The Case Against the Existence of God

Well, jar, some of us know He exists and we know that we know it.I'm curious where Robin's thread will take him although I don't think there is any evidence for God that anyone at this stage of Fallenness can recognize, other than the scriptures which were given for that reason. If you don't believe the witnesses you have no evidence, and so far he doesn't believe the witnesses.Of course, for the most part neither do you. Which is why you can't say with certainty that God exists.ABE: As for a case against God, I suppose evolution is such a case and Robin believes that.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 01:01 PM

I do base my knowledge on facts. Facts I learned from witnesses to God. I believe in the existence of Australia by exactly the same means.There is also an element of personal experience that enters into it after believing that much, but then my element of experience is another fact I can offer to you in the role of witness to you, which you can discredit just as you can discredit the witnesses who wrote the Bible. Did you mean "accepted by" or "acceptable to?" In any case I believe it is expressed in a way that is accessible to anyone. If you discredit the witnesses because you reject certain possibilities a priori, such as for instance the existence of angels or other unseen things, the fault for disbelieving the witnesses is yours and not any insufficiency of evidence.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 01:36 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 01:39 PM

Nevertheless people for the duration of Australia's history have rightly believed in the existence of Australia who never could go there, and there are countless similar examples. It's the same thing really. And I'm not so sure you can't "go there" when it comes to believing the witnesses of the Bible either. I could say that I "went there" when I believed, and found it to be quite real.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 02:35 PM

I don't think I took what you said as insulting, not sure what you mean. I simply answered you as I see it -- I do believe it based on facts."Different standard" than what? Not sure what you mean.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 02:39 PM

That is correct. We agree here you see. Believing in Australia is right, believing in Atlantis is not. We need a criterion for the difference and it isn't that you can go there, because the majority of those who believe in Australia have not gone there and never will. This is a puzzling statement. Are you saying that since belief in the existence of Australia happens to conform to the reality that Australia in fact exists is "pure coincidence?" What does that mean? Obviously not, nor was I suggesting this. Possibly, but I too "went" to Middle Earth, Treasure Island and Oz and did NOT find them to be quite real -- and neither did you. You are using the term in a different sense than I was using it. Well, it is though (at least the destination is if not my belief -- just to be a stickler for grammar). We are simply going to have to come up with some other set of criteria.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 03:35 PM

All you have to do to "test" my facts is believe the witnesses, or the authorities as Robin puts it. Instead of raising a zillion objections to what they are saying, just make like a little child and believe that they are telling you the truth. It's that simple, as jar is so fond of saying about other stuff.As many of the greatest in Christendom have written, faith is the beginning of understanding, even the "substance" of things unseen says the scripture. I was just reading a new discovery for me, one Henry Scougal, who said faith functions as a sense, it teaches us about the things of the unseen world the same way that our senses teach us about the seen world. It starts with treating the witnesses as truthful. That means the Bible writers and the Bible believers and the Bible preachers. Just BELIEVE them for a change. That's ALL you are asked to do. REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. Those were Jesus' first words.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 03:46 PM

This idea has to be original with you. I've never run across it before. I understand that it is your conclusion from your observation that there are only two possibilities about how the universe came to be, that either it has always been or it was brought into being by a conscious Being with the power and intelligence to do it.I'm not sure this translates into a 50-50 "chance" though. Or, hm, I guess that is further based on your observation that neither of these possibilities is provable? Is that what you said? In that case they are both equally possible.And if they are both equally possible, and there are no other possibilities, only many subsets of each, which others keep coming up with, then OK, I get it now, 50-50 possibility.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 04:05 PM

No you have the wrong model in mind. It's the same as believing the statements of witnesses, Lfen. It is NOT the same as believing the Hari Krishnas, or Muslims, as their religion is not based on having witnessed anything, and it's easy to show the falseness of the Mormon's claims. But the Bible witnesses witnessed to historical events. It's exactly like believing in Australia without ever seeing it as I just got through arguing.

But is what you are saying true? Are there really many witnesses of gnomes? Really? If there really are, then I'd give it a good shot at being true that there is in fact something real that they are calling gnomes. And in that case I would suppose that believing the stories might lead one to test them experimentally, if seeing a gnome is your idea of great fun, to follow whatever advice might lead one to witnessing them oneself.But it isn't the same thing because there really aren't a lot of witnesses to gnomes as you claim. And none of them claim the gnomes are God and that you could be saved by repenting and believing in them and so on. In other words, the Bible witnesses are altogether on a different plane. When I point out that the evidence is in believing, I'm not saying something trivial.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 04:20 PM

This thread was predicated on a particular idea about God that Robin calls the God of Western Tradition: Does anybody want to disagree that these are the attributes of the "God of Western Tradition?" That particular idea of God is certainly based on the Biblical God, but because of historical shifts in acceptance of the Bible, not completely the equivalent of the Biblical God. Nevertheless these attributes apply to all versions, the Deists' and the Unitarian Universalists' for instance. ABE: Also apply to the God of Judaism and Islam as well I believe. This part of the definition seems to have been problematic for some. I read it to mean that a God who could have brought this universe as we know it into existence would be a God who determines everything having to do with that universe, and a God therefore whose thoughts can't be merely subjective because it is not possible for there to be any thoughts contradictory to His -- valid thoughts anyway. Subjectivity implies many valid points of view. Objectivity implies final judgment, Truth.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 04:49 PM

Yes, certainly, but I also believe that in general people are too quick to dismiss what others tell them about various things. I think the discrediting of the Bible witnesses parallels this unfortunate habit toward all kinds of people. Nevertheless, yes, you are right in the most important sense. Predominantly the credibility and integrity of thousands through the millennia who have believed them. I originally believed them by believing Christians who wrote about them.Is it called hearsay if someone tells you what they saw? I don't think so.

From the page on the fallacy: Do so then with the two possibilities Robin has declared to be the only two, and give an example. That is the test. So far many such examples have been offered on this topic and they are not genuine third options.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 04:53 PM

But I don't agree about that. Matthew, Mark, John and Peter among others were eyewitnesses. Because I'm more tough-minded than Phat?

The two being that 1) the universe always existed or 2) an eternal Being brought it into existence.It seems to me that the idea that any lesser god created the universe is just a subset of the idea of an eternal Being, requires that there be an eternal God that created it in its turn, so that effectually the eternal Being is still the Creator.And if the universe just started existing on its own, or even started and stopped a bazillion times, that's just a subset of the universe's always existing anyway.Perhaps it should be put:1) Universe is self-existent or self-creating2) Universe was brought into existence by all-powerful self-existent BeingBut if everybody thinks these two options don't suffice, how about seriously trying to make a list of all the options they think exist? In the end it seems to me they will all boil down to these two but by then maybe it will be more obvious to everyone that that is in fact the case. And if not then we should at least have a list that everybody can agree on.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 07:53 PM

Then that would be a subset of the Self-Existing Universe, from which all forms of life arise, which is basically the same idea most nontheistic evolutionists believe in.The question Robin is asking is whether there is a case against a Creator God of the Western Tradition kind, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and so on, basically the God creationists believe in, both Bibical and theist creationists.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 08:26 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 08:30 PM