INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

you should look up the definition of the word "sermon" and keep reading after you read the definition you limit your self to.

I provided no definitions. I provided what is common to theistic sermons of which I am one. However even if a sermon you did not even attempt to show it wrong, as usual. I have to get, have a good one.

 

[McBell]

I provided no definitions. I provided what is common to theistic sermons of which I am one. However even if a sermon you did not even attempt to show it wrong, as usual. I have to get, have a good one.

It must suck to never be wrong.
How do you do it?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No it is not. It's purpose was to be bullet proof. To not be affected by pre-big bang speculation.

Oh dear. You're here advocating that a particular scientific theorem is consistent with or corroborates this or that mythology, and you don't even know what the theorem is.

No it doesn't.

Talk about pounding the nails on your own coffin. Go look at his paper. That's precisely what the theorem says.

It uses the universe expansion rate to dictate a beginning.

...To the expansion. Derp.

The man who's theorem it is said it about his theorem.

And scientists, like all people, say things for all sorts of reasons, and often irresponsibly. That's one reason the peer-review process exists, to make sure the claims are rigorous and warranted. Vilenken's paper has been vetted this way, his comments about his work made elsewhere have not. As I said, that comment would never have survived a peer-review, because it simply has nothing to do with what the theorem establishes. And, when we consider that Vilenkin has explained that in saying that he was basically giving a short answer- one that could give you a general idea of the work, but is not technically accurate- and clarified himself, your persistence in this deliberate misrepresentation is just silly, and clearly dishonest (and the same goes for Craig).

 

[Thief]

Message to 1robin: I am not going to discuss physics with you anymore since I do not know very much about it. Even if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible for a multitude of reasons.

And this would more to keeping to the topic.

Believing in God is a matter of how you think and feel.
and why you think and feel that way.

I do lean to science as a cause for my belief.
But my rational, though based on science, goes where science cannot.

At some point (for me it's the singularity) a decision must be made.

Substance first?.......or Spirit.

 

[McBell]

Substance first?.......or Spirit.

If and when you can come up with a meaningful definition of "spirit" I might change my mind.

Until then, it has to be substance.

Have at it.

 

[Thief]

If and when you can come up with a meaningful definition of "spirit" I might change my mind.

Until then, it has to be substance.

Have at it.

No definition required.
It would be one or the other.

Or maybe you can't separate the existence of a rock compared to yourself?
Don't know when something is alive as compared to otherwise?

 

[McBell]

No definition required.
It would be one or the other.

Or maybe you can't separate the existence of a rock compared to yourself?
Don't know when something is alive as compared to otherwise?

Good thing I am not holding my breath

 

[cottage]

I am lost here. My statement was to another person. I went back three posts plus and did not see the original subject it was dealing with. It was certainly not in the context of the philosophy of non-contradiction. I will have to ask that you amplify this before I can respond. [/font][/color]

Kilgore Trout said:
“I shy away from absolutes but there is no good reason to think actual gods exist”
You replied:

“That is perfectly wrong…

…In fact by far most of the worlds inhabitants by far have believed the evidence made the lack of a God a logical absurdity.”

I pointed out that there is no logical absurdity in disbelieving in gods; although I think you were probably misapplying the term in the context of which it was being used. However if Almighty God, the Creator and conserver of all things and the essence of reality itself were an actual existent then surely it would be self-evident and impossible to deny? And yet it isn’t!

The supernatural is not exclusive to the natural. The supernatural may act on the natural producing a change in nature that no known natural law can explain. You are also getting my arguments context and purposes all mixed together. I make certain arguments for the supernatural in general, I make others for the Biblical God in general. They should not be mixed up.

With respect it seems to be your good self that is running the two things together here. You cannot insist that the two things are separate, supposedly examining one in a disinterested and objective way and then parachute God into the equation to fit with your beliefs. It is one thing to argue that there are events which, if true, cannot be explained by nature alone, but it is a different matter altogether to assert that there is another world (a supernatural being) responsible for these events. But then of course that is the underlying essence of your argument for you are not here to discuss or explore instances of the paranormal but to promote and reinforce your faith.

I am very very skeptical of miracles. I usually think about 95% of the claims are fake, mistaken, etc.... However that still leaves thousands of claim that no other explanation is possible and are recorded in very reliable ways. I will give you a few I have experienced.

I had the same person pop up when I turned the TV on twice in response to a prayer about an issue (turns out he is an expert in it), I went to a book store and told God that the first person I met I would ask for a book on that subject. Out of at least 2 dozen experts and many books by laymen I was sent after a book from the same person. I have been knocked into the kitchen floor and lay there in perfect contentment for 30 minutes by the power of God. That is before I had ever heard of that ever happening to anyone. I had a pinched nerve completely cease to trouble the instant I prayed. I have a friend with a documented tumor that disappeared in a day or two. I have heard someone speak in tongues, and someone who did not know them interpret it. I was born again and instantly lost any desire for habits I had tried to break for years and failed. I knew certain doctrinal claims were true that just a week prior to was hostile towards. I could not stand to hear cursing even though I had cursed like a sailor until that moment. Add to this 2500 prophecies, unknown knowledge at the time recorded by ignorant men, demonic possession, etc.. Anyway I can go on quite a while like this, and recorded history is full of these things. No one or even everyone is powerless to render many of them unreliable.

I’m sorry but while this may have real meaning for you it is nevertheless just anecdotal. With all of these anecdotes and claims we have no way of verifying the supposed truth source, that is to say a non-worldly being as their cause. One who says God told him to go out and kill might be considered mentally ill or deranged in some way because it conflicts with society’s mores, i.e. it isn’t what we consider normal and the nature of that belief is harmful or threatening to humanity at large. And yet the person who speaks of God killing uses the same apparatus as one who speaks of God loving. What I’m saying here is that, as with both of those examples, all you are doing is giving me the content of your mind. Furthermore it does not give a good impression of your God when you say he answered your prayers to give you relief from a compressed nerve when there have been untold millions that have suffered the most terrible diseases and privations and yet were ignored and allowed to continue in their pain and discomfort. And surely from a moral standpoint shouldn’t it be the case that we pray for others and not for ourselves?

Christianity is unique. All other faiths are mans attempts to reach God. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man. That is more than a slogan. Christianity (among the major faiths, and maybe them all) alone offers and demands of every single follower of Christ a supernatural experience with Christ. Billions claiming to agree with an intellectual proposition is meaningless. Billions that claim they have experienced God is not. The Biblical authors constantly took on empirical burdens they had no necessity to if they were lying. An example is the claim that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. No one expected a bodily resurrection. It was far easier if the were lying to claim he rose spiritually. That way the body did not have to magically disappear from a sealed tomb with guards who would lose their lives if compromised. They had no need to claim he walked around with them if they were lying. Yet they went the infinitely harder route of claiming he is no longer physically dead or in the tomb. Almost all NT scholars on every side agree he was killed and the tomb was found empty. Why did not the Romans or the Sanhedrin just produce the body. They had every motivation and every opportunity to do so. Religious claims are not all equal.

But this is just a believers’ argument, a doctrine essential to your faith, and it isn’t accepted in the wider world as a universal truth. There are even Christians who disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. And there doesn’t, as I’ve already explained to you elsewhere, have to be a conspiracy of deception- or ‘liars’ as you’ve put it. They believed in the doctrine and the immortal Son of God just as you yourself believe in it. After all you haven’t seen the empty tomb or the resurrected Christ and yet you’ve take upon yourself to speak of it just as they did. And thus in that manner the legend continues.

BTW did you ever find my response to your Greenleaf posts?

Yes I did, thank you, and I answered your response in my posts 2394, 2395, 2396, 2397 & 2398

 

[Thief]

Good thing I am not holding my breath

oh...but you will....for a very long time.

 

[1robin]

It must suck to never be wrong.
How do you do it?

It is not that I am always right. It is you are always wrong. When you begin a debate defending an untruth you will never be right.

 

[McBell]

oh...but you will....for a very long time.

Ah, more belief presented as fact.
At least you are consistent.

 

[McBell]

It is not that I am always right. It is you are always wrong. When you begin a debate defending an untruth you will never be right.

A real legend in your own mind you are.
Sadly for you, those outside your choir are not buying the snake oil you are selling.

what is this untruth you claim I am defending?
Or are you merely spilling more oil?

 

[1robin]

Kilgore Trout said:
“I shy away from absolutes but there is no good reason to think actual gods exist”
You replied:

“That is perfectly wrong…

…In fact by far most of the worlds inhabitants by far have believed the evidence made the lack of a God a logical absurdity.”

I pointed out that there is no logical absurdity in disbelieving in gods; although I think you were probably misapplying the term in the context of which it was being used. However if Almighty God, the Creator and conserver of all things and the essence of reality itself were an actual existent then surely it would be self-evident and impossible to deny? And yet it isn’t!

When you are debating me lets strip down this list of God's to mine alone. I do not know about all the thousands of Gods people made up and so can't discuss them meaningfully. As for mine, it is illogical to have a universe that popped into being from nothing and which does not contain it's own cause, it is illogical to claim life came from non-life, consciousness came from the unconscious, information came without mind, morality came from the immoral, and it is illogical to think the virtual universal belief in the supernatural throughout history is based on nothing. I think every atom in the universe is evidence of God, self evident evidence of God. You literally can't explain or get huge swaths of reality without a God or something very similar. Our entire existence and that of reality necessitates God. I know of no reason God MUST be self evident but I think he is anyway IMO.

With respect it seems to be your good self that is running the two things together here. You cannot insist that the two things are separate, supposedly examining one in a disinterested and objective way and then parachute God into the equation to fit with your beliefs. It is one thing to argue that there are events which, if true, cannot be explained by nature alone, but it is a different matter altogether to assert that there is another world (a supernatural being) responsible for these events. But then of course that is the underlying essence of your argument for you are not here to discuss or explore instances of the paranormal but to promote and reinforce your faith.

Regardless of who fault it was. The supernatural can and mountains of evidence suggests strongly has acted within and upon the natural. I have experienced it directly. There is not God of the gaps in my argumentation. I am not and cannot stick him where ever gaps exist because I am stuck with specific definitions, promises, characteristics, and methods for God I cannot change or adapt to fit a hole. Either the God men 5000 years ago explained in detail can explain X or not. I can't force it to.

I’m sorry but while this may have real meaning for you it is nevertheless just anecdotal. With all of these anecdotes and claims we have no way of verifying the supposed truth source, that is to say a non-worldly being as their cause. One who says God told him to go out and kill might be considered mentally ill or deranged in some way because it conflicts with society’s mores, i.e. it isn’t what we consider normal and the nature of that belief is harmful or threatening to humanity at large. And yet the person who speaks of God killing uses the same apparatus as one who speaks of God loving. What I’m saying here is that, as with both of those examples, all you are doing is giving me the content of your mind. Furthermore it does not give a good impression of your God when you say he answered your prayers to give you relief from a compressed nerve when there have been untold millions that have suffered the most terrible diseases and privations and yet were ignored and allowed to continue in their pain and discomfort. And surely from a moral standpoint shouldn’t it be the case that we pray for others and not for ourselves?

This is not rocket science. I have X,Y, and Z occur, there is no natural explanation for X and Y and the probability for a natural explanation of Z is astronomical. The cause can't be natural. Now multiply that by the number of supernatural claims that have been made that are reliable or at least are not known to be unreliable. All the NDEs, billions of salvation events, healings, sightings, demonic claims, angelic claims, etc.... Are billions of these things all lies? I usually discard 90% of miracle claims but that still leaves millions and millions of events that have no natural explanation.

This reminds me of a question I have never understood about non-theists.

Lets say X occurs and no natural explanation is known. We are left with two choices. It was supernatural or it was natural but unknown as to how it occurred at the time.
Why in the world do you guys always dismiss the supernatural in favor of any natural cause whether unknown, unknowable, or virtually impossible? Why not give the supernatural the benefit of the doubt? Why choose the option that leaves hope in play? This is how Pascal's wager should have been stated. You can't get saving faith by default but you can not eliminate the hope of being saved where doubts exist. It is like a shot hat has no side effects and has 50% chance of preventing cancer. Why believe it will not work and not give it the chance to find it. I have never understood that rational. God is the only hope possible.

But this is just a believers’ argument, a doctrine essential to your faith, and it isn’t accepted in the wider world as a universal truth. There are even Christians who disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. And there doesn’t, as I’ve already explained to you elsewhere, have to be a conspiracy of deception- or ‘liars’ as you’ve put it. They believed in the doctrine and the immortal Son of God just as you yourself believe in it. After all you haven’t seen the empty tomb or the resurrected Christ and yet you’ve take upon yourself to speak of it just as they did. And thus in that manner the legend continues.

There are no Christians that believe Christ was not resurrected. I can claim to be one and think all types of garbage. I will never be one unless I am born again. I will never be born again unless I believe he was raised. I can show this by Christ own emphatic words. This however was not the issue. I was comparing those that claimed to have experienced something versus those who claim to have bought into an idea. One receives verification, feedback, and subjective proof. The other is meaningless for debate. There are billions who swear they have personally experienced God. How can that be written off. I am not talking about an intellectual consent. I am speaking about a force that was experienced that defies the banks of English to describe. It is the difference between those who claimed to have experienced aliens and those that claim to believe they exist in theory. There is not enough of the former to justify faith but there are enough born again Christians who had instantly transformed lives to invalidate non-faith.

Yes I did, thank you, and I answered your response in my posts 2394, 2395, 2396, 2397 & 2398

I will see if I can find them as I have not noticed them.

We can reduce this discussion to experiential claims alone if you wish. There seems to be so much under discussion that points are getting lost at times.

 

[metis]

Way to make up history on your own. How many Romans do you reckon was in Palestine at the time? If you have read your bible and know your history you would know the answer to this.

Crucifixion was NOT a Roman way of execution either, it was an Assyrian way of execution and was only handed out for the worst of criminals except when Jesus was crucified for some reason, then there were common thiefs being crucified too.

You have no clue what you're talking about. As for the latter item:

Crucifixion was used among the Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. In the year 337, Emperor Constantine I abolished it in the Roman Empire out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion. It was also used as a form of execution in Japan for criminals, inflicted also on some Christians. -- Crucifixion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you claim that I made up this history, let me post what your above comment was on, then I challenge you to provide one shred of evidence that would indicate I'm wrong. Here's what I wrote:

"You're right-- it doesn't fit at all. Crucifixion was a Roman way of execution, and the Romans did not enforce Jewish Law but only their own. Pilate was very brutal, and Roman historians tell us he had to go to Rome to explain why he executed so many. So, what did Jesus do that got the ire of the Romans? Probably the overturning of tables at the Temple since that was a source of taxes for the Romans, plus Jesus talking about this other "kingdom" undoubtedly must have sent up red flags."

 

[1robin]

A real legend in your own mind you are.
Sadly for you, those outside your choir are not buying the snake oil you are selling.

what is this untruth you claim I am defending?
Or are you merely spilling more oil?

First let examine this latest gem of an accusation. I specifically said it was your sides position not my competence that results in these one sided debates. However you make almost no claims of any kind. Just accusations. So I do not require to be a legend in my mind to overcome your sides argumentation (when I am lucky enough to get an argument from it). So much for the latest in a long line of irrational accusations.

I have no idea what you get from these personal commentaries. I however have decided not continue this meaningless discussion because there is not merit in doing so. If you wish to throw rocks at faith, God, Christ, or Christians you will have to do so without me, at least for the time being.

 

[McBell]

First let examine this latest gem of an accusation. I specifically said it was your sides position not my competence that results in these one sided debates. However you make almost no claims of any kind. Just accusations. So I do not require to be a legend in my mind to overcome your sides argumentation (when I am lucky enough to get an argument from it). So much for the latest in a long line of irrational accusations.

Your skill at back peddling is most remarkable.

I have no idea what you get from these personal commentaries. I however have decided not continue this meaningless discussion because there is not merit in doing so. If you wish to throw rocks at faith, God, Christ, or Christians you will have to do so without me, at least for the time being.

Don't make promises you cannot keep.

 

[cottage]

When you are debating me lets strip down this list of God's to mine alone. I do not know about all the thousands of Gods people made up and so can't discuss them meaningfully. As for mine, it is illogical to have a universe that popped into being from nothing and which does not contain it's own cause, it is illogical to claim life came from non-life, consciousness came from the unconscious, information came without mind, morality came from the immoral, and it is illogical to think the virtual universal belief in the supernatural throughout history is based on nothing. I think every atom in the universe is evidence of God, self evident evidence of God. You literally can't explain or get huge swaths of reality without a God or something very similar. Our entire existence and that of reality necessitates God. I know of no reason God MUST be self evident but I think he is anyway IMO.

All you are doing here is reiterating your faith by question-begging what you believe to be the case. And if a thing is self-evident, if were using the term correctly, then it isn’t a matter of subjective experience.

Regardless of who fault it was. The supernatural can and mountains of evidence suggests strongly has acted within and upon the natural. I have experienced it directly.

No, there isn’t ‘mountains of evidence’ that compels us to believe in supernatural events. The ‘evidence’ you refer to is of a type where those who are disposed to believe it do so because it confirms what is already held to be the case as a matter of faith or inclination.

This is not rocket science. I have X,Y, and Z occur, there is no natural explanation

for X and Y and the probability for a natural explanation of Z is astronomical. The cause can't be natural. Now multiply that by the number of supernatural claims that have been made that are reliable or at least are not known to be unreliable. All the NDEs, billions of salvation events, healings, sightings, demonic claims, angelic claims, etc.... Are billions of these things all lies? I usually discard 90% of miracle claims but that still leaves millions and millions of events that have no natural explanation.

Well the argument you’re giving me here is specious; you are giving no instances for evidence of a supposed other-worldly creator and yet you’re seeking to multiply that by every mystical claim ever made, many of which have nothing whatever to do with the specifics of your beliefs. And you haven’t responded to what I said concerning prayer and the way you explicitly showed the essentially selfish nature of religion, at least as it applies to you, which corresponds perfectly with your Pascalian view further down the page.

This reminds me of a question I have never understood about non-theists. Lets say X occurs and no natural explanation is known. We are left with two choices. It was supernatural or it was natural but unknown as to how it occurred at the time.
Why in the world do you guys always dismiss the supernatural in favor of any natural cause whether unknown, unknowable, or virtually impossible? Why not give the supernatural the benefit of the doubt? Why choose the option that leaves hope in play? This is how Pascal's wager should have been stated. You can't get saving faith by default but you can not eliminate the hope of being saved where doubts exist. It is like a shot hat has no side effects and has 50% chance of preventing cancer. Why believe it will not work and not give it the chance to find it. I have never understood that rational. God is the only hope possible.

Pascal is saying belief in God is the best bet as there is everything to gain but nothing to lose. But is this really how people come to their faith, by treating as if it were a gamble or a cynical insurance policy? It is my view that Pascal’s Wager goes completely against the general understanding of religious faith, which is a committed strong belief and trust in propositions that are held to be true, for example that there exists a God who has done and will do certain things. Now surely, one either believes this or one does not. It makes no sense to speak of deciding to accept it as true in order to pre-empt negative consequences at the end of one’s life. If one believes there are negative consequences for unbelievers then your commitment to that faith is already existent. And you’re misjudging me, too, as it happens. Although I take the view of empiricism I am not a dyed-in-the wool materialist; if you can provide overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of an other-worldly creator Being that seeks a relationship with its creation then I’m bound to accept it. But I haven’t seen even the slightest grounds for believing that such a notion is anything but sophistry and invention.

There are no Christians that believe Christ was not resurrected. I can claim to be one and think all types of garbage. I will never be one unless I am born again. I will never be born again unless I believe he was raised.

I can show this by Christ own emphatic words. This however was not the issue. I was comparing those that claimed to have experienced something versus those who claim to have bought into an idea. One receives verification, feedback, and subjective proof. The other is meaningless for debate. There are billions who swear they have personally experienced God. How can that be written off. I am not talking about an intellectual consent. I am speaking about a force that was experienced that defies the banks of English to describe. It is the difference between those who claimed to have experienced aliens and those that claim to believe they exist in theory. There is not enough of the former to justify faith but there are enough born again Christians who had instantly transformed lives to invalidate non-faith.

Non-faith ‘invalid’? Oh come on now, that’s a ridiculous statement to make. Disbelieving in an other-worldly object that cannot be proved, demonstrated, or made universally evident in the wider world is certainly not an invalid position!

I will see if I can find them as I have not noticed them.

We can reduce this discussion to experiential claims alone if you wish. There seems to be so much under discussion that points are getting lost at times.

I’m afraid I’m not seeing any proper arguments in your responses to others or in your replies to me, but just references to general (and rather simplistic) notions, arguments from authority, arguments from the people (argumentum ad populum), personal experiences, anecdotal evidence, and impassioned pleas to your faith, all of which even when taken together do not amount to compelling evidence. Lots of weak arguments are not the equal of sound argumentation, and in fact they detract from the overall case that is being made. Give me one, or two if you wish, of what you believe to be the most convincing arguments for the existence of the Christian God. And I will give you a considered response by return.

 

[1robin]

All you are doing here is reiterating your faith by question-begging what you believe to be the case. And if a thing is self-evident, if were using the term correctly, then it isn’t a matter of subjective experience.

Well lets see.

1. We know we have a single universe that is almost certainly finite in all respects.
2. We only have two choices for what created it. Nature and things beyond nature.
3. We have no reason to think nature produced its self. Natural law has no creative potential.
4. We only have the realm beyond nature left to produce what we have.
5. We know from the philosophy of sufficient causation, that whatever created time is independent from it, whatever created matter is independent from it, whatever created space is independent from it, it must be personal, it must be unimaginably powerful, unimaginably intelligent, rational, and maybe even benevolent.
6. I find the Bible posits a God with those characteristics thousands of years before the questions were known to fabricate an answer for, and a universe that is an exact match for this one, long before they had the instruments to determine this.

1. - 5. are simplistic, consistent with all known observations and logic, and have no known exceptions. 6. Is the best and most accurate candidate for the cause of 1 - 5 known. It may be argued the only known candidate but I will keep it simple.

The exact methodology is used in science, philosophy, law, and history. I consider the sum of all arguments of all types compiled together like this or even stronger capable of making God self evident to a reasonable person without bias. It certainly exceeds every argument science uses to contend with God and almost al theoretical science. If Hawking can claim something came from nothing as fact in spite of it being impossible I do not see why my the evidence for God is less than self evident.

It all depends on where you set the standards. I can construct a standard so strict that without doing any injustice to any rational methodology, no claim of any type, in any field, at any time beyond "I think" will be justifiable as truth. I do not care what the standard is as long as it is consistent. I use the same standards as law, historical methods, philosophy, logic, and science (science has a broad range but the average is what I mean). If dinosaurs turning into birds is self evidence my claims are even more so.

No, there isn’t ‘mountains of evidence’ that compels us to believe in supernatural events. The ‘evidence’ you refer to is of a type where those who are disposed to believe it do so because it confirms what is already held to be the case as a matter of faith or inclination.

How would you know since you have no idea what I meant by mountain? It is enough and of a quality that compels the most intelligent and ration men in history by the millions to adopt non-intuitive and extraordinary things that have the potential to ostracize them. Many of which like me came to faith begrudgingly and kicking and screaming. In fact it seems to delight God in conquering those most opposed to him. Rome was trying to wipe Christianity out, in the end God converted the empire its self, Chesterton, Greenleaf, Lewis and many other set out to prove the Bible wrong, gave it up as impossible and converted.

I want to put some quotes in here so I will have to divide this post. I seem to attract the most prolific of debaters.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the REsurrection has never broken down yet."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

That is a miniscule fraction of the people who knew their business and thought the evidence over whelming. I can supply more historians, more legal experts, philosophers, mathematicians, textual experts, archeologists, NT scholars from both sides, even forensic coroners, etc... if you wish that confirm what I stated. More than you will ever exhaust.

There is no basis for claiming a lack of evidence exists. You may still do so, but your foundation will be lacking sufficient grounds to do so meaningfully. BTW what standards do you have that produce a lack of evidence for God? A lack compared or justified by what?

I will continue this if I have the time below.

 

[1robin]

Well the argument you’re giving me here is specious; you are giving no instances for evidence of a supposed other-worldly creator and yet you’re seeking to multiply that by every mystical claim ever made, many of which have nothing whatever to do with the specifics of your beliefs. And you haven’t responded to what I said concerning prayer and the way you explicitly showed the essentially selfish nature of religion, at least as it applies to you, which corresponds perfectly with your Pascalian view further down the page.

I do not understand this. If I have something and no natural explanation exists for it then in what way is a supernatural realm lacking support. I did not think you were asking me to prove that the specific deity I believe in is the one that exists. That requires a little different argumentation. I have been setting up arguments that prove or almost prove the supernatural and a creator deity exists. I could not argue concerning other God's beyond a few of the major ones but I was not implying I was trying to prove my particular God exists specifically. If you wish to switch to that then let me know and I will supply those arguments, or a few of them. When I am talking to a non-theist. I must first demonstrate the supernatural, only once that is accepted is there reason to debate what characteristics that realm's inhabitance have. It makes little sense to debate a particular God with a person who denies all God's and even the transcendent or supernatural.

Pascal is saying belief in God is the best bet as there is everything to gain but nothing to lose. But is this really how people come to their faith, by treating as if it were a gamble or a cynical insurance policy? It is my view that Pascal’s Wager goes completely against the general understanding of religious faith, which is a committed strong belief and trust in propositions that are held to be true, for example that there exists a God who has done and will do certain things. Now surely, one either believes this or one does not. It makes no sense to speak of deciding to accept it as true in order to pre-empt negative consequences at the end of one’s life. If one believes there are negative consequences for unbelievers then your commitment to that faith is already existent. And you’re misjudging me, too, as it happens. Although I take the view of empiricism I am not a dyed-in-the wool materialist; if you can provide overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of an other-worldly creator Being that seeks a relationship with its creation then I’m bound to accept it. But I haven’t seen even the slightest grounds for believing that such a notion is anything but sophistry and invention.

Pascal's wager as it exists is stupid as far as Christianity is concerned. You cannot come to believe by default. It is not a hat in the ring type of faith Christ requires. However modified to apply to the allowance granted to evidence it is valid in every way. If there is a 50% chance that God created us and 50% chance we are a long line of impossible probabilities, what is the advantage of denying that God may have done it. What I see is actually far worse? If the only candidate known for meaning, hope, purpose, creation, morality, etc.... is God. It will be denied if another theoretical explanation (or range of theoretical explanations) only has the justification of not being capable of being shown impossible. It will be clung to like grim death. Short of a dissertation on spiritual warfare I can not explain this in detail but it is predicted by the Bible over and over and has no rational justification.

Non-faith ‘invalid’? Oh come on now, that’s a ridiculous statement to make. Disbelieving in an other-worldly object that cannot be proved, demonstrated, or made universally evident in the wider world is certainly not an invalid position!

However believing in multiverses, infinite regressions of causation, macro evolution, oscillating universes, and getting something from nothing, etc.. are perfectly valid even though most have no evidence, one has no observed examples of it, and the rest have reasons to think they are impossible. As in my other post the endless statements of respected scholars as to the extremely good evidence concerning God infinitely out weighs the evidence for the things in my list above and for the thousands like them I did not post. Let me clarify a bit. Non-faith is a valid position, it does not have a sufficient foundation to be claimed correct, reliable, or the best explanation of the evidence.

I’m afraid I’m not seeing any proper arguments in your responses to others or in your replies to me, but just references to general (and rather simplistic) notions, arguments from authority, arguments from the people (argumentum ad populum), personal experiences, anecdotal evidence, and impassioned pleas to your faith, all of which even when taken together do not amount to compelling evidence. Lots of weak arguments are not the equal of sound argumentation, and in fact they detract from the overall case that is being made. Give me one, or two if you wish, of what you believe to be the most convincing arguments for the existence of the Christian God. And I will give you a considered response by return.

I pretty much respond to what I am given. I keep it as simple as possible because even that is misunderstood, misjudged, mischaracterized, and misused. I also do not get into things that are long and complex until I see if the person I am talking to has an emotional or a evidenced based foundation for their claims, as it is I must type non-stop in whatever free time to just reply to everyone (I am one of the few from my side of things, and your side loves to aim their latest arguments at an orthodox Christian, above all). However even my simple arguments have been around since the Greeks and still are used in modern debates at Oxford and Cambridge, etc.... I am out of time today. I will try and see if you are around on Monday.

 

[McBell]

Well lets see. [/FONT][/COLOR]

1. We know we have a single universe that is almost certainly finite in all respects.
2. We only have two choices for what created it. Nature and things beyond nature.
3. We have no reason to think nature produced its self. Natural law has no creative potential.
4. We only have the realm beyond nature left to produce what we have.
5. We know from the philosophy of sufficient causation, that whatever created time is independent from it, whatever created matter is independent from it, whatever created space is independent from it, it must be personal, it must be unimaginably powerful, unimaginably intelligent, rational, and maybe even benevolent.
6. I find the Bible posits a God with those characteristics thousands of years before the questions were known to fabricate an answer for, and a universe that is an exact match for this one, long before they had the instruments to determine this.

1. - 5. are simplistic, consistent with all known observations and logic, and have no known exceptions. 6. Is the best and most accurate candidate for the cause of 1 - 5 known. It may be argued the only known candidate but I will keep it simple.

The exact methodology is used in science, philosophy, law, and history. I consider the sum of all arguments of all types compiled together like this or even stronger capable of making God self evident to a reasonable person without bias. It certainly exceeds every argument science uses to contend with God and almost al theoretical science. If Hawking can claim something came from nothing as fact in spite of it being impossible I do not see why my the evidence for God is less than self evident.

It all depends on where you set the standards. I can construct a standard so strict that without doing any injustice to any rational methodology, no claim of any type, in any field, at any time beyond "I think" will be justifiable as truth. I do not care what the standard is as long as it is consistent. I use the same standards as law, historical methods, philosophy, logic, and science (science has a broad range but the average is what I mean). If dinosaurs turning into birds is self evidence my claims are even more so.

How would you know since you have no idea what I meant by mountain? It is enough and of a quality that compels the most intelligent and ration men in history by the millions to adopt non-intuitive and extraordinary things that have the potential to ostracize them. Many of which like me came to faith begrudgingly and kicking and screaming. In fact it seems to delight God in conquering those most opposed to him. Rome was trying to wipe Christianity out, in the end God converted the empire its self, Chesterton, Greenleaf, Lewis and many other set out to prove the Bible wrong, gave it up as impossible and converted.

I want to put some quotes in here so I will have to divide this post. I seem to attract the most prolific of debaters.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the REsurrection has never broken down yet."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

That is a miniscule fraction of the people who knew their business and thought the evidence over whelming. I can supply more historians, more legal experts, philosophers, mathematicians, textual experts, archeologists, NT scholars from both sides, even forensic coroners, etc... if you wish that confirm what I stated. More than you will ever exhaust.

There is no basis for claiming a lack of evidence exists. You may still do so, but your foundation will be lacking sufficient grounds to do so meaningfully. BTW what standards do you have that produce a lack of evidence for God? A lack compared or justified by what?

I will continue this if I have the time below.

You keep repeating this same load of bull **** as though it has never been shown to be a big load of bull ****.

Do you perhaps suffer from some kind of memory reset where you do not remember getting your *** handed to you every time you repeat this load of bull ****?