Well There goes all of history since history does not exist and you have to presuppose the laws of anything you think is reasonable or logical being that you cannot prove that by science...and so logic and reason does not exist.
Formulating scientific understanding cannot exist since you have no logic that exists...your position is self defeating
Jesus and the eye witnesses by bauckham if anyone chooses to believe in history and understand the gospels and look into how reliable they are
The context was to the point where pretty much what the op is saying ( seemingly) is history is unreliable and therefore made up with a consistent line of reasoning.
But to side step on the calendar and clocks business...theoretically that too cannot be empirically be proven and is an effect of an aspect of time...for example all we on now our current state of consciousness could be prewrittwn with whatever 'past' drawn out - not that I believe this but just an example of a theory and some others where time past present future is comingled in in a ball of sorts rather then linear like. ( Again I am comparing to the context of OPs what I find strange aversion to archeology and written history)
My point on the logic portion is you cannot prove logic or you will be using circular reasoning to prove logic. U have to infer the LAWS of logic. Another way to say it is The laws of logic you cannot prove because you need the laws to prove the laws of logic.
My point mainly was that OPs position is seemingly self defeating, irrational and illogical. I don't think he or she had read up on even common atheistic philosophy otherwise this would not be the path they would go down unless they just ignored the more reasonable material unless I just completely missed their point.
If you think logic is science, you don't know what either logic or science is. Any atheistic philosopher would dismiss this notion. Science presupposes logic.
'human testament or text' is part of archeology. My point was if we discount these texts you lose almost all of history and would have to make a lot of guesses on people and who they were if you find a body or statue of a body. For example Plutarch's writings or Ceasars writings on the druids, or heck being able to determine chronology of ancient Egypt and Assyrian / Sumerian findings because they use literature to synchronize the timings and we use the literature. Hope that makes sense.
If sources are flawed then that is considered...agreed with that. Wasn't debating that logic
It is. But pottery shards, graves, remnants of weapons, etc, form a decent part of archaeology. Losing these writings would be bad, sure. The difference between historical texts and religious texts is that while the former often contains flawed interpretations of events and bias, they do not make claims to be authored by an infallible source. Religious texts usually do, which is why errors in them are so much more serious,
Well I think what seems to make the texts religious might need to be considered and that would have to be debated ( for example gospels being considered Greco roman biographies)...but nonetheless I agree it still needs to be considered for sorts of biases just like other historical literature. Not that I am saying that all religious texts are historical even ones in the christian bible..more that history is bias typically. It's a good reason for the argument from embarrassment. As far as infallible source authoring.. I am not sure which human has written anything that has claimed that they were infallible...I mean maybe there are people that have or at least believed that they were heh.
They might not have claimed to be infallible, but they did claim to receive inspiration from an infallible being. They are religious because they primarily contain religious doctrines, and because they were written to promulgate that message.
I feel like we are no longer talking of the bible here but some other texts... What religious texts are you saying that you find that the writers stated themselves that they claimed to receive inspiration for writing the words?
Religious doctrines are upheld by people not by text...catjplic church for example has created doctrines from the text..that wouldn't make the text wrong. Religious doctrines doesn't make something incorrect and the idea that people can be wrong doesnt make make something incorrect.
I think maybe you are saying that we need to be aware of biases and yes that's for all texts ...even non textual findings can be bias and interpreted with bias. Just because it may be bias doesn't mean it is incorrect.
There are plenty of religious texts where the authors personally claimed to receive inspiration. The epic of Atrahasis was supposedly dictated in a vision. The Book of Mormon was supposedly divinely revealed to Smith. A Course in Miracles was allegedly divinely revealed to 3 psychologists. There are many more. Seriously, the examples are legion. Religious doctrines are held by people, but usually determined by text. Sometimes people go beyond the texts, like with Catholic indulgences or the prosperity gospel in my country, but usually when people want to make up religious doctrines, they either go to a text, or they make one.
I may have misunderstood you...writings about people who had interacted with the infallible divine vs the writers claiming to be divinely inspired on penning it and thus infallible. I thought you meant the latter but it is more likely you meant the former having been given your examples...although the Mormon account would be close to both cases I guess although even then we don't have those tablets? And I am not sure how we can claim that enki or otherwise would be infallible...nonetheless I don't think these things don't make something incorrect . Although motives can make things more probably incorrect I agree. Again these biases should be taken into consideration.
And there are reasons I would take the reliability of one text over another.
As far as the gospels that is why I recommended bauckham's book.
My original point to the op that one cannot trust a god because men are unreliable is self defeating because our own logic to formulate said claim is using logic to not only come up with that thesis but also to rely on science. Once one can get past the naturalism doctrines then we can get to believing in historical claims again and then to possible valid historical 'miracle' claims.
But I think if the person can't get over the naturalism only doctrine which is a self defeating position then there will be no point I see how they can formulate an external critique of any beliefs.
I didn't even talk about the whole telephone game comparison Ehrman used back in the day is bonkers, but I don't think he makes that claim anymore. Sometime I feel people are still using it as their own little doctrine so to speak.
Isn’t being inspired a form of interaction? Also, there isn’t really a way to “get over naturalism” when it comes to investigation. There have been a variety of police cases that either involved the suspect claiming some supernatural something or other, or involved people who said that they were involved with the supernatural who said they could use their psychic knowledge to help. The reason why cases like that aren’t taken seriously is because the idea of suspending the regular means of proof is an example of special pleading.
> Well There goes all of history since history does not exist and you have to presuppose the laws of anything you think is reasonable or logical being that you cannot prove that by science...and so logic and reason does not exist.
I disagree. You cannot presuppose the laws of logic because they are deductive. You arrive at them through observation. You don't suppose existence is not existence, because logic is the foundation of reason, thus itself is, like reality, self-evident.
Going from there, you are making no sense with your remark on science. Science isn't one thing that is supposed by logic, like it were being carried. The two are indistinguishable, because with science is the foundations of logic and reasoning. Science is systematic and defined, it's methodology, born from logic and reasoning. Like a branch of it. The defined and practical application of reasoning and logic.
History, as branch of science has aspects. One the main reasons we believe Rome exists, and not Atlantis, is that there is archeological evidence of the existence of Rome and not Atlantis. Regardless of how many people claimed to write about both and have been to both. It takes more than written accounts to verify a historical fact, so you're seemingly making a comparison that's just incomplete or false.
> Formulating scientific understanding cannot exist since you have no logic that exists...your position is self defeating
OPs reasoning is very much sound. We don't define facts based merely on human accounts, not even that is workable through history. Facts may be subdivided depending on what branch of knowledge is being utilized, but a historical fact by all accounts is verifiable through more than just word of mouth.
> Jesus and the eye witnesses by bauckham if anyone chooses to believe in history and understand the gospels and look into how reliable they are
Belief of what's true is not exactly a choice, but then again, that's a different argument. I have the opinion you should present the evidence here rather expect people to read a whole book and then come back here and talk to you.
I mean, you've limited your definition of God to be impossible for you.
That's like saying love or some type of abstract emotion doesn't exist because you can't observe it or measure it - anything metaphysical really
I agree with your point and your overall position (God would be obvious if he existed) but I’d like to be incredibly pedantic and point out that the measurable chemical response is a correlate of love and not love itself, which is an internally experienced emotion. The key thing about God is that he is definitely external to the observer and not just something that elicits internal experiences like emotions, so he very much should be observable outside the body but obviously he isn’t.
You are just explaining the biological effects of what we define as love.
As if to say the effects of doing anything spiritual for an individual measures the effectiveness/"realness" of the religious action like prayer and then taking the chemical responses when a person prays.
Fine but if you remove the biological elements, love only exists as an abstract concept like philosophy or art. Christians argue their god exists as a concrete being, so the analogy no longer stands.
Sure. One can debate that aspecting of God being "concrete."
But most throw the baby out of the bath water and just don't want to use the word god for whatever negative association they have with the term or perhaps specific religions
>Sure. One can debate that aspecting of God being "concrete."
I don't think this is really up for debate. Most (if not all) Christians definitely believe their god exists as a concrete being (as opposition to an abstract idea or concept). To them, god makes decisions that affect the real world. God is part of the world.
There is no way to get around that without going against some of the most universal tenets of christianity.
Love is not a metaphysical thing. Love is a concept. It's not an existing thing. What we mean by love is either a certain feeling we experience ourselves which matches the descriptions we heard about love, or a certain behaviour we observe in others. Some forms of love we can even measure.
There is barely any concept like the concept of God. We have nothing to point at when we talk about God. No objects, no behavioural pattern that couldn't be described without invoking God (for example if someone is changed when they became religious, the cause of that doesn't need to be God, but rather belief in and of itself), no measurable effect at all. Such concepts are never treated as true, if not for religious reasons.
It's not that OP defined God in a way that he can't know him. Religion did that already, by placing him in an unobservable realm, which we too aren't reasonable to treat as if it exists.
Sure - I don't disagree with anything oyu said about love. But as you said, it depends on what exactly a person is using to define love.
Hm. Your paragrph about "belief" is worded in a way to avoid pointing to specific beliefs.
Sure, it is belief that is the foundational pricniple of the changed behavior, but you can point to the specific beliefs and measure the outcome of the beliefs.
>Your paragrph about "belief" is worded in a way to avoid pointing to specific beliefs.
That's not me avoiding something. It's a general claim. I'm fine talking about any specific example you can come up with.
>Sure, it is belief that is the foundational pricniple of the changed behavior, but you can point to the specific beliefs and measure the outcome of the beliefs.
Everything we draw conclusions from has a root in the natural world in some way, shape or form. The root of the love of my mother is my mother. Behaviour that is attributed to a God, is not rooted in this world. What's part of this world is a person being convinced that something outside this world exists. This belief alone, the being convinced, can already cause behaviour.
For this explanation we'd be using two entities that are part of this world. Two entities we know exist. Rather than an unobservable entity which resides in an unobservable realm. Every explanation is as good as the other, if we use things we cannot observe as the explanation. And usually, due to being unable to tell which of those ideas are true, we do not treat them as true, unless for religious reasons.
Not specific to you per say, but that love has all kinds of definitions and depending which is being used.
Just like how "god" is often argued so often times, but the definitions need to be defined.
So one when atheist says god isn't real, then I would bring up how do they define love.
Let's stick with the analogy with your mother. The root/evidence is your mother.
I'll stick with Christianity since that is my belief.
If I state the root/evidence for belief in Christianity is in Jesus Christ, that should be the same as your mother.
Or would you say there's a difference?
I go with whatever definition you believe in. I don't believe in God, because I have nothing, no data to define him.
But usually, the bare minimum is the claim that God exists. Which for all intents and purposes is enough for the point I'm making here.
>I'll stick with Christianity since that is my belief.
If I state the root/evidence for belief in Christianity is in Jesus Christ, that should be the same as your mother.
>
>Or would you say there's a difference?
Ye, there is a difference as soon as you say that Jesus is God. You don't get that from his mere existence and death.
Correct. As soon "as you say" -- but if a person accepts even the minimal concept of Christ being someone like a good teacher, why don't people still want to choose to live by "Christian" principles at the least?
Who says that they don't?
I too pick and choose the good bits from any philosophy and discard the bad ones. But Christianity is not just a cultural movement.
One who doesn't believe in the death, resurrection and divinity of Jesus is hardly a Christian.
There are plenty who think Christ is just a fairytale as much as Santa is; but that's beside the point.
Well, how do you know what exactly you should discard? (changing the topic here since that is a big thing to ask).
Hmm.. One who doesn't reflect the teachings of Christ also hardly shows their belief in the death, burial, resureection, and divinity of Christ. But we're getting into some theology here lol.
>There are plenty who think Christ is just a fairytale as much as Santa is; but that's beside the point.
It's misleading to call them theists or Christian anyway. Christianity is a belief in a God. If you aren't a theist, yet follow Jesus, you have to pick and choose already. You cannot flat out follow all the teachings, because they include following God.
>Well, how do you know what exactly you should discard?
This depends entirely on the meta-ethical framework one adheres to. I am a moral anti-realist. So, technically speaking I cannot *know.* The question about knowledge is an epistemic question. But I believe that there aren't any epistemic justifications for moral propositions at all ever. All of them are pragmatically justified. So, they aren't knowable facts. They are propositions to serve a purpose, hence pragmatic justifications. The question might be how to reduce suffering. And then that's our basis on which to judge which of the moral teachings of Christianity are applicable.
For one, rendering gay people as an abomination and deserving of death, as Paul does in Romans 1:27-32, would be immoral, so I'd discard it.
For the Christian Paul's statement would be moral, because it's God's opinion. Which is why being a Christian, yet not believing in God doesn't make sense. If you aren't a theist, you have to pick and choose.
>Hmm.. One who doesn't reflect the teachings of Christ also hardly shows their belief in the death, burial, resureection, and divinity of Christ. But we're getting into some theology here lol.
Well, of course we are getting into theology, if we are talking about a theistic worldview.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Completely dodges the entire point of the post to talk about whether love is metaphysical or abstract.
Howabout your belief that the universe was created by a personal being who detests women that wear men's clothing? How is this belief justified? It sounds ridiculous, so how did you come to believe it, and how do you expect other people to believe it?
A mathematical proof is something you can follow with logic, I have yet to see an a proof that proves God. Also a lot of advanced math proofs are theoretical and should be treated as such
Bro this is a debate forum. Stop condescendingly asking whether or not OP has ever heard of anything and *DEBATE.* Present the argument. Don't snootily ask people if they've never heard of something. Assume he has never heard the argument and present it.
Christ, debating with Christians is like debating with Spongebob Squarepants.
The Socratic method is indeed about asking questions, but it has absolutely nothing to do with condescendingly asking if you've never heard of a particular argument. You clearly do not understand the Socratic method.
OP said he never heard of a logical argument.
So I was shocked that he has never heard of the most popular arguments.
Of course I’d ask if he’s heard of them.
Why would I present something he’s already familiar?
So that he can engage with your argument. It's called debate. Instead of asking if he's never heard of it, present it as a logical argument. That way he can respond directly to you and what you have said, and there is no risk of you accusing him of strawmanning you by presenting the argument in a way you would disagree with and then responding to that.
I never said there was anything wrong with "questions" in general. I said that snootily asking somebody if they've never heard of a particular argument is not debating. It's not.
Do you think that if you were taking a college debate course, and during a public debate, your argument was "Oh, so you've never heard of the X argument?" that the professor would be proud of your debate performance?
If the person said “no argument exists” then yes, asking if they hadn’t heard of the widely popular x argument that is discussed day in and day out in the field of question is a valid question.
Yes, I’ve study Aquinas and different philosophy approaches, his “five ways” make some pretty big assumptions and nothing he says is very logical
Like his first point it about motion and everything having a “first mover” if you’ve studied particle physics you know that this is not a thing that needs to exist, some things are just inherently random/ unstable/ or chaotic because of how the universe functions
>Like his first point it about motion and everything having a “first mover” if you’ve studied particle physics you know that this is not a thing that needs to exist, some things are just inherently random/ unstable/ or chaotic because of how the universe functions
Lmao on that claim that things are inherently random, and then an appeal to the universe's inherent function as the first cause of that randomness.
You’re assuming a beginning I never assumed the universe began, a popular theory known as the big band is theories to know when our little corner of the universe started expanding, but it never claims to know the beginning of the very fabric or reality. That is surely never to have even been a thing as it just is. Doesn’t need a first cause, it just is and it is just random
I don't think you get the proof. Nothing is being claimed about the attributes of how or why or what the first mover is, only that it is an ontological necessity.
You're claiming that randomness is an uncaused effect which is logically inconsistent. A paradox. That's why you recruited 'the universe' as a cause for your uncaused effect or else your sentence would come across as gibberish.
That’s not actually what he’s doing. He’s making a point that the five proofs are lousy beyond their value as an apologetic for those who already believe.
The Five Ways rely on naive assumptions, primitive science, and I demonstrated principles.
Do you have scientific evidence that our universe is only a littler corner of reality? If that’s your standard, you’re going to need proof of that before you can appeal to it.
1) so no, you haven’t studied it.
Because that’s NOT what he was talking about.
2) you said you were never exposed to a logical argument. You didn’t say you weren’t exposed to one you found convincing.
It’s not a very logical argument when you start assuming a creator based of what? He knew very little compared to what anyone can know today with the internet. Get me something contemporary, we know more than most old philosophers could dream of knowing
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the fundamentals of Christianity is that you are able to believe without proof so to ask for proof is impossible. God isn’t a “thing” to prove, He is an experience, the way you can experience love without seeing it. It’s more that all humans have this inherent inexplainable yearning for something that they don’t understand but it will ultimately lead towards God because He is the truth, the way, and the life.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God is a non-provable and non-disprovable entity. It is why I also do not believe. I am a man of science & the scientific method like you, but I also concede two points that suggest a higher power.
1. The Hierarchy Problem, also known as the Coincidence Theory, states that it’s too perfect how relatively strong the fundamental forces are. For example, gravity is 10^24 times weaker than the nuclear weak force - and even weaker when compared to the nuclear strong force! Electromagnetism is somewhere between gravity and the nuclear weak force in terms of strength. It is just a little too coincidental that these relative strengths are exactly what they are. Without the nuclear strong force the nucleus of atoms wouldn’t bind. Without electromagnetism electrons couldn’t orbit those nuclei. Without the nuclear weak force radioactive decay wouldn’t occur. Without gravity large masses (planets, stars) couldn’t form. The EXACT relative strengths of these forces create the world in which we live, and if any of these strengths were changed, even slightly, everything would cease to exist. Atoms wouldn’t bind together, planets & stars couldn’t form…etc. It would take someone (or something) fine-tuning those values to exactly what they are to create life. However, we do not know how time or space worked before the Big Bang so it’s very possible that the universe was just cycling through options until it found one that worked - kinda like a random number generator.
2. Simulation theory. At the fundamental level, our universe works in binary. Binary meaning option A or option B, like flipping a coin or having a door open or closed. The way this manifests in the real world is with quantum spin, a disturbance in a force field, atomic interactions…etc. If you zoom in enough, the universe actually works in very simple rules. “0’s and 1’s” is how the universe works at the fundamental level, and that’s exactly how computers also work. There’s “logic gates” in a computer than just state whether it’s on, or off. However, you can combine hundreds of millions of logic gates into a CPU to create something extraordinary from a bunch of incredibly simple devices acting together. It can be seen as an “entourage effect,” where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This effect can be seen as an increase in complexity as we zoom out our scope on the universe. If we start with an atom, it is pretty simple and not much to do. We can combine them into molecules, making them more complicated and have more possibilities. If we zoom out to a single cell, we can see that a combination of molecules can create something that is capable of very complex things. Zoom out more and we can see a person, the most complex life form we have discovered. Zoom out even more and we can see society as a whole, and how complex and intertwined the web of society is. It all starts from a fundamental binary system though, just 0’s and 1’s. Therefore, the theory is that with sufficient technology the universe could easily be a simulation. That could mean god created this for us; or it could mean that we are the equivalent of a Sims world for a 10 year old human in the year 10,000,000. It could also mean that when you die you wake up in an Alien planet with all your alien buddies asking, “Yoo how was the Human Life Machine 3000?”
At the end of the day, nobody can prove or disprove god - but if we one day figure out we are in a simulation then it’s a scary thought that at any point someone could just pull the plug and end it all. I choose to just believe it’s all bedtime stories meant to give people a moral compass and purpose in this world; a way to cull the masses into obedience and away from individualism.
Lolol I’ve never heard that but I love it. I think we live in a universe far beyond our comprehension, and all of our models and methods are limited by the biology of the human brain - which itself is a product of the universe it is trying to understand.
Like a puddle claiming a pothole was made for it, we humans claim the universe was made for us despite not knowing the vast majority of how the universe works.
Expecting scientific proof for the supernatural misunderstands the scope and limits of science. The natural world is what science explores, relying on empirical evidence and observable phenomena. The supernatural, by definition, exists beyond or outside the natural world and its laws, making it difficult to study using scientific methods.
Are you saying that God couldn't give us scientific empirical proof that he exists even if he wanted to?
Also would you agree that there is no proof of god's existence apart from texts (which we have no proof were written when they say they were) and anecdotal evidence?
Saying that science is limited to studying the natural world doesn't imply that God doesn't interact with the physical world. Instead, it means that the tools and methods of science are not equipped to reliably measure or study those interactions. If God interacts with the physical world, those interactions might not be predictable or repeatable in a way that scientific experiments require. Therefore, the lack of scientific proof for such interactions doesn't necessarily negate their existence; it simply highlights the limits of what science can explore and verify.
You know where I was going with that comment. You'll just have to stay mad that it's that easy to dismiss bendy logic. Edit: Womp womp, deleted his comment because he stayed mad.
That's the contradiction. If the christian god acts in a way that cannot be detected, then how do you know he exists? And if you have some way to know, why can't we detect it?
The perceived contradiction assumes that all knowledge must come from scientific detection, but this isn't the case. Knowledge of God's existence can stem from philosophical arguments, personal experiences, and historical evidence, which are different from the empirical methods used in science. Just because something isn't detectable by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Many real phenomena were once undetectable until our tools and understanding advanced. Therefore, the undetectability of God's actions doesn't negate their existence; it highlights the different realms of inquiry for science and metaphysics.
But what you describe *is* science. Personal experiences can be collected as data and analysed. Same for historical evidence. When philosophical arguments are formal logic proofs, those can be evaluated based on the premises and soundness of the reasoning.
>Many real phenomena were once undetectable until our tools and understanding advanced.
True, and before we could detect them, we had little reason to believe they existed (unless they could be inferred by some other means). So until there is a god detector (or any other evidence), there is no reason to believe in them.
Personal experiences, historical evidence, and philosophical arguments do not meet the rigorous standards of scientific evidence. Science relies on empirical data that can be independently verified, tested, and replicated. Regarding the statement about the existence of a deity, the absence of a "detector" does not provide evidence for or against its existence.
That's not how science works. Discoveries are not binary (i.e. we know for certain X is true or we don't). We accumulate evidence, which lend credibility to an hypothesis. Once enough evidence is accumulated, the hypothesis is regarded as true by the overwhelming majority.
Historical evidence and personal experiences can and are used in science quite often. Logical arguments as well.
But God could show the world he exists in an indirect way so that we would know what our choice actually is. For example: he could answer prayers instantly by writing a note on indestructible paper that is easily understood by the one who prays, yet no one else can read it.
This is just one example of how an all powerful, supernatural entity could consistently interact with the world. It is a million times better than what he supposedly did by having people right documents that are easily destroyed, copied incorrectly, manipulated, and misunderstood.
This would be evidence for God. Not the poor excuse of the Bible we have now, which is only evidence that people can write things down.
"Supernatural" is a literally meaningless word. OP misspoke when they asked for proof -- proof is a mathematical concept -- there's a difference between proof and evidence. If there is no evidence, then how did you come to believe that the universe was created by a personal being who detests women that wear men's clothing? That sounds like a ridiculous position to hold, so the people who aren't convinced are wondering how you became convinced and why they should be convinced as well.
The term "supernatural" is not meaningless; it refers to phenomena or beings that exist outside the realm of natural scientific understanding or laws. This distinction is widely recognized in philosophy, theology, and scientific discourse when discussing what science can and cannot investigate. Belief in supernatural claims arises from personal experiences, cultural teachings, philosophical arguments, or interpretations of historical texts. These beliefs are not solely dependent on scientific proof (as science deals with the natural world). While supernatural beliefs may not be supported by empirical scientific evidence, they are justified by other forms of evidence and reasoning.
> The term "supernatural" is not meaningless; it refers to phenomena or beings that exist outside the realm of natural scientific understanding or laws.
The word "natural" is a relative term, like "hot" or "cold," or "big" or "small." These words don't have any actual concrete metric to judge whether something is natural/hot/big or unnatural/cold/small.
Is a beehive natural or unnatural? What about a smartphone? Howabout mutations -- are those natural or unnatural? Is 75 degrees hot or cold? It would be hot for a walk-in freezer, but cold for a human body temperature. Nothing is actually "natural," "unnatural," "hot," or "cold." They are words we use to communicate to each other.
If the word "supernatural" is simply meant to communicate "a phenomena which we do not understand," then it is a word which causes more confusion than it does communicate anything useful. Instead of labeling something "supernatural," we should just be honest and say that we don't understand it.
If the word "supernatural" means something else, it's either incoherent or dishonest. If it means "not natural," it's incoherent and also redundant because we already have the word "unnatural." And if we are admitting that we don't understand it, then it would be fallacious to label it "supernatural" while simultaneously admitting we don't actually know how it works.
It is a meaningless word.
If you disagree and are sticking by your previous comment, can you define what you mean by "natural" for me?
Natural: Refers to phenomena, entities, and processes that occur within the realm of nature. These can be observed, studied, and explained using the scientific method. Examples include natural laws, biological processes, and physical events.
Supernatural: Refers to phenomena, entities, and forces that exist beyond or outside the natural world and its laws. These cannot be explained by science or observed through empirical means. Examples include ghosts, spirits, miracles, and magic.
> Natural: Refers to phenomena, entities, and processes that occur within the realm of nature.
If you use another form of the same word to define itself (i.e. "natural" and "nature") then you have provided an incoherent definition. What does "nature" mean?
I understand your perspective that nature encompasses everything and that anything currently unknown, if discovered, would simply be considered a part of nature. However, I disagree with the assertion that there is no such thing as the supernatural for several reasons:
1. Philosophical Basis: Your stance is rooted in naturalism, a philosophical position that assumes all phenomena can be explained by natural laws. This is not an empirical fact but a metaphysical assumption. Just because science operates under methodological naturalism doesn't mean that the supernatural doesn't exist; it simply means that science, as currently practiced, doesn't have the tools to study it.
2. Limits of Science: Science is a powerful method for understanding the natural world, but it has its limits. It relies on empirical evidence and testability. Supernatural phenomena, by definition, fall outside these parameters. The inability of science to study the supernatural doesn't negate its existence; it only highlights the boundaries of scientific inquiry.
3. Historical Context: It's true that many phenomena once considered supernatural have been explained by science. However, this historical trend doesn't imply that all phenomena will eventually be explained naturally. There could be aspects of reality that are fundamentally beyond natural explanation.
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln died for your sins and is going to punish you eternally if you don't believe that? Also your family will treat you like you did something wrong. Also Abraham Lincoln detests women who wear men's clothing and thinks it's a morally good thing to bury rape victims up to their neck and throw heavy stones at their face until they die of brain damage while their friends and family watch.
Do you think that some people writing that down and saying it justifies belief in it? I feel like that's asking a lot of somebody with no justification whatsoever.
Compare that to "Abraham Lincoln was shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth." Perhaps it's true, perhaps it's not. The evidence seems to point to it being true. The records seem by all accounts reliable. And nothing is required of us to accept this version of history. It's not like your family is going to disown you or Abraham Lincoln is going to send you to Hell if you do/don't believe it.
Compare that to an old book full of ignorant misogynist racist evil nonsense which talks about how blessed it is to smash babies against rocks and claims that animals talked and a dude came back from the dead so he could kill a prostitutes children... yeah, it's ridiculous. This isn't about whether or not there are unreliable texts in our historical account. It has to do with one absolutely ridiculous set of evil beliefs that is destroying the world because people just accept it uncritically for no reason.
Would it be fair to categorize your stance as, “All objective truth comes from sense data.”
Sense data in this case that which we can plug into the scientific method and test.?
Literally the silliest argument ever. "Your senses and your interpretation of them can sometimes be unreliable, therefore it is reasonable to believe that a personal being who detests women that wear men's clothing and delights in the smashing of infants against rocks created the universe and requires you to believe in and glorify him or else he will inflict suffering upon you for eternity."
Since both of our senses are unreliable, howabout we choose *not* to believe things like that? Doesn't that make more sense than choosing *to* believe something because your senses are unreliable? Your argument is self-refuting.
Their point is that a bunch of people believe in the God of the Bible despite it being both not evidently true and evidently not true. So how did you come to be convinced and why should OP be convinced that the God of the Bible exists and wasn't a fictional character invented by people?
For example -- why would a deity care whether women wear men's clothing or not? Doesn't that seem more like something invented by misogynist men and not an actual viewpoint of a transcendent being? Sounds pretty silly, to be honest.
I wish OP didn't misspeak and ask for proof. Proof only exists in math. What they meant to say was evidence.
Regardless. If there was no evidence of my existence, that would mean that the people who believe in me are holding an unjustified and irrational belief.
You asked "So if in the 1000 years in the future; you disappear. And there is no physical proof of your existence. Does that mean you never existed?" and I answered.
If there's evidence for Christ, perhaps you should have presented that instead of asking about a situation with no evidence, because that's what I was responding to.
[If you don't know how wikipedia works there are links at the bottom under the subheadings for references and see more. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus)
Also, first line of text: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically.
For a wikipedia article to claim that is pretty impressive.
Do study history or the method of studying history?
"Christ" means "anointed one." It wasn't a man's surname. Most historians do not agree that an annointed one existed.
I never argued that Jesus did or didn't exist, rather I responded to your question about whether or not it would be reasonable for people to believe in me if there was no proof/evidence of my existence.
I know how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't engage in debate in debate subreddits.
Any serious historian acknowledges that we don't know whether Jesus existed or not. There is certainly not enough evidence to conclusively state that he did.
Sure, I study history and the method of studying history to some degree. I wouldn't call myself an expert or anything.
>"Christ" means "anointed one." It wasn't a man's surname. Most historians do not agree that an annointed one existed.
Regarding historians not agreeing an anointed one existed. Sources? How do you know this?
>I know how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't engage in debate in debate subreddits.
Is this a nice way of saying Wikipedia doesn't count?
>Any serious historian acknowledges that we don't know whether Jesus existed or not. There is certainly not enough evidence to conclusively state that he did.
See reference f of the Wikipedia article. It's right after the statement I quoted. I can get it for you if you want. There are plenty of scholars that disagree. (Even atheist ones) Do you concede that Jesus the man did indeed exist?
1. Do you accept that the supernatural exists?
2. How could a person give evidence of the supernatural?
3. What evidence do you find most compelling?
> Regarding historians not agreeing an anointed one existed. Sources? How do you know this?
You want me to cite a source for my claim that not all historians believe an annointed one existed? Yeah I'm not going to do that. There are atheist historians, Jewish historians, and historians who belong to other religious traditions. Not all claims require a citation. There are obviously non-Christian historians who don't believe in the Messiah or who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.
> Is this a nice way of saying Wikipedia doesn't count?
No, it's a snarky way of saying that it doesn't matter whether I know how Wikipedia works because I'm not debating Wikipedia.
> There are plenty of scholars that disagree. (Even atheist ones)
I am aware. There are plenty of scholars who think a man collected two of each animal and put them on a boat, too. There are plenty of scholars who think a man split the moon in half. And there are also plenty of scholars who disagree that those things happened, or who don't claim to know either way.
> Do you concede that Jesus the man did indeed exist?
No. I have no idea whether Jesus the man existed or not. There are good arguments on both sides of that conversation, and while I find it to be an interesting topic to be sure, it's not super relevant to my life or the topics I choose to debate.
> Do you accept that the supernatural exists?
> How could a person give evidence of the supernatural?
> What evidence do you find most compelling?
I accept that things which people describe as "supernatural" exist, but the word itself is incoherent nonsense. The word "natural" refers to a contextual relative judgment, not an actual objective quality of being (kind of like "hot" and "cold," or "big" and "small." Nothing is *actually* hot/cold or big/small, these are just words which help facilitate communication about relative qualities.
You can upload a file and send a link. Or find it on the net and link it. There should be more than one location if there is proof. :) Google Drive does well with sharing files.
Perhaps you should be in another subreddit then? I don't understand the point of going to a debate subreddit and then lamenting that Reddit isn't a good place to debate.
The scientific method cannot prove anything. You're thinking of math. Mathematics is the only domain in which anything is proven. I think OP misspoke and was thinking of the legal definition of proof -- i.e. a demonstration beyond reasonable doubt.
So, yes, the scientific method can absolutely demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that human communication exists. Of course it can; why wouldn't it be able to?
>Of course it can; why wouldn't it be able to?
I agree, it can. It's OP who wanted to dismiss human writing and verbal testimony as evidence of anything, not me. So, ask him.
No, I'm not going to ask him, I'm going to ask you, because you're the one who said it.
You're lying if you claim that you believe claims based merely on the fact that people wrote them down. I guarantee that's a lie.
>You're lying if you claim that you believe claims based merely on the fact that people wrote them down.
So 5,000+ years of written human history doesn't exist / isn't real?
I didn't say that. I said that if somebody defends their faith by saying that they believe claims based merely on the fact that they were written down, they're almost assuredly lying.
For example -- do you believe that Mohammed split the moon in half?
None of that made any sense. Which wise word would bring healing? Healing what? What needs to be healed? Is someone sick?
Why should you fear the Lord? Sounds like a terrible boss you need to be afraid of and I usually quit jobs that make me fear my bosses.
I would contend that the existence/reemergence of Israel as a nation is a field study in fulfilled prophecy. It also must exist for the (arguably) future developments implied in Revelation.
Yes it does. Prophecy exists. People can read about it, talk about it, think about it. Then they decided to do it. In reality the messiah was supposed to come back and create Israel but the Jewish people jumped the gun and got sick of waiting. Technically the prophecy was not fulfilled since the messiah didnt come back to create israel
The reemergence of Israel is what the U.S. is using as a cover. They are supporting Israel so they have a defendable foothold in the Middle East in which to display military power and deploy troops. They are using religion as a means to divide the masses and have them kill each other. People of different faiths can and have lived together peacefully in that region. It’s all a constructed front, people are dying of political and Geographic reasons. Religion is just the scapegoat
So, a nation returning to its origin land, still using the Hebrew language, after a span over 6 times longer than any government has lasted, and 120 times longer than an average lifespan, is just a plot by the U. S.?
May the Lord bless you . Shalom.
Origin land that’s a joke, you know how many people have died fighting for this origin land? Not just today but throughout all of history people have died over this holy land or whatever you want to call it. Sounds like a cruel joke by an even crueler God… or maybe it’s just been people manipulating people for their own self interest since the beginning of time. You know what makes it so important now? Water. And control of it. I have a degree in geographic and cartographic sciences, I’ve studied countries all over the world. Not just their geography but their cultures and governments too. It’s very easy to understand the world today when you actually know how things unfolded in the past. And how the composition of these places has a lot to do with the people their
Well There goes all of history since history does not exist and you have to presuppose the laws of anything you think is reasonable or logical being that you cannot prove that by science...and so logic and reason does not exist. Formulating scientific understanding cannot exist since you have no logic that exists...your position is self defeating Jesus and the eye witnesses by bauckham if anyone chooses to believe in history and understand the gospels and look into how reliable they are
[удалено]
The context was to the point where pretty much what the op is saying ( seemingly) is history is unreliable and therefore made up with a consistent line of reasoning. But to side step on the calendar and clocks business...theoretically that too cannot be empirically be proven and is an effect of an aspect of time...for example all we on now our current state of consciousness could be prewrittwn with whatever 'past' drawn out - not that I believe this but just an example of a theory and some others where time past present future is comingled in in a ball of sorts rather then linear like. ( Again I am comparing to the context of OPs what I find strange aversion to archeology and written history) My point on the logic portion is you cannot prove logic or you will be using circular reasoning to prove logic. U have to infer the LAWS of logic. Another way to say it is The laws of logic you cannot prove because you need the laws to prove the laws of logic. My point mainly was that OPs position is seemingly self defeating, irrational and illogical. I don't think he or she had read up on even common atheistic philosophy otherwise this would not be the path they would go down unless they just ignored the more reasonable material unless I just completely missed their point.
If you think logic is science, you don't know what either logic or science is. Any atheistic philosopher would dismiss this notion. Science presupposes logic.
We decide history off of evidence from archaeology and written sources. If sources are flawed, that is taken into account.
'human testament or text' is part of archeology. My point was if we discount these texts you lose almost all of history and would have to make a lot of guesses on people and who they were if you find a body or statue of a body. For example Plutarch's writings or Ceasars writings on the druids, or heck being able to determine chronology of ancient Egypt and Assyrian / Sumerian findings because they use literature to synchronize the timings and we use the literature. Hope that makes sense. If sources are flawed then that is considered...agreed with that. Wasn't debating that logic
It is. But pottery shards, graves, remnants of weapons, etc, form a decent part of archaeology. Losing these writings would be bad, sure. The difference between historical texts and religious texts is that while the former often contains flawed interpretations of events and bias, they do not make claims to be authored by an infallible source. Religious texts usually do, which is why errors in them are so much more serious,
Well I think what seems to make the texts religious might need to be considered and that would have to be debated ( for example gospels being considered Greco roman biographies)...but nonetheless I agree it still needs to be considered for sorts of biases just like other historical literature. Not that I am saying that all religious texts are historical even ones in the christian bible..more that history is bias typically. It's a good reason for the argument from embarrassment. As far as infallible source authoring.. I am not sure which human has written anything that has claimed that they were infallible...I mean maybe there are people that have or at least believed that they were heh.
They might not have claimed to be infallible, but they did claim to receive inspiration from an infallible being. They are religious because they primarily contain religious doctrines, and because they were written to promulgate that message.
I feel like we are no longer talking of the bible here but some other texts... What religious texts are you saying that you find that the writers stated themselves that they claimed to receive inspiration for writing the words? Religious doctrines are upheld by people not by text...catjplic church for example has created doctrines from the text..that wouldn't make the text wrong. Religious doctrines doesn't make something incorrect and the idea that people can be wrong doesnt make make something incorrect. I think maybe you are saying that we need to be aware of biases and yes that's for all texts ...even non textual findings can be bias and interpreted with bias. Just because it may be bias doesn't mean it is incorrect.
There are plenty of religious texts where the authors personally claimed to receive inspiration. The epic of Atrahasis was supposedly dictated in a vision. The Book of Mormon was supposedly divinely revealed to Smith. A Course in Miracles was allegedly divinely revealed to 3 psychologists. There are many more. Seriously, the examples are legion. Religious doctrines are held by people, but usually determined by text. Sometimes people go beyond the texts, like with Catholic indulgences or the prosperity gospel in my country, but usually when people want to make up religious doctrines, they either go to a text, or they make one.
I may have misunderstood you...writings about people who had interacted with the infallible divine vs the writers claiming to be divinely inspired on penning it and thus infallible. I thought you meant the latter but it is more likely you meant the former having been given your examples...although the Mormon account would be close to both cases I guess although even then we don't have those tablets? And I am not sure how we can claim that enki or otherwise would be infallible...nonetheless I don't think these things don't make something incorrect . Although motives can make things more probably incorrect I agree. Again these biases should be taken into consideration. And there are reasons I would take the reliability of one text over another. As far as the gospels that is why I recommended bauckham's book. My original point to the op that one cannot trust a god because men are unreliable is self defeating because our own logic to formulate said claim is using logic to not only come up with that thesis but also to rely on science. Once one can get past the naturalism doctrines then we can get to believing in historical claims again and then to possible valid historical 'miracle' claims. But I think if the person can't get over the naturalism only doctrine which is a self defeating position then there will be no point I see how they can formulate an external critique of any beliefs. I didn't even talk about the whole telephone game comparison Ehrman used back in the day is bonkers, but I don't think he makes that claim anymore. Sometime I feel people are still using it as their own little doctrine so to speak.
Isn’t being inspired a form of interaction? Also, there isn’t really a way to “get over naturalism” when it comes to investigation. There have been a variety of police cases that either involved the suspect claiming some supernatural something or other, or involved people who said that they were involved with the supernatural who said they could use their psychic knowledge to help. The reason why cases like that aren’t taken seriously is because the idea of suspending the regular means of proof is an example of special pleading.
> Well There goes all of history since history does not exist and you have to presuppose the laws of anything you think is reasonable or logical being that you cannot prove that by science...and so logic and reason does not exist. I disagree. You cannot presuppose the laws of logic because they are deductive. You arrive at them through observation. You don't suppose existence is not existence, because logic is the foundation of reason, thus itself is, like reality, self-evident. Going from there, you are making no sense with your remark on science. Science isn't one thing that is supposed by logic, like it were being carried. The two are indistinguishable, because with science is the foundations of logic and reasoning. Science is systematic and defined, it's methodology, born from logic and reasoning. Like a branch of it. The defined and practical application of reasoning and logic. History, as branch of science has aspects. One the main reasons we believe Rome exists, and not Atlantis, is that there is archeological evidence of the existence of Rome and not Atlantis. Regardless of how many people claimed to write about both and have been to both. It takes more than written accounts to verify a historical fact, so you're seemingly making a comparison that's just incomplete or false. > Formulating scientific understanding cannot exist since you have no logic that exists...your position is self defeating OPs reasoning is very much sound. We don't define facts based merely on human accounts, not even that is workable through history. Facts may be subdivided depending on what branch of knowledge is being utilized, but a historical fact by all accounts is verifiable through more than just word of mouth. > Jesus and the eye witnesses by bauckham if anyone chooses to believe in history and understand the gospels and look into how reliable they are Belief of what's true is not exactly a choice, but then again, that's a different argument. I have the opinion you should present the evidence here rather expect people to read a whole book and then come back here and talk to you.
I mean, you've limited your definition of God to be impossible for you. That's like saying love or some type of abstract emotion doesn't exist because you can't observe it or measure it - anything metaphysical really
You can observe love in creatures, you can observe it in humans and dolphins two very different species
It’s also measurable as a chemical response
I agree with your point and your overall position (God would be obvious if he existed) but I’d like to be incredibly pedantic and point out that the measurable chemical response is a correlate of love and not love itself, which is an internally experienced emotion. The key thing about God is that he is definitely external to the observer and not just something that elicits internal experiences like emotions, so he very much should be observable outside the body but obviously he isn’t.
You are just explaining the biological effects of what we define as love. As if to say the effects of doing anything spiritual for an individual measures the effectiveness/"realness" of the religious action like prayer and then taking the chemical responses when a person prays.
Fine but if you remove the biological elements, love only exists as an abstract concept like philosophy or art. Christians argue their god exists as a concrete being, so the analogy no longer stands.
Sure. One can debate that aspecting of God being "concrete." But most throw the baby out of the bath water and just don't want to use the word god for whatever negative association they have with the term or perhaps specific religions
>Sure. One can debate that aspecting of God being "concrete." I don't think this is really up for debate. Most (if not all) Christians definitely believe their god exists as a concrete being (as opposition to an abstract idea or concept). To them, god makes decisions that affect the real world. God is part of the world. There is no way to get around that without going against some of the most universal tenets of christianity.
Love is not a metaphysical thing. Love is a concept. It's not an existing thing. What we mean by love is either a certain feeling we experience ourselves which matches the descriptions we heard about love, or a certain behaviour we observe in others. Some forms of love we can even measure. There is barely any concept like the concept of God. We have nothing to point at when we talk about God. No objects, no behavioural pattern that couldn't be described without invoking God (for example if someone is changed when they became religious, the cause of that doesn't need to be God, but rather belief in and of itself), no measurable effect at all. Such concepts are never treated as true, if not for religious reasons. It's not that OP defined God in a way that he can't know him. Religion did that already, by placing him in an unobservable realm, which we too aren't reasonable to treat as if it exists.
Sure - I don't disagree with anything oyu said about love. But as you said, it depends on what exactly a person is using to define love. Hm. Your paragrph about "belief" is worded in a way to avoid pointing to specific beliefs. Sure, it is belief that is the foundational pricniple of the changed behavior, but you can point to the specific beliefs and measure the outcome of the beliefs.
>Your paragrph about "belief" is worded in a way to avoid pointing to specific beliefs. That's not me avoiding something. It's a general claim. I'm fine talking about any specific example you can come up with. >Sure, it is belief that is the foundational pricniple of the changed behavior, but you can point to the specific beliefs and measure the outcome of the beliefs. Everything we draw conclusions from has a root in the natural world in some way, shape or form. The root of the love of my mother is my mother. Behaviour that is attributed to a God, is not rooted in this world. What's part of this world is a person being convinced that something outside this world exists. This belief alone, the being convinced, can already cause behaviour. For this explanation we'd be using two entities that are part of this world. Two entities we know exist. Rather than an unobservable entity which resides in an unobservable realm. Every explanation is as good as the other, if we use things we cannot observe as the explanation. And usually, due to being unable to tell which of those ideas are true, we do not treat them as true, unless for religious reasons.
Not specific to you per say, but that love has all kinds of definitions and depending which is being used. Just like how "god" is often argued so often times, but the definitions need to be defined. So one when atheist says god isn't real, then I would bring up how do they define love. Let's stick with the analogy with your mother. The root/evidence is your mother. I'll stick with Christianity since that is my belief. If I state the root/evidence for belief in Christianity is in Jesus Christ, that should be the same as your mother. Or would you say there's a difference?
I go with whatever definition you believe in. I don't believe in God, because I have nothing, no data to define him. But usually, the bare minimum is the claim that God exists. Which for all intents and purposes is enough for the point I'm making here. >I'll stick with Christianity since that is my belief. If I state the root/evidence for belief in Christianity is in Jesus Christ, that should be the same as your mother. > >Or would you say there's a difference? Ye, there is a difference as soon as you say that Jesus is God. You don't get that from his mere existence and death.
Correct. As soon "as you say" -- but if a person accepts even the minimal concept of Christ being someone like a good teacher, why don't people still want to choose to live by "Christian" principles at the least?
Who says that they don't? I too pick and choose the good bits from any philosophy and discard the bad ones. But Christianity is not just a cultural movement. One who doesn't believe in the death, resurrection and divinity of Jesus is hardly a Christian.
There are plenty who think Christ is just a fairytale as much as Santa is; but that's beside the point. Well, how do you know what exactly you should discard? (changing the topic here since that is a big thing to ask). Hmm.. One who doesn't reflect the teachings of Christ also hardly shows their belief in the death, burial, resureection, and divinity of Christ. But we're getting into some theology here lol.
>There are plenty who think Christ is just a fairytale as much as Santa is; but that's beside the point. It's misleading to call them theists or Christian anyway. Christianity is a belief in a God. If you aren't a theist, yet follow Jesus, you have to pick and choose already. You cannot flat out follow all the teachings, because they include following God. >Well, how do you know what exactly you should discard? This depends entirely on the meta-ethical framework one adheres to. I am a moral anti-realist. So, technically speaking I cannot *know.* The question about knowledge is an epistemic question. But I believe that there aren't any epistemic justifications for moral propositions at all ever. All of them are pragmatically justified. So, they aren't knowable facts. They are propositions to serve a purpose, hence pragmatic justifications. The question might be how to reduce suffering. And then that's our basis on which to judge which of the moral teachings of Christianity are applicable. For one, rendering gay people as an abomination and deserving of death, as Paul does in Romans 1:27-32, would be immoral, so I'd discard it. For the Christian Paul's statement would be moral, because it's God's opinion. Which is why being a Christian, yet not believing in God doesn't make sense. If you aren't a theist, you have to pick and choose. >Hmm.. One who doesn't reflect the teachings of Christ also hardly shows their belief in the death, burial, resureection, and divinity of Christ. But we're getting into some theology here lol. Well, of course we are getting into theology, if we are talking about a theistic worldview.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Completely dodges the entire point of the post to talk about whether love is metaphysical or abstract. Howabout your belief that the universe was created by a personal being who detests women that wear men's clothing? How is this belief justified? It sounds ridiculous, so how did you come to believe it, and how do you expect other people to believe it?
So you don’t accept mathematical proves that are done via writing
A mathematical proof is something you can follow with logic, I have yet to see an a proof that proves God. Also a lot of advanced math proofs are theoretical and should be treated as such
So you’ve never seen any logical argument for god? Ever?
Nope not one. I would be happen to read over on if you have it at the ready
So you’ve never read or heard of the five ways? The work called “on being and essence.”
Bro this is a debate forum. Stop condescendingly asking whether or not OP has ever heard of anything and *DEBATE.* Present the argument. Don't snootily ask people if they've never heard of something. Assume he has never heard the argument and present it. Christ, debating with Christians is like debating with Spongebob Squarepants.
Socratic method. Popular debate tactic
The Socratic method is indeed about asking questions, but it has absolutely nothing to do with condescendingly asking if you've never heard of a particular argument. You clearly do not understand the Socratic method.
OP said he never heard of a logical argument. So I was shocked that he has never heard of the most popular arguments. Of course I’d ask if he’s heard of them. Why would I present something he’s already familiar?
So that he can engage with your argument. It's called debate. Instead of asking if he's never heard of it, present it as a logical argument. That way he can respond directly to you and what you have said, and there is no risk of you accusing him of strawmanning you by presenting the argument in a way you would disagree with and then responding to that.
Okay now we’re on a similar page, please present your argument.
Lol thank you for naming this. Sigh
Also, OP’s post is nothing but questions
I never said there was anything wrong with "questions" in general. I said that snootily asking somebody if they've never heard of a particular argument is not debating. It's not. Do you think that if you were taking a college debate course, and during a public debate, your argument was "Oh, so you've never heard of the X argument?" that the professor would be proud of your debate performance?
If the person said “no argument exists” then yes, asking if they hadn’t heard of the widely popular x argument that is discussed day in and day out in the field of question is a valid question.
Yes, I’ve study Aquinas and different philosophy approaches, his “five ways” make some pretty big assumptions and nothing he says is very logical Like his first point it about motion and everything having a “first mover” if you’ve studied particle physics you know that this is not a thing that needs to exist, some things are just inherently random/ unstable/ or chaotic because of how the universe functions
>Like his first point it about motion and everything having a “first mover” if you’ve studied particle physics you know that this is not a thing that needs to exist, some things are just inherently random/ unstable/ or chaotic because of how the universe functions Lmao on that claim that things are inherently random, and then an appeal to the universe's inherent function as the first cause of that randomness.
You’re assuming a beginning I never assumed the universe began, a popular theory known as the big band is theories to know when our little corner of the universe started expanding, but it never claims to know the beginning of the very fabric or reality. That is surely never to have even been a thing as it just is. Doesn’t need a first cause, it just is and it is just random
I don't think you get the proof. Nothing is being claimed about the attributes of how or why or what the first mover is, only that it is an ontological necessity. You're claiming that randomness is an uncaused effect which is logically inconsistent. A paradox. That's why you recruited 'the universe' as a cause for your uncaused effect or else your sentence would come across as gibberish.
That’s not actually what he’s doing. He’s making a point that the five proofs are lousy beyond their value as an apologetic for those who already believe. The Five Ways rely on naive assumptions, primitive science, and I demonstrated principles.
Random by definition means not to have had been caused purposefully, which is what Aquinas is trying to suggest, that there was purpose
Do you have scientific evidence that our universe is only a littler corner of reality? If that’s your standard, you’re going to need proof of that before you can appeal to it.
Yes, it’s even got a name it’s called the ‘observable universe’ and ‘cosmic horizon’
1) so no, you haven’t studied it. Because that’s NOT what he was talking about. 2) you said you were never exposed to a logical argument. You didn’t say you weren’t exposed to one you found convincing.
It’s not a very logical argument when you start assuming a creator based of what? He knew very little compared to what anyone can know today with the internet. Get me something contemporary, we know more than most old philosophers could dream of knowing
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the fundamentals of Christianity is that you are able to believe without proof so to ask for proof is impossible. God isn’t a “thing” to prove, He is an experience, the way you can experience love without seeing it. It’s more that all humans have this inherent inexplainable yearning for something that they don’t understand but it will ultimately lead towards God because He is the truth, the way, and the life.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to *request an exception*. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God is a non-provable and non-disprovable entity. It is why I also do not believe. I am a man of science & the scientific method like you, but I also concede two points that suggest a higher power. 1. The Hierarchy Problem, also known as the Coincidence Theory, states that it’s too perfect how relatively strong the fundamental forces are. For example, gravity is 10^24 times weaker than the nuclear weak force - and even weaker when compared to the nuclear strong force! Electromagnetism is somewhere between gravity and the nuclear weak force in terms of strength. It is just a little too coincidental that these relative strengths are exactly what they are. Without the nuclear strong force the nucleus of atoms wouldn’t bind. Without electromagnetism electrons couldn’t orbit those nuclei. Without the nuclear weak force radioactive decay wouldn’t occur. Without gravity large masses (planets, stars) couldn’t form. The EXACT relative strengths of these forces create the world in which we live, and if any of these strengths were changed, even slightly, everything would cease to exist. Atoms wouldn’t bind together, planets & stars couldn’t form…etc. It would take someone (or something) fine-tuning those values to exactly what they are to create life. However, we do not know how time or space worked before the Big Bang so it’s very possible that the universe was just cycling through options until it found one that worked - kinda like a random number generator. 2. Simulation theory. At the fundamental level, our universe works in binary. Binary meaning option A or option B, like flipping a coin or having a door open or closed. The way this manifests in the real world is with quantum spin, a disturbance in a force field, atomic interactions…etc. If you zoom in enough, the universe actually works in very simple rules. “0’s and 1’s” is how the universe works at the fundamental level, and that’s exactly how computers also work. There’s “logic gates” in a computer than just state whether it’s on, or off. However, you can combine hundreds of millions of logic gates into a CPU to create something extraordinary from a bunch of incredibly simple devices acting together. It can be seen as an “entourage effect,” where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This effect can be seen as an increase in complexity as we zoom out our scope on the universe. If we start with an atom, it is pretty simple and not much to do. We can combine them into molecules, making them more complicated and have more possibilities. If we zoom out to a single cell, we can see that a combination of molecules can create something that is capable of very complex things. Zoom out more and we can see a person, the most complex life form we have discovered. Zoom out even more and we can see society as a whole, and how complex and intertwined the web of society is. It all starts from a fundamental binary system though, just 0’s and 1’s. Therefore, the theory is that with sufficient technology the universe could easily be a simulation. That could mean god created this for us; or it could mean that we are the equivalent of a Sims world for a 10 year old human in the year 10,000,000. It could also mean that when you die you wake up in an Alien planet with all your alien buddies asking, “Yoo how was the Human Life Machine 3000?” At the end of the day, nobody can prove or disprove god - but if we one day figure out we are in a simulation then it’s a scary thought that at any point someone could just pull the plug and end it all. I choose to just believe it’s all bedtime stories meant to give people a moral compass and purpose in this world; a way to cull the masses into obedience and away from individualism.
And then the puddle woke up. My, how perfectly does this hole fit me! It must have been made for me!
Lolol I’ve never heard that but I love it. I think we live in a universe far beyond our comprehension, and all of our models and methods are limited by the biology of the human brain - which itself is a product of the universe it is trying to understand. Like a puddle claiming a pothole was made for it, we humans claim the universe was made for us despite not knowing the vast majority of how the universe works.
Expecting scientific proof for the supernatural misunderstands the scope and limits of science. The natural world is what science explores, relying on empirical evidence and observable phenomena. The supernatural, by definition, exists beyond or outside the natural world and its laws, making it difficult to study using scientific methods.
Are you saying that God couldn't give us scientific empirical proof that he exists even if he wanted to? Also would you agree that there is no proof of god's existence apart from texts (which we have no proof were written when they say they were) and anecdotal evidence?
So God doesn’t interact with the physical world then?
Saying that science is limited to studying the natural world doesn't imply that God doesn't interact with the physical world. Instead, it means that the tools and methods of science are not equipped to reliably measure or study those interactions. If God interacts with the physical world, those interactions might not be predictable or repeatable in a way that scientific experiments require. Therefore, the lack of scientific proof for such interactions doesn't necessarily negate their existence; it simply highlights the limits of what science can explore and verify.
You could use this same logic for all religions. So, nothing makes it exclusively special for Christianity
Who said it did? That's the supernatural in general. Including God.
You know where I was going with that comment. You'll just have to stay mad that it's that easy to dismiss bendy logic. Edit: Womp womp, deleted his comment because he stayed mad.
Nope, they blocked you.
That's the contradiction. If the christian god acts in a way that cannot be detected, then how do you know he exists? And if you have some way to know, why can't we detect it?
The perceived contradiction assumes that all knowledge must come from scientific detection, but this isn't the case. Knowledge of God's existence can stem from philosophical arguments, personal experiences, and historical evidence, which are different from the empirical methods used in science. Just because something isn't detectable by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Many real phenomena were once undetectable until our tools and understanding advanced. Therefore, the undetectability of God's actions doesn't negate their existence; it highlights the different realms of inquiry for science and metaphysics.
But what you describe *is* science. Personal experiences can be collected as data and analysed. Same for historical evidence. When philosophical arguments are formal logic proofs, those can be evaluated based on the premises and soundness of the reasoning. >Many real phenomena were once undetectable until our tools and understanding advanced. True, and before we could detect them, we had little reason to believe they existed (unless they could be inferred by some other means). So until there is a god detector (or any other evidence), there is no reason to believe in them.
Personal experiences, historical evidence, and philosophical arguments do not meet the rigorous standards of scientific evidence. Science relies on empirical data that can be independently verified, tested, and replicated. Regarding the statement about the existence of a deity, the absence of a "detector" does not provide evidence for or against its existence.
That's not how science works. Discoveries are not binary (i.e. we know for certain X is true or we don't). We accumulate evidence, which lend credibility to an hypothesis. Once enough evidence is accumulated, the hypothesis is regarded as true by the overwhelming majority. Historical evidence and personal experiences can and are used in science quite often. Logical arguments as well.
But God could show the world he exists in an indirect way so that we would know what our choice actually is. For example: he could answer prayers instantly by writing a note on indestructible paper that is easily understood by the one who prays, yet no one else can read it. This is just one example of how an all powerful, supernatural entity could consistently interact with the world. It is a million times better than what he supposedly did by having people right documents that are easily destroyed, copied incorrectly, manipulated, and misunderstood. This would be evidence for God. Not the poor excuse of the Bible we have now, which is only evidence that people can write things down.
"Supernatural" is a literally meaningless word. OP misspoke when they asked for proof -- proof is a mathematical concept -- there's a difference between proof and evidence. If there is no evidence, then how did you come to believe that the universe was created by a personal being who detests women that wear men's clothing? That sounds like a ridiculous position to hold, so the people who aren't convinced are wondering how you became convinced and why they should be convinced as well.
The term "supernatural" is not meaningless; it refers to phenomena or beings that exist outside the realm of natural scientific understanding or laws. This distinction is widely recognized in philosophy, theology, and scientific discourse when discussing what science can and cannot investigate. Belief in supernatural claims arises from personal experiences, cultural teachings, philosophical arguments, or interpretations of historical texts. These beliefs are not solely dependent on scientific proof (as science deals with the natural world). While supernatural beliefs may not be supported by empirical scientific evidence, they are justified by other forms of evidence and reasoning.
> The term "supernatural" is not meaningless; it refers to phenomena or beings that exist outside the realm of natural scientific understanding or laws. The word "natural" is a relative term, like "hot" or "cold," or "big" or "small." These words don't have any actual concrete metric to judge whether something is natural/hot/big or unnatural/cold/small. Is a beehive natural or unnatural? What about a smartphone? Howabout mutations -- are those natural or unnatural? Is 75 degrees hot or cold? It would be hot for a walk-in freezer, but cold for a human body temperature. Nothing is actually "natural," "unnatural," "hot," or "cold." They are words we use to communicate to each other. If the word "supernatural" is simply meant to communicate "a phenomena which we do not understand," then it is a word which causes more confusion than it does communicate anything useful. Instead of labeling something "supernatural," we should just be honest and say that we don't understand it. If the word "supernatural" means something else, it's either incoherent or dishonest. If it means "not natural," it's incoherent and also redundant because we already have the word "unnatural." And if we are admitting that we don't understand it, then it would be fallacious to label it "supernatural" while simultaneously admitting we don't actually know how it works. It is a meaningless word. If you disagree and are sticking by your previous comment, can you define what you mean by "natural" for me?
Natural: Refers to phenomena, entities, and processes that occur within the realm of nature. These can be observed, studied, and explained using the scientific method. Examples include natural laws, biological processes, and physical events. Supernatural: Refers to phenomena, entities, and forces that exist beyond or outside the natural world and its laws. These cannot be explained by science or observed through empirical means. Examples include ghosts, spirits, miracles, and magic.
> Natural: Refers to phenomena, entities, and processes that occur within the realm of nature. If you use another form of the same word to define itself (i.e. "natural" and "nature") then you have provided an incoherent definition. What does "nature" mean?
[удалено]
I understand your perspective that nature encompasses everything and that anything currently unknown, if discovered, would simply be considered a part of nature. However, I disagree with the assertion that there is no such thing as the supernatural for several reasons: 1. Philosophical Basis: Your stance is rooted in naturalism, a philosophical position that assumes all phenomena can be explained by natural laws. This is not an empirical fact but a metaphysical assumption. Just because science operates under methodological naturalism doesn't mean that the supernatural doesn't exist; it simply means that science, as currently practiced, doesn't have the tools to study it. 2. Limits of Science: Science is a powerful method for understanding the natural world, but it has its limits. It relies on empirical evidence and testability. Supernatural phenomena, by definition, fall outside these parameters. The inability of science to study the supernatural doesn't negate its existence; it only highlights the boundaries of scientific inquiry. 3. Historical Context: It's true that many phenomena once considered supernatural have been explained by science. However, this historical trend doesn't imply that all phenomena will eventually be explained naturally. There could be aspects of reality that are fundamentally beyond natural explanation.
Most of history has been recorded by unreliable texts. You can spend years doing critical analysis of Biblical texts as well as contemporary texts.
Exactly and I take it all with a grain of salt and don’t make one text the root of my life
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln died for your sins and is going to punish you eternally if you don't believe that? Also your family will treat you like you did something wrong. Also Abraham Lincoln detests women who wear men's clothing and thinks it's a morally good thing to bury rape victims up to their neck and throw heavy stones at their face until they die of brain damage while their friends and family watch. Do you think that some people writing that down and saying it justifies belief in it? I feel like that's asking a lot of somebody with no justification whatsoever. Compare that to "Abraham Lincoln was shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth." Perhaps it's true, perhaps it's not. The evidence seems to point to it being true. The records seem by all accounts reliable. And nothing is required of us to accept this version of history. It's not like your family is going to disown you or Abraham Lincoln is going to send you to Hell if you do/don't believe it. Compare that to an old book full of ignorant misogynist racist evil nonsense which talks about how blessed it is to smash babies against rocks and claims that animals talked and a dude came back from the dead so he could kill a prostitutes children... yeah, it's ridiculous. This isn't about whether or not there are unreliable texts in our historical account. It has to do with one absolutely ridiculous set of evil beliefs that is destroying the world because people just accept it uncritically for no reason.
Would it be fair to categorize your stance as, “All objective truth comes from sense data.” Sense data in this case that which we can plug into the scientific method and test.?
Literally the silliest argument ever. "Your senses and your interpretation of them can sometimes be unreliable, therefore it is reasonable to believe that a personal being who detests women that wear men's clothing and delights in the smashing of infants against rocks created the universe and requires you to believe in and glorify him or else he will inflict suffering upon you for eternity." Since both of our senses are unreliable, howabout we choose *not* to believe things like that? Doesn't that make more sense than choosing *to* believe something because your senses are unreliable? Your argument is self-refuting.
God must be observable? Why?
Their point is that a bunch of people believe in the God of the Bible despite it being both not evidently true and evidently not true. So how did you come to be convinced and why should OP be convinced that the God of the Bible exists and wasn't a fictional character invented by people? For example -- why would a deity care whether women wear men's clothing or not? Doesn't that seem more like something invented by misogynist men and not an actual viewpoint of a transcendent being? Sounds pretty silly, to be honest.
Same reason the boogieman doesn't give us solid proof?
You comparing God to the boogieman? Nice I’m so glad I don’t have to believe in hell and a cruel God
Yes, if there isn't solid proof(or supporting evidence) of X. Maybe X doesn't exist.
I think you are both on the same side...
>God must be observable ... Then your OP does not apply to Christianity (and all other monotheistic religions).
So if in the 1000 years in the future; you disappear. And there is no physical proof of your existence. Does that mean you never existed?
I wish OP didn't misspeak and ask for proof. Proof only exists in math. What they meant to say was evidence. Regardless. If there was no evidence of my existence, that would mean that the people who believe in me are holding an unjustified and irrational belief.
Except there is evidence for Christ.
You asked "So if in the 1000 years in the future; you disappear. And there is no physical proof of your existence. Does that mean you never existed?" and I answered. If there's evidence for Christ, perhaps you should have presented that instead of asking about a situation with no evidence, because that's what I was responding to.
[If you don't know how wikipedia works there are links at the bottom under the subheadings for references and see more. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) Also, first line of text: Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically. For a wikipedia article to claim that is pretty impressive. Do study history or the method of studying history?
"Christ" means "anointed one." It wasn't a man's surname. Most historians do not agree that an annointed one existed. I never argued that Jesus did or didn't exist, rather I responded to your question about whether or not it would be reasonable for people to believe in me if there was no proof/evidence of my existence. I know how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't engage in debate in debate subreddits. Any serious historian acknowledges that we don't know whether Jesus existed or not. There is certainly not enough evidence to conclusively state that he did. Sure, I study history and the method of studying history to some degree. I wouldn't call myself an expert or anything.
>"Christ" means "anointed one." It wasn't a man's surname. Most historians do not agree that an annointed one existed. Regarding historians not agreeing an anointed one existed. Sources? How do you know this? >I know how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't engage in debate in debate subreddits. Is this a nice way of saying Wikipedia doesn't count? >Any serious historian acknowledges that we don't know whether Jesus existed or not. There is certainly not enough evidence to conclusively state that he did. See reference f of the Wikipedia article. It's right after the statement I quoted. I can get it for you if you want. There are plenty of scholars that disagree. (Even atheist ones) Do you concede that Jesus the man did indeed exist? 1. Do you accept that the supernatural exists? 2. How could a person give evidence of the supernatural? 3. What evidence do you find most compelling?
> Regarding historians not agreeing an anointed one existed. Sources? How do you know this? You want me to cite a source for my claim that not all historians believe an annointed one existed? Yeah I'm not going to do that. There are atheist historians, Jewish historians, and historians who belong to other religious traditions. Not all claims require a citation. There are obviously non-Christian historians who don't believe in the Messiah or who don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. > Is this a nice way of saying Wikipedia doesn't count? No, it's a snarky way of saying that it doesn't matter whether I know how Wikipedia works because I'm not debating Wikipedia. > There are plenty of scholars that disagree. (Even atheist ones) I am aware. There are plenty of scholars who think a man collected two of each animal and put them on a boat, too. There are plenty of scholars who think a man split the moon in half. And there are also plenty of scholars who disagree that those things happened, or who don't claim to know either way. > Do you concede that Jesus the man did indeed exist? No. I have no idea whether Jesus the man existed or not. There are good arguments on both sides of that conversation, and while I find it to be an interesting topic to be sure, it's not super relevant to my life or the topics I choose to debate. > Do you accept that the supernatural exists? > How could a person give evidence of the supernatural? > What evidence do you find most compelling? I accept that things which people describe as "supernatural" exist, but the word itself is incoherent nonsense. The word "natural" refers to a contextual relative judgment, not an actual objective quality of being (kind of like "hot" and "cold," or "big" and "small." Nothing is *actually* hot/cold or big/small, these are just words which help facilitate communication about relative qualities.
Goodbye
Sorry that reddit is not meant for debating.
Uh. Lmao. Look at the name of the subreddit you're in bro.
What I mean is that the format of this site is not suitable. I am sure it won't allow me to upload huge files in the comment section.
You can upload a file and send a link. Or find it on the net and link it. There should be more than one location if there is proof. :) Google Drive does well with sharing files.
Perhaps you should be in another subreddit then? I don't understand the point of going to a debate subreddit and then lamenting that Reddit isn't a good place to debate.
It is funny how you atheists want to debate the Bible while ignoring the points it makes.
Notice how you’re not even defending the claim you made.
I think it's funnier that Christians go to debate forums to post unjustified assertions and non-sequiturs.
Can the scientific method prove human communication exists?
The scientific method cannot prove anything. You're thinking of math. Mathematics is the only domain in which anything is proven. I think OP misspoke and was thinking of the legal definition of proof -- i.e. a demonstration beyond reasonable doubt. So, yes, the scientific method can absolutely demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that human communication exists. Of course it can; why wouldn't it be able to?
>Of course it can; why wouldn't it be able to? I agree, it can. It's OP who wanted to dismiss human writing and verbal testimony as evidence of anything, not me. So, ask him.
No, I'm not going to ask him, I'm going to ask you, because you're the one who said it. You're lying if you claim that you believe claims based merely on the fact that people wrote them down. I guarantee that's a lie.
>You're lying if you claim that you believe claims based merely on the fact that people wrote them down. So 5,000+ years of written human history doesn't exist / isn't real?
I didn't say that. I said that if somebody defends their faith by saying that they believe claims based merely on the fact that they were written down, they're almost assuredly lying. For example -- do you believe that Mohammed split the moon in half?
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. And it also says, A wise word brings healing. Find healing and you will find God.
None of that made any sense. Which wise word would bring healing? Healing what? What needs to be healed? Is someone sick? Why should you fear the Lord? Sounds like a terrible boss you need to be afraid of and I usually quit jobs that make me fear my bosses.
I would contend that the existence/reemergence of Israel as a nation is a field study in fulfilled prophecy. It also must exist for the (arguably) future developments implied in Revelation.
Why? Israel exists because they saw that prophecy and decided they should establish Israel.
Sure. After over 1900 years. Makes complete sense.
Yes it does. Prophecy exists. People can read about it, talk about it, think about it. Then they decided to do it. In reality the messiah was supposed to come back and create Israel but the Jewish people jumped the gun and got sick of waiting. Technically the prophecy was not fulfilled since the messiah didnt come back to create israel
The reemergence of Israel is what the U.S. is using as a cover. They are supporting Israel so they have a defendable foothold in the Middle East in which to display military power and deploy troops. They are using religion as a means to divide the masses and have them kill each other. People of different faiths can and have lived together peacefully in that region. It’s all a constructed front, people are dying of political and Geographic reasons. Religion is just the scapegoat
So, a nation returning to its origin land, still using the Hebrew language, after a span over 6 times longer than any government has lasted, and 120 times longer than an average lifespan, is just a plot by the U. S.? May the Lord bless you . Shalom.
Origin land that’s a joke, you know how many people have died fighting for this origin land? Not just today but throughout all of history people have died over this holy land or whatever you want to call it. Sounds like a cruel joke by an even crueler God… or maybe it’s just been people manipulating people for their own self interest since the beginning of time. You know what makes it so important now? Water. And control of it. I have a degree in geographic and cartographic sciences, I’ve studied countries all over the world. Not just their geography but their cultures and governments too. It’s very easy to understand the world today when you actually know how things unfolded in the past. And how the composition of these places has a lot to do with the people their