Win Prizes Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

[Gethelred]

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack.

As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them.

If you've still got a live question posted to a christian, feel free to continue conversing for the time being.

Standard board rules apply.

 

[peetoo]

How far does that go?

So if life needed a creator. Who created that creator?

Legit question

 

[evolved2]

Complexity argument is the worst argument ever. if everything's designed, then complexity is not a hallmark of design. That's the assumption that the Watchmaker argument rests on - if something is complex, it must have been designed. But if everything, if existence itself and all the things in it, have been designed, then complexity is not a hallmark of design, because there are plenty of un-complex things that have also been designed.

how do you recognize design? Your wheels will start spinning when you can't distinguish between design and non-design, since everything is conveniently defined already as being designed. And so if everything is indistinguishable, what good is the word design anyway?

I'm still waiting to hear from GOTHELIONS16 if the creator is complex. If so, surely he was designed.

It's the question no creationist wants to answer.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I'm still waiting to hear from GOTHELIONS16 if the creator is complex. If so, surely he was designed.

It's the question no creationist wants to answer.

As I understand it the cope for this question is accepting the premise that there is a class of being outside of creation, sidestepping the question altogether.

I read about it in one of Alvin Plantinga's books, the reasoning he used (I think quoting Thomas Aquinas?) was that if we define time as infinite, and define 'things' as potentially being in a state of non-existence and existence, then stretched out over eternity there is an infinite number of possible combinations of 'things' being either existent or non-existent, and as such a hypothetical point in time where everything was simultaneously in a state of non-existence. If everything is simultaneously non-existent then nothing could trigger anything else coming into existence, therefore there has to be a category of 'thing' which can not be in a state of non-existence, and is therefore eternal and exempt from considerations of creation (e.g. God).

Plantinga himself acknowledges that the whole argument is built on a lot of suppositions. In any case even if any of the arguments for the logical possibility of God were full-proof that only justifies Deism and they are entirely irrelevant to any sort of Theistic Divine Revelation of Morality arguments which are (in my view) far more easily dismissed. It's quite common for religious people to abandon any defense of divine morality and instead defend deism which is mostly unrelated to their 'actual' worldview.

 

[evolved2]

As I understand it the cope for this question is accepting the premise that there is a class of being outside of creation, sidestepping the question altogether.

I read about it in one of Alvin Plantinga's books, the reasoning he used (I think quoting Thomas Aquinas?) was that if we define time as infinite, and define 'things' as potentially being in a state of non-existence and existence, then stretched out over eternity there is an infinite number of possible combinations of 'things' being either existent or non-existent, and as such a hypothetical point in time where everything was simultaneously in a state of non-existence. If everything is simultaneously non-existent then nothing could trigger anything else coming into existence, therefore there has to be a category of 'thing' which can not be in a state of non-existence, and is therefore eternal and exempt from considerations of creation (e.g. God).

Plantinga himself acknowledges that the whole argument is built on a lot of suppositions. In any case even if any of the arguments for the logical possibility of God were full-proof that only justifies Deism and they are entirely irrelevant to any sort of Theistic Divine Revelation of Morality arguments which are (in my view) far more easily dismissed. It's quite common for religious people to abandon any defense of divine morality and instead defend deism which is mostly unrelated to their 'actual' worldview.

Do you find merit to that argument, or is it just another form of special pleading?

 

[Richard Pryor]

Do you find merit to that argument, or is it just another form of special pleading?

I think it's interesting. I vaguely recall the concept that if there is a long enough time period then every combination of possible configuration of matter taking place becomes certain being a thing in chemistry.

If the presupposition that time is infinite is accepted then it is an entirely valid viewpoint logically I think, but it's like the Russell's teapot orbiting the moon thing. The obvious implication of that metaphor is that it can't be proven or disproven, but I think an equally important consideration is that whether it is true or not it has absolutely no impact on anyone's life.

God as a hypothetical philosophical concept is a very different beast to God as an anthropomorphic entity with a rulebook, and I think it is disingenuous when theists debate concepts relating to the former while pushing the idea of the latter.

I think at its core the argument is basically trying to establish that something could potentially exist which is entirely unobservable. The exercise of justifying this philosophically is not only unrelated but actively contradictory to the accompanying claim that certain people not only observe but actively communicate with this unobservable entity.

 

[Cuzz09]

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

It's not consistent.


No its not.


I said no such thing.


The 'legitimate word of God' as they saw it.

No they don't. Prophecies about Jesus or anyone else for that matter are nonsense.

The Gospel writers invented 'fulfilled prophecies' for Jesus, including his descent from David and it's clear the Gospels were theological constructs.

There are serious doubts and questions whether there was any fulfilled prophecy, much less any prophecy at all. Biblical so-called 'prophecy' in general is often so vague, it can be interpreted in a number of ways. The interpreter can therefore find a meaning in the words that is true to them or fulfils their agenda.

To give credibility to their new found religion, New Testament writers often distorted Old Testament scriptures or quoted them entirely out of context to shape them into "prophecies" that seemed to fit contemporary people and events they were writing about. The Gospel writers invented many of the deeds of a figure called Jesus to make it seem like he fulfilled 'prophecy'. For example the 'virgin' birth and the "prophecy" that Jesus was going to be a Nazarene. Another good example of this type is the "prophecy" by Micah, that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.

In particular the Gospel of Matthew's very purpose is to manufacture "prophecy" to convince its reader of the validity and 'truth' of Christianity. Whether any of it is actually historical truth is open to doubt.




No they don't.

The Old and New testament both point to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The message is consistent. Fact. There is an intricate web of references between books despite the books ranging across 1000 of years with many authors. You choose to deny it. Good for you.

 

[evolved2]

The Old and New testament both point to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The message is consistent. There is an intricate web of cross references, despite the books ranging across 1000 of years with many authors. Fact.

Why aren't Jews convinced? Why aren't Muslims convinced?

You choose to deny it. Good for you.

You continually choose to ignore the question that many atheists want you to answer.

Is god complex?

 

[Roylion]

The Old and New testament both point to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you're using so called prophecy to argue that the Old Testament somehow points to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then that is extremely weak evidence that it was in fact written for that purpose. That the Gospel authors (matthew in particular) invented deeds of Jesus Christ to fulfil so called 'prophecy' is very evident.

The message is consistent. Fact.

No it's not. Total Power has already pointed out the inconsistency to you already...a comment you have not addressed.

There is an intricate web of references between books despite the books ranging across 1000 of years with many authors.

Such as?

You choose to deny it. Good for you.

I see no evidence for it, other that what I have just said above.

 

[Toump Ass]

The message is consistent.

What message?

Both my grandparents and babysitter independently told me not to shove crayons up my nose, that's not evidence of God though is it.

 

[evolved2]

What message?

Both my grandparents and babysitter independently told me not to shove crayons up my nose, that's not evidence of God though is it.

I shoved crayons up my nose without being told to. Am I god?

 

[Total Power]

The Old and New testament both point to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

No it doesn't. If this was the case then Jews would accept Jesus as their saviour. Only Christians claim it does. Of course half the new testament is trying to tie Jesus to Old Testament prophecies. Christian apologists will claim that Jesus' birth and life events were all foretold in the old testament, which, considering how the New Testament was written, absolutely has to be true.

The problem is, while all the signs are there, Jesus never actually did the most important thing an OT Messiah was supposed to do. A Messiah is supposed to bring all the tribes of Israel back to their homeland (has not happened 2000 years and counting), get the entire world to worship Yahweh (has not happened yet), bring about everlasting peace, destroy all weapons of war, etc.

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

If you're using so called prophecy to argue that the Old Testament somehow points to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then that is extremely weak evidence that it was in fact written for that purpose. That the Gospel authors (matthew in particular) invented deeds of Jesus Christ to fulfil so called 'prophecy' is very evident.

No it is not weak evidence at all.

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

No it doesn't. If this was the case then Jews would accept Jesus as their saviour. Only Christians claim it does. Of course half the new testament is trying to tie Jesus to Old Testament prophecies. Christian apologists will claim that Jesus' birth and life events were all foretold in the old testament, which, considering how the New Testament was written, absolutely has to be true.

The problem is, while all the signs are there, Jesus never actually did the most important thing an OT Messiah was supposed to do. A Messiah is supposed to bring all the tribes of Israel back to their homeland (has not happened 2000 years and counting), get the entire world to worship Yahweh (has not happened yet), bring about everlasting peace, destroy all weapons of war, etc.

300 prophecies have been fulfilled. The remainder as described in Revelation will be fulfilled when Jesus returns.

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

Is god complex?

Of course, beyond human understanding.

 

[evolved2]

Of course, beyond human understanding.

Complexity is evidence of creation. Who created god?

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

Complexity is evidence of creation. Who created god?

God has always been, as I said, beyond our understanding.

 

[Richard Pryor]

The "Bible is too great to be written by humans" is pretty much identical to the Qur'an's literary properties being used as a proof of Islam's divinity. Which is a good illustration of how it's completely subjective reasoning which basically is a result of circular reasoning (starting with the conclusion it is divine then using the assumption as the proof).

 

[Toump Ass]

300 prophecies have been fulfilled. The remainder as described in Revelation will be fulfilled when Jesus returns.

LOL I just googled this.

You can't claim immaculate conception as a prophesy lol. Mary DEFINITELY copped some d.
Very good evidence she copped it a few times too, Jesus did have a brother after all.

 

[Boston tiger]

LOL I just googled this.

You can't claim immaculate conception as a prophesy lol. Mary DEFINITELY copped some d.
Very good evidence she copped it a few times too, Jesus did have a brother after all.

I don’t think you googled well enough. Immaculate conception has nothing to do with the virgin birth

 

[western royboy]

No it is not weak evidence at all.

You are 100% correct… it is no evidence

 

[Roylion]

300 prophecies have been fulfilled.

No they haven't been fulfilled at all. Gospel writers inventing deeds in their writings to supposedly fulfil 'prophecy'. For example the so-called 'prophecy' in Isaiah 7:14 is not about the Messiah, but rather about the birth of King Hezekiah of Judah.

Another good example is the "prophecy" by Micah, that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

The Gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this raises a couple of problems.

"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but quite possibly refers to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the grandson of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (2 Chronicles:50-52, 4:4).

The Gospel of Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. The author (or authors) of the Gospel of Matthew did this to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

Lo and behold the "prophecy" is fulfilled.

Statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels that supposedly foretell the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g., Mark 13:14, Luke 21:20) and its temple are other examples. The siege of Jerusalem in which the Temple was destroyed occurred in AD 70. The Gospel of Mark was written after AD 70 while the composition of the Gospel of Luke is dated to AD 80–90. Clearly not prophesies.

Isaiah 45:1 predicting that "Babylon's gates would open for Cyrus" (which occurred in 539 BC) was actually written after 537 BC but often claimed to have been written 140 years before the event. This by definition is not a prophesy.

Christopher Hitchens summed it up very well:

"If you pick up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before you learn that such and such an action or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so that an ancient prophecy should come true. If it should seem odd that an action should be deliberately performed in order that a foretelling be vindicated, that is because it is odd. And it is necessarily odd because, just like the Old Testament, the "New" one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right."

The remainder as described in Revelation will be fulfilled when Jesus returns.

I see no reason to accept "Jesus" will ever return. In any case the veracity of these so called 'prophecies' are yet to be determined.

 

[Roylion]

God has always been, as I said, beyond our understanding.

Therefore beyond our knowledge including whether it exists at all.

 

[Toump Ass]

I don’t think you googled well enough. Immaculate conception has nothing to do with the virgin birth

I googled 300 prophecies fulfilled and the third or fourth listed was Jesus being born from a virgin.

Come on. There’s brainwashed and then there’s swallowing that lol.

 

[Boston tiger]

I googled 300 prophecies fulfilled and the third or fourth listed was Jesus being born from a virgin.

Come on. There’s brainwashed and then there’s swallowing that lol.

But that’s not what immaculate conception means .. it has nothing to do with Jesus being born from a virgin.
Immaculate conception relates to the birth of Mary.