Reasons to Believe in God???
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2012, 04:40 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2012 04:57 PM by Devilock07.)
RE: Reasons to Believe in God???
Thanks for the input. I'm finishing up my thoughts on it. I hope to post tonight.
(02-03-2012 06:31 PM)Thomas Wrote:  I could not get it to play past 60 seconds, but the best may have been in that segment.

In their own words, they are having to present an argument for belief in god where they used to just assume everyone was on board.

We are winning. Thats the bottom line and they are pissed off.

Thanks for the input.
(02-03-2012 06:42 AM)Devilock07 Wrote:  Tim Keller at UPenn

I could use another brain. I am currently discussing many issues with my brother who is a pastor. If you are interested in killing an hour and would like to watch and share your thoughts on the points raised, I would be grateful. I have some thoughts about the lecture I may be posting tomorrow. Attack!!!

My thoughts:

1) The “Christopher Hitchens” Argument:

Keller cites a Polish writer who lived during the Stalin era who said he has seen atheism used as a warrant for violence because atheists believe if they can get away with evil in this life, they have truly gotten away with it because there is no judgment after death. I honestly don’t think most believers really believe this either. I have often discussed a thought experiment where you are in a room with 2 doors. Door 1 leads to outside and on the other side of door 2 is an abyss. Only you know that door 2 has an abyss behind it, and people continue to come in the room from outside with the intention of going through door 2. Imagine the people entering the room find your claim unbelievable and continue on to door 2 unconcerned. What kind of ridiculous, drastic measures would you take to keep people from going through that door? Ultimately, I think the belief that people everywhere will burn in hell for eternity should terrify and consume believer’s thoughts and lives at every moment if they really believe it is true. This is not what we see. The flippant and crass way Christians display their “Turn or Burn” bumper stickers shows how seriously they really take it.

Aside from the fact that violence does occur in the name of Islam, are there any other reasons why non-Muslims would charge the religion itself with teaching violence? The Qur’an does mention the killing of infidels, as the Bible does, more or less. Many religions do have a history of mandated violence. The fact that most modern adherents do not put these mandates into practice is, I believe, a testimony to secular morality infiltrating the strict morality of religious teaching. What strictly atheist doctrine exists that could be used to incite atheists to violence towards non-atheists? There are no atheist doctrines at all.

2) Impossible to Know if a God Exists:

The illustration of the blind men and the elephant:

I think I have found a few problems with this. The biggest problems are with the elephant story itself.

First, I thought that Newbigin was committing a fallacy of equivocation. First, he uses the elephant story to show that it is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. Then he states that this point of view assumes that the arguer has knowledge which the argument claims is impossible to have. Is this true?
I may be wrong on this, but it appears to me that the argument states that it is impossible to know X. It is not saying that it is impossible to know that it is impossible to know X.
The statements:
“It is impossible to know X.“ v. “It is impossible to know that it is impossible to know X.” are not equal.

Second, I think the story of the elephant being told from the point of view of someone who is not blind is a problem with the story that Newbigin has exploited. Telling the story from this point of view does not demonstrate the reality best. If the story was told from an equally blind point of view, it is still just as plausible for the storyteller to conclude that it is impossible for anyone to know the truth based upon the contradictory testimonies of the other men and the fact that everyone is equally blind.

Finally, aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves by allowing the blind men to have the ability to touch the object at all? Wouldn’t the fact that they are all certainly touching the same object, as the story goes, prove its inaccurate description of the problem? In reality, the blind men should not be able to touch anything at all. They would only be allowed to contemplate the existence of the object in question. In reality, no sense data can be known about the proposed being. This is an entirely different situation indeed.

The elephant story does not address the real issue at all. The fact that we are all equally unable to know anything for sure about a god is clearly demonstrated, and is in no way arrogant, in my opinion.

