popcorn, Lol

Actually, while he's proving your analysis wrong (*snort* jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif ), he could also try to argue the points made in the article and demonstrate where my analysis is wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.20  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.3.19    4 years ago

I would consider it progress to see a demonstrated understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.21  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.20    4 years ago

Every little bit helps I guess.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.22  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.3.21    4 years ago

As always, when asked to provide an original reply to back up a claim, the deafening silence ensues.

Nada from MAGA on @1.3.17

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.23  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.22    4 years ago
As always, when asked to provide an original reply to back up a claim, the deafening silence ensues.

At least he's consistent.

Nada from MAGA on @ 1.3.17

Or on 1.3.15. I offered a fair opportunity for explanation, which is still open.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.24  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.3.23    4 years ago

If one cannot explain one's position, it is likely the individual does not even understand why the position is held.

How can anyone (honestly, that is) offer the Kalam (or another Cosmological argument) as evidence of the Christian God?  

Interestingly, the Kalam is reasoning that supports how I would define 'God':  that which enabled the existence of our universe.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.25  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.24    4 years ago
If one cannot explain one's position, it is likely the individual does not even understand why the position is held.

Hence, the parroting in an attempt to make it look like one understands and is making a point, even f they do not.

One wonders how anyone can offer the Kalam as evidence of the Christian God. 

Don't forget, some people offer mere belief as evidence for God. Anything that suits their narratives is "evidence" to them. 

The Kalam is, however, reasoning that supports how I would define 'God': that which enabled the existence of our universe.

Yes, but the God of the bible is not limited to that definition alone. If it were, the God of the bible would probably be less fallacious.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.26  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.3.25    4 years ago
Yes, but the God of the bible is not limited to that definition alone.

Precisely the point.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.27  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.26    4 years ago
Precisely the point.

Some also miss the point of the logical contradictions associated with the biblically defined God too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    4 years ago

Great analysis as usual.  

The notion of God being supernatural as an excuse for why there is no evidence always strikes me as desperate.    It just amazes me that people are able to limit their thinking to one-sided logic:  to see only one side of a logical situation and ignore the other.   In this case, as you note, God is ostensibly interacting with the physical world even today.   He certainly did so in a grand manner per the writings of ancient men.   But today he is, by some, the force that elects our leaders, engages in divine acts, etc.    So God clearly, absolutely is believed to interact with the physical world.   Yet when it comes to evidence, well, that is impossible because God is supernatural.

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 years ago
Great analysis as usual.  

Thank you.

The notion of God being supernatural as an excuse for why there is no evidence always strikes me as desperate.  

Indeed. What's amazing is that somehow, despite no evidence and being supernatural,  ancient men were able to write about God as if they had intimate knowledge about God. Some people even today actually think they know God or speak for God. It boggles the mind.

Yet when it comes to evidence, well, that is impossible because God is supernatural.

But somehow, we have a biography on God in the form of the bible.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1    4 years ago

Fear to superstition to mythology are the basics of all religions.

The "fear" part is instrumental in the brainwashing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @2.1.1    4 years ago
The "fear" part is instrumental in the brainwashing.

Indeed it is.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @2    4 years ago
Yet when it comes to evidence, well, that is impossible because God is supernatural.

Why can't God interact with the physical world if he is omnipotent? I'm confused by that

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2    4 years ago

It is a nonsense excuse.   On one hand the individual making the argument wants to show that God is real and speaks of their own direct experiences (never specific by the way and never evidenced) and then that recorded in the Bible.    Yet on the other hand that individual explains away thousands of years with no evidence by claiming evidence is impossible since God is supernatural.

It is another having it both ways contradiction.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    4 years ago

My question is out of context with the rest of your comment. My apologies. I went back and re-read your comment at least twice, and once out loud. I see my mistake.

I was about to argue that God is God and can do anything She wants...kinda like Q on Star Trek. One cannot pin human attributes on God because She is not human. We don't know what God is if She exists

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.2    4 years ago
I was about to argue that God is God and can do anything She wants...kinda like Q on Star Trek.

Which led me to point out the contradictions and paradoxes mentioned in the article.

Once cannot pin human attributes on God because She is not human. We don't know what God is if She exists

And yet, humans not only claim (often with certainty) that God exists, but also applies certain attributed to God that no one could possibly know. And that's without any evidence whatsoever.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.3    4 years ago

Think about this. Where does all of our information about God come from (basically)?

Answer: The Bible. A book written by ancient men with pens (h/t to TiG). So all those paradoxes and contradictions are caused by men who didn't read what the other men were writing.

If people were honest about themselves, they would admit that a belief in God is a superstition....illogical and undefined. And it's all based on emotion, no intellect needed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.2.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.4    4 years ago
Answer: The Bible. A book written by ancient men with pens (h/t to TiG). So all those paradoxes and contradictions are caused by men who didn't read what the other men were writing.

Exactly. What's laughable is that some will claim the bible is the "word of God." I sure do not see God's signature in it.

they would admit that a belief in God is a superstition....illogical and undefined. And it's all based on emotion, no intellect needed.

As is/was belief in all other gods, past and present.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.2.6  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.2    4 years ago

You are just too damn cute Trout!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    4 years ago
. After all, the previous bible stories covered did have possible alternative explanations for their particular events that did not necessitate God. That means God isn't actually necessary and casts doubt as to the actual existence of God.

The existence of God is not at all dependent on the accuracy of Bible stories. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 years ago
The existence of God is not at all dependent on the accuracy of Bible stories. 

True.   But when one defines their god as that which is defined by the Bible, the integrity of the Bible comes heavily into play.

If one defines God as, for example, the sentient creator of the universe (no additional attributes), then the stories in the Bible are irrelevant because the god in question is not that defined by the Bible.

Bottom line, how one defines 'God' makes a hellofalot of difference when discussing the existence of same.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    4 years ago

I can define a god that is real and provide evidence of same.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    4 years ago

The various religions are obviously human creations. Whether any or all of them had divine inspiration is probably unknowable. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    4 years ago

Yup nobody knows if a divine sentient entity actually exists.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.3    4 years ago
Yup because nobody knows if a divine sentient entity actually exists.

But some people sure pretend or act like it does, even though they cannot actually prove it or provide evidence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    4 years ago
I can define a god that is real and provide evidence of same.

Unlike certain other individuals who make claims for a God.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 years ago
The existence of God is not at all dependent on the accuracy of Bible stories. 

It isn't so much about the existence of God as it is about how God is portrayed in the bible. Although, the two may be connected. If the bible is not accurate, then how God is depicted may not be accurate either, if at all. This can include claims of God's abilities or existence itself. I've always questioned biblical accuracy, as many stories are easily explained without the need for a divine intervention. That lends to the fallacy of God as well.

The various religions are obviously human creations.

As are the various God/s.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.1  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2    4 years ago

If there actually was a "god" and I met it, I'd do my best to kick its lame mass murdering ass.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.2.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @3.2.1    4 years ago
If there actually was a "god" and I met it, I'd do my best to kick its lame mass murdering ass.

That reminds me of the Star Trek DS9 episode where Cmdr Sisko punches Q. That was a great moment. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4  Hal A. Lujah    4 years ago

By definition god is always portrayed as eternal.  If humans think that mortality is a gateway into their own eternal existence in a new realm, then what makes them different from God at that point?  Upon death they become eternal and equally powerless to affect change or even communicate with life in this existence, just like God.  It’s all so mind numbingly pointless.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    4 years ago
It’s all so mind numbingly pointless.

As Rick Sanchez (Rick & Morty) says, "when you know nothing matters, the universe is yours,"

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1    4 years ago

If it gives one comfort to have faith, I don't see it being pointless

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.1    4 years ago
If it gives one comfort to have faith, I don't see it being pointless

Emotional comfort is one reason why people believe in a God. But that only demonstrates the subjectiveness of belief or the claims for a God. It's based on emotion rather than reason.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.1    4 years ago

What if it gives them comfort to the point that they are giving money that they can’t afford to lose to televangelists?  Happens all the time because they are easy targets.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.3    4 years ago

It's sad, but there's nothing that can be done about it. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.3    4 years ago
What if it gives them comfort to the point that they are giving money that they can’t afford to lose to televangelists?  Happens all the time because they are easy targets.

Then they have been conned. That's the risk of allowing emotion to override reason.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.4    4 years ago

financial decisions based on emotion rarely work out. some people learn that, others don't.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @4.1.6    4 years ago

I'd say most decisions based on emotion have a higher chance of not working out. It's certainly not rational.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1.8  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.1    4 years ago
I don't see it being pointless

I see religion as being a dangerous thing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @4.1.8    4 years ago
I see religion as being a dangerous thing.

That is quite easily demonstrable too.

 
 
 
AndrewK
Freshman Silent
5  AndrewK    4 years ago

Disproving God is like wading against a river of shit - always more shit coming down the pipe.

You have to do it on a case by case basis based on the definition presented by the believer - but there are tens of thousands of Gods, and Christianity alone has tens of thousands of branches - each making different concrete claims about their deity. The approach you take when debating the existence of the Mormon version of Christianity might be different than the one you would take in approaching the god of Spinoza. In reality - since religions make concrete claims - once one such claims has been disproved - that should be the end of it - but in reality religions generally just form some new branch which claims that particular claim was just allegorical - or a mistranslation - or somehow the Devil is responsible for the evidence being contradictory. Many believers will default to defending something closer to a Spinozan God with one breath - since an undefined God of nature which is indistinguishable from no God is easier to defend - but then claim that as evidence for their particular brand of divine cracker believing madness with the next breath. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  AndrewK @5    4 years ago

It's not for one to disprove a claim. It's up to the one making the claim (with certainty) to prove, or at least provide evidence to support their claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it also depends on how one defines god. The God of the Bible as it is depicted is a logical contradiction. In effect, that "disproves" that particular version of a God.  That's not the same as saying there is no God at all. As I first noted, there could be a God. Just not the one that is commonly portrayed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2  TᵢG  replied to  AndrewK @5    4 years ago

I agree, but it is not really about disproving but rather encouraging believers to think about what they are believing and why.    Do they believe this because of words from other human beings?   If so, why?   Why trust the mere words of ancient superstitious men and those with agendas?   Why trust the words of indoctrinated modern people?   What a human being opines is not relevant;  what is relevant is what that human being can evidence (or, ideally, prove).

Religion historically has been an extremely effective device for controlling the masses.   It remains so today, sadly, in spite of the extraordinary level of knowledge available compared to what ancient people had.   Religions have been perfecting their game for thousands of years and clearly the developed tactics work even with 21st century, intelligent human beings.

If there is a god, I would find that to be the most important, most interesting thing in life.   But after thousands of years (and thousands of gods) and countless billions of believers, nobody has been able to even provide credible evidence that any of these gods exists.   Why, then, do people believe these stories told by other human beings?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @5.2    4 years ago
rather encouraging believers to think about what they are believing and why. 

If people actually thought (rationally) about it, they may not be believers.

Do they believe this because of words from other human beings?

I'm sure that's one reason.

Why trust the mere words of ancient superstitious men and those with agendas?   Why trust the words of indoctrinated modern people? 

Because those with agendas or those indoctrinated are essentially predators. They prey on peoples ignorance, gullibility, and/or emotions to push their brand of religious belief or delusion. This is quite apparent with televangelists, as an example.

What a human being opines is not relevant;  what is relevant is what that human being can evidence (or, ideally, prove).

That would be logical. But we know people are often not logical.

intelligent human beings.

The fact that so many people fall for religious based tactics brings "intelligent" into question. But I know what you mean.

Why, then, do people believe these stories told by other human beings?

Because they either fill in gaps of knowledge (even if the information is wrong), appeal to emotions, or prey on fear. Or maybe people are just plain nuts or don't know any better? Who knows?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.1    4 years ago

As we have discussed, I think the greatest factor is that human beings (all of us) naturally seek comfort.   When faced with the scariest of realities such as death, we tend to be very wishful thinkers.   Religions all promise grand rewards, comfort, certainty.   Unabashed reality, in contrast, offers no guarantees of comfort, no sentient entity who has our back, and a finality of death.   It is much easier to believe (hope) about comforting thoughts than face the harshness of our reality.

In the past, ancient people knew very little about all the scary things happening (volcanoes, weather patterns, disease, neurological disorders, etc.) and so religions stepped in with answers.   They demystified the scary unknowns of life and this alone is comforting.   I certainly understand why religions have taken off and have lasted for so long.  

What is surprising, however, is that they continue even now.    I guess George Carlin was right:   the bullshit stories of religions are incredibly effective ... "Holy Shit" — Carlin.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.2    4 years ago
I think the greatest factor is that human beings (all of us) naturally seek comfort.  

I think you are correct.

Religions all promise grand rewards, comfort, certainty.  

Many also promise suffering, retribution, and despair, for eternity, if one does not follow said religion. Fear can be a great motivator too.

It is much easier to believe (hope) about comforting thoughts than face the harshness of our reality.

Many cannot seem to handle reality.

I certainly understand why religions have taken off and have lasted for so long.  

What boggles the mind is that today, with all our accumulated knowledge and understanding, we still cling to religion and religious myths.

I guess George Carlin was right:   the bullshit stories of religions are incredibly effective ..."Holy Shit"— Carlin.

A comedic genius wise beyond his years.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
5.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  AndrewK @5    4 years ago

There’s no point in debating the Spinoza concept of a god.  It is genuinely and inherently inoffensive.  It’s the organized religions that are inherently offensive to one another and non-belief itself.

 
 
 
AndrewK
Freshman Silent
5.3.1  AndrewK  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.3    4 years ago
There’s no point in debating the Spinoza concept of a god.

Watch any religious debate - and that's the strawman argument you're most likely to see from the religious side. They start by claiming a specific deity which has defined traits, an established place in history, and actual interactions with the world, but then rather than defend those positions in a serious debate they retreat to defending a god who is indistinguishable from no God - like some poorly crafted untestable scientific hypothesis. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5.3.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  AndrewK @5.3.1    4 years ago
but then rather than defend those positions in a serious debate they retreat to defending a god who is indistinguishable from no God

Or they continue to proclaim their God is real and has specific traits while ignoring any logical contradiction or rebuttal and saying one needs to believe or have faith. Essentially, it's saying God is real and has specific traits because wishful thinking.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

Who will remember us after we’re gone? Most of us consider that our children, grandchildren, and maybe our great-grandchildren will remember us. Eventually—with the exception of a few historical figures—the memory of our lives will disappear from human consciousness. That is an uncomfortable thought, as one writer for Scientific American notes, so he muses, “will the universe remember us after we’re gone?”

In his article, atheist John Horgan explores this question, looking at an idea in physics that “information never vanishes,” so somehow the universe will remember us forever (an idea he rejects). But he begins his article exposing the ultimate hopelessness, meaninglessness, and purposelessness of the secular worldview:

Compounding my concern is the possibility—no, probability—that one day humanity and all its residues will vanish. Our works of science, mathematics, philosophy, art, music and, yes, journalism will slip back into the void whence they came. Everything we have thought and done will be for naught. If nothing about us endures, if nothing is remembered, we might as well never have existed. No wonder so many of us, even in this age of scientific materialism, still believe in God. An immortal, omniscient being watches over each and every one of us, and not just celebrities like Einstein and Beyonce. He/she/it/they also surely remembers us after we’re gone, like a cosmic backup device with infinite storage capacity. Supposedly. If this divine entity does not exist, and someday all traces of us disappear forever, in what sense do our lives matter?
This angst is a natural and logical consequence of the naturalistic, evolutionary worldview that is inherently secular and atheistic.

This angst is a natural and logical consequence of a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview that is inherently secular and atheistic. If there is no god—if our lives, thoughts, and actions are just the result of us dancing to our DNA (as Richard Dawkins has said), the result of millions of years of chance processes—then nothing ultimately matters. Our lives, our accomplishments, the scientific discoveries we’ve made—none ultimately matter. They will disappear and be forgotten, along with us. There’s no ultimate hope, meaning, or value to our lives as humans. What an utterly depressing worldview!

But it’s a wrong worldview (one with tragic consequences!). There’s a reason so many people struggle with the logical consequences of an evolutionary worldview—“God has set eternity in their hearts” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). We have been created as eternal souls, in the image of God. We know there is more to this life than the here and now. We long for ultimate hope and meaning. And that’s only found in Christ.

As Avery Foley and I wrote in our 2016 article, it is the biblical worldview—rooted in the truth of God’s Word—that gives life ultimate purpose, meaning, and hope:

Life has no meaning without God. But there is a God. We are not animals who happened to evolve through millions of years of random chance processes. The Bible describes us much differently:
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27).
For you formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. (Psalm 139:13–14)
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you (Jeremiah 1:5).

We have been uniquely created and formed by the Creator of the universe. We are not accidents.

As Solomon writes, the things we do in this life, indeed our very lives, have a purpose: “fear God and keep His commandments.” We don’t obey the Lord simply as a “get-out-of-jail-free card” from some cosmic prison, as many atheists contest. We also don’t obey Him to try to somehow give meaning to our actions and lives. No, we obey the Lord because it is the mark of those who love Him: “If you love Me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). But in obeying, we get the purpose and meaning that we so desperately crave. God has created humans to desire meaning and purpose of their life because it is only found in Him!

Our Creator also gives us hope: “For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14). It’s not the universe that will remember us—it’s God! Both the good and evil things done in the world, even those things done in secret, will eventually be judged by the perfect Judge. There is ultimate justice for everyone. So we can’t simply live any way that we please with no regard for right and wrong. Right and wrong are given to us in God’s Word, and our choices have weight and significance for more than just today. Even in the midst of evil and chaos, we can have hope that justice will indeed be served.

We can also have hope because of Someone who came from the lineage of Solomon’s father, King David. JesusChrist, the God-man, stepped into history when He was born of a virgin and was laid in a humble manger. He lived a sinless life, perfectly obeyed His Heavenly Father, and chose to die on the Cross. Through His sacrificial death He took the penalty that we deserve—death—upon Himself (1 Corinthians 5:21). But He didn’t stay dead. He rose from the grave, conquering death. He now freely offers eternal life to all who will put their faith and trust in Him (Romans 10:9).

Because of what Christ did for us, death is not the end for those who believe. His death and resurrection removed the sting of death (1 Corinthians 15:56–57). Now “to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21). For Christians, death means entering the presence of the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8) and dwelling with Him for eternity in a place free from death, suffering, pain, and tears (Revelation 21:4). We can have hope for eternity because of the sacrifice of our Lord. Do you have this hope? If not, I encourage you to give your life to Christ today, believing in His death and resurrection so you can have “a living hope” (1 Peter 1:3) for all eternity.
As believers, we can be thankful that we have meaning, purpose, and hope both for now and for eternity.

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day here in America. Many people are struggling to find things to be thankful for this year. But, as believers, we can be thankful that we have meaning, purpose, and hope both for now and for eternity. This world is not all there is. We don’t have to wish and hope the universe will somehow preserve our memory. We are known and loved by the Creator, the eternal King of the universe! For those who have repented and put their faith and trust in Christ, we have eternity to look forward to, worshiping and praising the Lord.

So this Thanksgiving—in the midst of what might be hard or dark times for you and your family—thank the Lord for his great gift of salvation, his sovereignty over everything, and the hope he gives us now and for eternity.

Remember what God said to Joshua: Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go (Joshua 1:9).
 Read more: https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/thankful-were-not-alone-in-universe/

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1    4 years ago

This is simply proselytization.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7    4 years ago

If you are going to drop full articles into a comment you need to at least establish the point you are trying to make.   Otherwise it looks like you are spamming Gordy's article with tripe from Answers in Genesis.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @7.2    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
7.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7    4 years ago

If you have anything even remotely resembling a discussion, a point, or an argument, then make it. Parroting something from a religious source doesn't address any of the points made, nor does it demonstrate any original thought on your part. At best, it's spamming.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8  author  Gordy327    4 years ago

I think for Part 9, I'll focus on Sodom & Gomorrah. After covering all these stories so far, does anyone else think the bible reads as a big collection of theological disaster movies? I mean, The Great Flood was essentially the biblical version of Waterworld, starring Noah as biblical Kevin Costner.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @8    4 years ago

Another thought is the fallacy of the Bible itself.   The Bible self-claims to be divine.   There are myriad fallacies in that claim.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    4 years ago

True. But there's really nothing to contradict those fallacies. So it might make for a short article. Of course, some will simply ignore the contradictions and fallacies by claiming one needs faith to understand it. As if that somehow validates the Bible's claims. It's a total disconnect from logic. Given how well you spot and point out biblical contradictions, such an article is right up your alley, as you could do it better justice than I. Just a thought.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.1    4 years ago

Hell, Gordy, there has been almost no meaningful debate on your articles.   It is mostly the old game of attack the messenger, nit-pick, strawmen, etc.

But, anyway, I was just tossing it out for consideration.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.2    4 years ago

Yes, I've noticed the standard tactics. A thoughtful debate would be most welcome. Of course, pointing out biblical fallacies might be uncomfortable to some, so they react emotionally rather than rationally. I suspect pointing out the fallacy of the Bible itself will garmer a similar response. Clearly biblical proponents are unable to muster any meaningful rebuttals or alternative explanations to the points made in these articles. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.2    4 years ago
But, anyway, I was just tossing it out for consideration.

Thank you for that. I appreciate the consideration. But like I said, I think that's one topic where you're much better suited to analyze than I. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
9  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 years ago

If you actually read the bible and not cherry pick like many "followers" do, that God is not worth the time to piss on.  It's vengeful, unloving, vindictive and childish.  It is responsible for far more evil and death than the Satan.  And yet people love it. 

The "followers" are suffering from a massive case of Stockholm Syndrome.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9    4 years ago
It's vengeful, unloving, vindictive and childish. 

Funny how God has many human attributes.

It is responsible for far more evil and death than the Satan.  And yet people love it. 

I've asked some theists what Satan has done that is so "evil," especially compared to the evil God has done as described in the bible. No surprise I don't get much of an answer, other than justification and defense of God's own actions.

The "followers" are suffering from a massive case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Or self delusion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1    4 years ago
No surprise I don't get much of an answer, other than justification and defense of God's own actions.

From what I have observed over the many years, most theists know very little about their religions.   They certainly know what they have been taught, but their educations typically lack the deep dive that provides the rationale behind the beliefs.

And this makes sense.   If most theists did really seriously explore and contemplate their beliefs, I suspect they would no longer be theists.   There will always be the few who find ways to bridge the cognitive dissonance, but I suspect most will just slowly discard nonsense until they find that they really no longer accept what they have been told.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1    4 years ago
Funny how God has many human attributes.

I've long thought it true that "God is made in man's image".

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.1    4 years ago
but their educations typically lack the deep dive that provides the rationale behind the beliefs.

Possibly because religions do not like being questioned or challenged. Doing so may be viewed as a lack in faith and subject to God's punishment. It's basically "believe what you're told, no questions asked."

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
10  Gsquared    4 years ago
most theists know very little about their religions.

I believe that is true.  I don't think most Christians realize that the early thinkers in their religion considered the Biblical tales to be allegorical, not literal.   

 
 

Who is online


JohnRussell
Veronica
bugsy
JBB
Hallux
MonsterMash
Freefaller


67 visitors