If you are interested in previous blogs, click on the Archive-month button and then the RSS feed button
Christian people, when we ask them of proof of God’s existence, usually request that we should “prove” The non-existence of God. The following discussion is about an article that recently appeared in CHARISMANEWS, titled “7 Things That Prove God Exists”. It talks about, babies, thunderstorms, flowers, the bible, the global spread of Christianity, Jesus and personal friendship with God. None of witch shows any factual proof of god’s existence. Here follows an exchange with one of the more rational posters, which is much more interesting than what some of the other “it’s in the Book” believers posted.
I've been following your posts, and I am going to jump in here a bit. You seem to continually come back to the argument that you can logically prove that no God exists by reasoning: Because there are multiple religions and they all claim to be correct and the others wrong, therefore all of them must be incorrect.
Please explain this - why cannot one be correct?
Welcome to the debate, the more the merrier. To answer your question? How are you going to chose the correct one? If there was a god they would all be substantially the same logically speaking. Go pick one and convince me that's the one.
Ok, so what are you now saying? Can one of them be correct or not?
One of them correct? Which one? Yours of course, but all the others say you are wrong. If you were right, then most of humanity living and dead would have never had a chance to get "the message". I presume you are one of the Christian factions, if not , it still holds. Your religion is very "young" at 2000 years If the earth is 8000 years old that would mean most people, and if it is older, nearly all people, who died before would not have a chance to believe in your god and the conditions he set to enter heaven and will end up in hell. Doesn't seem logical that any god would think that a fair choice now, doesn't it, so, repeat that kind of reasoning to all religions and factions of those religions you can only come to one logical conclusion. No god.
Sorry Ben, I still don't get your reasoning. How is it logical that none of the religions can be correct / true? Why cannot one of them be true? Hypothetically, lets say a murder was committed and only 10 people could possibly have done it. Now if all of them claim that "I didn't do it." and you apply your reasoning, then "logically" none of them did it...
Or what about science. We sometimes have different theories for the way things work, and if you apply your reasoning - then they are all false because they are contradictory. Just because there is contradictory claims about truth, does not necessarily mean there is no truth.
How do you come to this conclusion LOGICALLY
Doesn't fly. Your proposition already has proof that Only 10 people could have done it, so it is than logical that one of them did. Now take ten people where you don't know that any of them have done it. Why would you pick out those ten people. Suspicion is created by some facts, not pure randomness. Logical conclusion? No suspect even! Second Example Science, Now you are assuming that there are no facts that point to any of the assumptions then there are no conclusions to be drawn and they are akin to speculations (like religions) Thus totally useless. They will not be called "theories" A theory is based on facts and when all the facts are not known theories are formed to be able to lead to directions to do more research then some theories are discarded or strengthened. The word theory is misused as being speculations which they are not. Speculations can be made out of thin air (often done). Theories must have a basis of facts to start out with. No religion has such a basis.
Ben, forget about the hypotheticals and address the point. How do you conclude all religions are incorrect because they contradict each other? How does this exclude the possibility that one can be correct? Similarly, one of the ten could have done it, or one of the scientific theories could be correct. Just because there are contradictions, it does not automatically follow that they are all false...
I don't know if you know about “probability theory" (not “speculation”, but I will try to explain using your example. If you take ten people at random out of the world population, what is the probability that the "murderer" is among them? About 8,000,000,000 to 10. and that is presuming that you know as an unshakable FACT that a murder took place. So if you don't have that one fact, the probability is Zero. (same for any ratio, even 2 to 1). None of the religions have one unshakable fact, although many "believe" they do, such as the writer of the Seven Things That Prove God Is Real in the CharismaNews magazine, but these "facts" do not convince anybody, who does not believe. Opinions, feelings,speculations, fantasies, hallucinations, mass hypnosis, are not rational facts.
Christian people, when we ask them of proof of God’s existence, usually request that we should “prove” The non-existence of God. The following discussion is about an article that recently appeared in CHARISMANEWS, titled “7 Things That Prove God Exists”. It talks about, babies, thunderstorms, flowers, the bible, the global spread of Christianity, Jesus and personal friendship with God. None of witch shows any factual proof of god’s existence. Here follows an exchange with one of the more rational posters, which is much more interesting than what some of the other “it’s in the Book” believers posted.
I've been following your posts, and I am going to jump in here a bit. You seem to continually come back to the argument that you can logically prove that no God exists by reasoning: Because there are multiple religions and they all claim to be correct and the others wrong, therefore all of them must be incorrect.
Please explain this - why cannot one be correct?
Welcome to the debate, the more the merrier. To answer your question? How are you going to chose the correct one? If there was a god they would all be substantially the same logically speaking. Go pick one and convince me that's the one.
Ok, so what are you now saying? Can one of them be correct or not?
One of them correct? Which one? Yours of course, but all the others say you are wrong. If you were right, then most of humanity living and dead would have never had a chance to get "the message". I presume you are one of the Christian factions, if not , it still holds. Your religion is very "young" at 2000 years If the earth is 8000 years old that would mean most people, and if it is older, nearly all people, who died before would not have a chance to believe in your god and the conditions he set to enter heaven and will end up in hell. Doesn't seem logical that any god would think that a fair choice now, doesn't it, so, repeat that kind of reasoning to all religions and factions of those religions you can only come to one logical conclusion. No god.
Sorry Ben, I still don't get your reasoning. How is it logical that none of the religions can be correct / true? Why cannot one of them be true? Hypothetically, lets say a murder was committed and only 10 people could possibly have done it. Now if all of them claim that "I didn't do it." and you apply your reasoning, then "logically" none of them did it...
Or what about science. We sometimes have different theories for the way things work, and if you apply your reasoning - then they are all false because they are contradictory. Just because there is contradictory claims about truth, does not necessarily mean there is no truth.
How do you come to this conclusion LOGICALLY
Doesn't fly. Your proposition already has proof that Only 10 people could have done it, so it is than logical that one of them did. Now take ten people where you don't know that any of them have done it. Why would you pick out those ten people. Suspicion is created by some facts, not pure randomness. Logical conclusion? No suspect even! Second Example Science, Now you are assuming that there are no facts that point to any of the assumptions then there are no conclusions to be drawn and they are akin to speculations (like religions) Thus totally useless. They will not be called "theories" A theory is based on facts and when all the facts are not known theories are formed to be able to lead to directions to do more research then some theories are discarded or strengthened. The word theory is misused as being speculations which they are not. Speculations can be made out of thin air (often done). Theories must have a basis of facts to start out with. No religion has such a basis.
Ben, forget about the hypotheticals and address the point. How do you conclude all religions are incorrect because they contradict each other? How does this exclude the possibility that one can be correct? Similarly, one of the ten could have done it, or one of the scientific theories could be correct. Just because there are contradictions, it does not automatically follow that they are all false...
I don't know if you know about “probability theory" (not “speculation”, but I will try to explain using your example. If you take ten people at random out of the world population, what is the probability that the "murderer" is among them? About 8,000,000,000 to 10. and that is presuming that you know as an unshakable FACT that a murder took place. So if you don't have that one fact, the probability is Zero. (same for any ratio, even 2 to 1). None of the religions have one unshakable fact, although many "believe" they do, such as the writer of the Seven Things That Prove God Is Real in the CharismaNews magazine, but these "facts" do not convince anybody, who does not believe. Opinions, feelings,speculations, fantasies, hallucinations, mass hypnosis, are not rational facts.
RSS Feed