3) The Onus is on the Believer:

The Fine Tuning Argument is pretty sad. Plantinga’s thought experiment equates pure chance in a game of cards to the probability that our Universe would be such a way as to support organic life. I don’t believe this is accurate. It sounds like the argument that biological evolution is like believing a tornado can blow through a junkyard and produce a 747 jet.
Love is not significant if God does not exist? How is it significant if he does exist? Keller says we are made in the image of God; he loved us, came into the world and died for us, so love is significant. Tell that to the reprobates who can do nothing to be saved because God chose not to save them. Tell that to the vast majority of humans who will be overlooked by the love of God for no apparent reason. Teller should have said, love is significant because God made us in his image, so he loved some of us and died for some of us. The rest he predestined to everlasting torment for being created defective. What good is love when God’s ultimate love is like that? He moves people around for his purposes like pawns on a chess board. If God does exist, then I am not one of his chosen, so I can just go to hell. I was born a sinner and I can do nothing to fix that, yet he still blames me. If I’m not a vessel of mercy, then I am a vessel of wrath created for destruction. My purpose for living is so that God can pour his wrath out on me. Is this our standard? No thanks!

Human rights are so apparently a product of human thought over time. If human rights come from God, where the hell have they been for most of human history? Just since we have been recording history we can see the process of human rights developing. I’m so tired of the argument that human rights can’t be a product of natural selection; humans can’t come from primordial soup, etc. How many times must it be explained that natural selection and other processes of the universe do not equal chance? Keller also calls genocide wrong even though it was mandated to the Israelites by God to kill the Midianites.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2012, 02:45 AM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2012 02:53 AM by Devilock07.)
RE: Reasons to Believe in God???
(02-03-2012 07:43 PM)Red Tornado Wrote:  Atheism has shown that there is no legit reason to believe, but people don't want reasons. They want proof.

Thanks for the input. I find it funny this guy admits all the way through that nothing he says evidence for God.
(02-03-2012 08:11 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  First thing that starts it all out wrong in assuming there is a supreme being at all, especially with zero demonstrable evidence. Anything that he says is evidence is strictly hearsay. Of course since he is a minister he will be completely biased in his outcomes.

He mentions it takes as much faith to believe than to disbelieve. Then he goes on to say it take more of a leap of faith to disbelieve in God. Well now he's playing on fears.

He mentions that all arguments to disprove god fall flat, they fail. Because they fail, nonbelievers are taking a risk. This is again playing into the fear. He, of course, fails to mention that the same arguments for the existence of god fall flat and fail also.
He goes into a philosophical reasoning, I would like to point out that philosophy hasn't contributed to science or the betterment of man in many many years. It may bring comfort or confusion to some but it serves no physical value. He asks, "How do you know God doesn't have a good reason for suffering." I challenge you to find a good reason for suffering. There is a no real good reason for any suffering. This whole god has a plan is a cop out.

Ok now he's far off the deep end, he said "If god is so great and so big then he couldn't be in the Universe. This null and voids the whole "God is able to do anything, is all powerful and all knowing."

He's very good about only delivering the message one sided and one sided only. He's horribly misleading, completely biased and unable to put the shoe on the other foot. He buries himself in philosophy and zero evidence. It's unfortunate that the crowd will probably not apply any critical thinking to anything he says.

The poker game scenario, oh my, playing on people's illogical emotions to suit his punch line. This scenario is filled with more holes than the Theory of Evolution had when it was first thought of. He goes on to assume that nonbelievers have a problem with god. Completely forgetting the fact that in order to have a problem with "god" you first must believe such a thing exists.

He starts on nonbelievers only have natural selection, this plays on the pride factor. Nothing to do with logic, reason, evidence, strictly on the naive to believe they are special. This goes on into the love thing, the only reason you feel love is because your brain rewards you with chance. This again preys on the pride and naive mindset. This all falls under the useless questions "Why are we here?" "What's our purpose?"...and so on. To even ask these questions you have come to the conclusion that there is a reason and a purpose without evidence.

He again brings back the leap of faith (fear mongering). Strong eating the weak is misleading and he is completely misleading people, due to his lack of knowledge on the subject (going on what I'm hearing in the video from him). Nature doesn't care if you die as he goes on, attempting to further disprove nature/strong eating the weak. He neglects the whole part about how groups of a species have evolved to learn that working together for a common cause is much more productive to survival. This is all basing on the premise that just because humans can't imagine it's only a chance.

He overall bases his ideas on faulty logic. I give him, nice try but you fail, grade!

Thanks for the response.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: