Compelling evidence for Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2012, 06:27 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
Compelling evidence for Christianity? Nope there is none. It's based on a Jewish dude who's existance is questionable. That went around doing magic.

If there was any compelling evidence for Christianity, you would never hear the words "you gotta have faith".

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
13-08-2012, 08:02 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 06:27 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Compelling evidence for Christianity? Nope there is none. It's based on a Jewish dude who's existance is questionable. That went around doing magic.

If there was any compelling evidence for Christianity, you would never hear the words "you gotta have faith".

queue the music...





...notice how Scotty's red devil dances in time with Georgie.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
13-08-2012, 09:56 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 04:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And you sir, have completely evaded the questions at hand, in a totally obvious way. You do not seem to understand the Mathematical concept of the "infinite set", just as WLC, does not.
Saying "don't get me started" is no argument. You say "smarter people than you" have found (in #4), the argument compelling. Are you saying you are smarter than Krauss ?
The origins of morality do not rest in gods, as anyone who has actually taken Anthropology knows, and if that is not good enough for you, then maybe Plato will do. (see below).
All of present day Christianity is based on fallacious historical artifacts, which were purposely manipulated to arrive at a predetermined result, ("original sin", "salvation", the Yahweh god, etc etc etc). from known historical origins, by known historical developments, by humans, for completely human purposes.

Morality cannot originate from gods :
Gods are not the source of morality. The Platonic Conundrum, (Bucky's negative re-write of Euthyphro's Dilemma).

1. Something is wrong, because god says it's wrong.

2. Why did god say it's wrong ?
3. Did he have a good reason ?

4. If there is no good reason, then it could be right.
5. If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from god.

6. Could he have said it's right ?
7. If he could not say it's right, then truth and moral value exist apart from god.

8. Is it wrong because god says it's wrong, or is it wrong, because it's objectively wrong, and god had to say that ?
9. Would it be right if god says it's right ?

Conclusions:

If god could not have said it's right, and still be god, then the source of the moral law is not god.
If it would still be wrong even if god says it's right, then the source of morality is not god.

If the source of morality is not god, then we must look elsewhere for guidance

The Kalam argument is refuted in the same way. Just as First Cause is refuted by the fact that it requires linnear time, "before" spacetime existed, and Relativity, so the Kalam argument is refuted by the obvious fallacious need for pre-existing "causality". If time, and causality are not already in place, the argument is impossible to make, and commits the fallacy of begging the question of who set up the system of causality, in the first place, and THAT DOES devolve into infinite regression, and "setting up causality" requires a priori causality.
So, no, you are wrong. There is not a shred of compelling anything for the bullshit known as theism, or Christianity.

Hmm hmmm, where do I start?

Please, where have I misunderstood an infinite set? I might cite the thought experiment Hilbert's Hotel to illustrate my point about the non-existence of an actual infinite. In order to argue that an actual infinite does exist you would have to be a Realist and will have to refute all of the strong cases against that point. Further an infinite regress is an actual infinite, therefore, cannot exist. I accept this, it's logical and keep in mind that I'm an atheist.

I've seen the skydivephil video and I must say it misses the point. A philosopher of religion named Eric Steinhart hits the nail on the head with his point that Atheists and Theists have a secret agreement about the KCA. The premises are true therefore the conclusion follows, that's how logic works. You would only ever have cause to try and refute these two premises when it comes to this argument because you presuppose the falsity of the conclusion! Where the disagreement lies is what is drawn from that conclusion. So the universe has a cause? Is it God, is it some abstract condition that exists necessarily or is it something abstract like the root of 2? Craig has weak grounds to say it must be a personal mind. But since this creation event occurred before space time it's logical to assume that science can't measure it or tell us about it and we must rely then on metaphysics to flesh out what this cause could be. That puts us on equal footing with the theists. Who the hell knows? The entire idea of classical theism is that the first cause in principle does not require a cause.

If you're looking to refute the KCA you just have to accept B theory of time because the argument relies on A theory. But the more interesting questions come after accepting and hijacking the KCA.

The Krauss book. I don't pretend to be smarter than Krauss but the main crux of the criticism against this book (bear in mind this comes from Atheists as well as Theists) is he simply misunderstands the difference between physics nothing and philosophical nothing. If Krauss says the universe could have spawned from nothing (i.e. a foaming mass of appearing and disappointing particles, yadayada) that nothing is actually something! Therefore you just need to go one layer out and ask why is there something instead of this physics definition of nothing that is not actual nothing. Krauss even states at the end of the book that his version of nothing is actually something! So how does this tell us why there is something rather than nothing exactly?

I think you hit on a good point there. Essentially how could morality be objectively grounded in God when it's up to God's will i.e. subjective? A very good point and I think a good objection to it but then where is objective morality grounded? You can say as Chas does that I'm making up objective morality without evidence but as it turns out Moral Realism is the dominant theory in philosophy. And if you say objective morality doesn't exist than you can't rightly condemn the Catholic Church for its moral wrongs, no?

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 10:09 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 09:56 AM)scientician Wrote:  I think you hit on a good point there. Essentially how could morality be objectively grounded in God when it's up to God's will i.e. subjective? A very good point and I think a good objection to it but then where is objective morality grounded? You can say as Chas does that I'm making up objective morality without evidence but as it turns out Moral Realism is the dominant theory in philosophy. And if you say objective morality doesn't exist than you can't rightly condemn the Catholic Church for its moral wrongs, no?

And exactly where does this objective morality reside?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 10:18 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  And exactly where does this objective morality reside?

My butt Smartass
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
13-08-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 09:56 AM)scientician Wrote:  Please, where have I misunderstood an infinite set? I might cite the thought experiment Hilbert's Hotel to illustrate my point about the non-existence of an actual infinite. In order to argue that an actual infinite does exist you would have to be a Realist and will have to refute all of the strong cases against that point. Further an infinite regress is an actual infinite, therefore, cannot exist. I accept this, it's logical and keep in mind that I'm an atheist.
Your misunderstanding is that Hilbert's Hotel is used to show isomorphism, not completed infinities. It shows that the one can map infinities to infinities, ones that have the same magnitude - in this case Aleph Nought.

(13-08-2012 09:56 AM)scientician Wrote:  You can say as Chas does that I'm making up objective morality without evidence but as it turns out Moral Realism is the dominant theory in philosophy.
Is this an argument from authority?


(13-08-2012 09:56 AM)scientician Wrote:  And if you say objective morality doesn't exist than you can't rightly condemn the Catholic Church for its moral wrongs, no?

I can condemn them on the basis of my own morality and on the accepted norms of civilized society.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
13-08-2012, 10:52 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 10:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your misunderstanding is that Hilbert's Hotel is used to show isomorphism, not completed infinities. It shows that the one can map infinities to infinities, ones that have the same magnitude - in this case Aleph Nought.

Is this an argument from authority?

I can condemn them on the basis of my own morality and on the accepted norms of civilized society.

1. Hilbert's Hotel is used to show the absurdities of an actual infinite. Sure an infinite can potentially exist i.e. in mathematics just like any numbers but this says nothing about their actual existence.

2. Yes it certainly is. An argument from authority is only a fallacy if you make false claims. It is the majority view. Didn't I just say that the source of objective morality hasn't yet been pinned down? You wouldn't have said the Higgs didn't exist before it was found. There's work to be done for sure but embracing moral relativism doesn't preclude moral realism. You can condemn them on your own relative morality but you have no basis for truth even if its the accepted norms of society. Slavery was the accepted norm for society does that make it morally right? Hell in the USA now apparently being an Atheist is morally wrong! Seems like an accepted norm to me.

Sheesh, Devil's advocate anyone?

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2012, 11:09 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 10:52 AM)scientician Wrote:  2. Yes it certainly is. An argument from authority is only a fallacy if you make false claims. It is the majority view.
I tend to disagree. It's a logical fallacy regardless of the truth of the statement. Popularity/authority does not equal validity. That being said, dismissing your claim because it's a logical fallacy would be a fallacy as well, which is why I'm not going to do it (until further research has been done). Tongue

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
13-08-2012, 11:17 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 10:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(13-08-2012 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  And exactly where does this objective morality reside?

God's butt Smartass

Fixed. Thumbsup

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
13-08-2012, 11:23 AM
RE: Compelling evidence for Christianity
(13-08-2012 09:56 AM)scientician Wrote:  But since this creation event occurred before space time it's logical to assume that science can't measure it or tell us about it and we must rely then on metaphysics to flesh out what this cause could be. That puts us on equal footing with the theists. Who the hell knows? The entire idea of classical theism is that the first cause in principle does not require a cause.

If you're looking to refute the KCA you just have to accept B theory of time because the argument relies on A theory. But the more interesting questions come after accepting and hijacking the KCA.

The Krauss book. I don't pretend to be smarter than Krauss but the main crux of the criticism against this book (bear in mind this comes from Atheists as well as Theists) is he simply misunderstands the difference between physics nothing and philosophical nothing. If Krauss says the universe could have spawned from nothing (i.e. a foaming mass of appearing and disappointing particles, yadayada) that nothing is actually something! Therefore you just need to go one layer out and ask why is there something instead of this physics definition of nothing that is not actual nothing. Krauss even states at the end of the book that his version of nothing is actually something! So how does this tell us why there is something rather than nothing exactly?

I think you hit on a good point there. Essentially how could morality be objectively grounded in God when it's up to God's will i.e. subjective? A very good point and I think a good objection to it but then where is objective morality grounded? You can say as Chas does that I'm making up objective morality without evidence but as it turns out Moral Realism is the dominant theory in philosophy. And if you say objective morality doesn't exist than you can't rightly condemn the Catholic Church for its moral wrongs, no?

1. There is no "before" spacetime. Saying something "happened before" time is meaningless. It does NOT put us on "equal footing", as they assert something "happened", IN TIME, (which they forgot did not exist yet). The assertion that something "happened" before time existed is a meaningless assertion.
2. Krauss forgets nothing. He simply asserts that "nothingness" is a pleasant fiction, and is not observed in this universe. Krauss or I don't have to go anywhere, or "out" another level. Nothingness is an idea, which does not exist in this universe.
3. I can condemn the Roman Church for it's moral wrongs, as lying, stealing, and buggering little boys are wrong, with or without god(s). Your assumption that one is left with "moral relativism", and therefore "anything goes". is simply false. The basis for morality does not rest in deities.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: