The problem with debates between atheists and most theists is that so much of the disagreement boils down to their opinion of the truth of the bible. And of course if the bible is true, the atheists are instant losers.

But most theists don't just allude to the bible as evidence for a personal God. So I wonder whether they think they have a good case without using it. I mean suppose God had chosen to wait until the year 3000 to reveal himself as the bible does. Could present day theists still have a chance to beat both atheists and deists in a debate? I include deists because I want to take the something out of nothing argument off the table. That is scant evidence by itself for a personal god.

Sklansky, this means nothing. Who cares about this, honestly. Just live your life and stop talking about this bull.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...y-book-391828/

I don't think we have a good case without it DS. Its our reference point. We lose our history, our goal nature and our knowledge of God and Christ's divine nature if we don't have it. We don't know where we came from and where we are going minus it.

First reply wins the thread. Splendour's reply a close second.

I would give the edge to the theists.

We have no working physics at the time the universe was created(if it was created). That means we have no rules to guide our thoughts concerning how the universe came into being. That makes it very difficult to for atheist to put together a logical argument why there isn't a God/shouldn't be a God. They can't even fall back to Occam's razor because that requires observation.

Theist on the other hand could argue we are the product of a god of Simulation Hypothesis or an Omega point type God. Such models are consistent with observations and our physics. Such models even explain the spookyness of quantum mechanics.

Atheist have tools to attack articles of devine revealation, but they are pretty powerless to attack the concept of God himself.

Now one could say I'm making a diestic case and not an theistic one because if God exists we should see his effects in the present day world. However, all it takes to move from deism to theism is one act from God that changed the course after creation. If all God did was nudge that asteriod that wiped out all the dinosaurs 65 million years ago he is no longer deistic but theistic. The theistic God can be just as hidden from us as the deistic God.

If atheists are unable to attack deism than they are unable to attack theism for the very same reasons unless theism includes elements of devine revelation which can be pointed too and refuted.

Finally, theist get to point to human consciousness and apparent free will as evidence of a personal God and I think thats enough to break the stalemate and tip things thier way.

I concur. Wait....... oh, really. I do.

umm... they would use the Qur’an instead?

Deism doesn't mean impersonal god (life force or whatever), but non-intervening god. Some deists do believe in impersonal but can also believe in a personal god who started the ball rolling then went away(Sklanskianity).

Anyway, Christianity depends almost exclusively on revelation (the Bible) given a personal God established through natural theology, but I think the argument for a personal god > impersonal god (meaning v. non-meaning, rationality v. irrationality, morality v. non-morality,etc).

All of your posts in the atheists are silly thread make so much more sense now. You're under the impression that people should have to provide evidence not to believe in something.

Random ass guesses count as evidence now?

Yes you're right. We are powerless to attack unfalsifiable concepts.

I'll file this one away with your unfalsifiable guesswork as well. Do you really think that because we can't show that God has never intervened that it's evidence for his existence?

God of the gaps? Really?

I didn't like the first post in this thread:

"Sklansky, this means nothing. Who cares about this, honestly. Just live your life and stop talking about this bull."

This statement could be said about most things we all do. Sklansky IS living his life. He talks about "this bull" because he enjoys doing so.

its bull b/c you think its bull. immature minds tend to make up stuff that they see fit w/o really understanding anything in the 1st place.

you must've ran out of captain chronic.

Wow, this is probable the worst post i have seen out DS. The idea makes no sense at all. Over the course of human history people have collected all the evidence they have of a God respresented in the bible. Then all the evidence was compiled into one place so that everyone can view it. The compilation of all the evidence from many different sources, different people, different time period, different books, letters is all collected are reprinted in one place were you can view it all the bible.


Lawyer walks into the court. He is has his brief case. He open his brief case and being to produce all his recored documentation, from 100 different witness, experts.. to build case. DS says, you only have one souce this "brief case" don't use your brief case and make your case. You have any other evidence. /facepalm

Justin, you misrepresent my position in the other thread. I think its silly when atheists believe in an unseen and unexplainable Universe Generating Mechanism and then turn around and criticize a theist for believing in an unseen and unexplained God.

I don't think there is anything silly about one not believing in God because one hasn't seen evidence he deems credible.

I never offered those world veiws(simulation hypothesis and the Omega Point God) as evidence of the existence of God. Again you're misrepresenting my position. I offered those as theistic world veiws which match the observed world around us. If you re-read my post the only thing I threw out there as evidence of God's existence is human consciousness.


Geewiz, it was an example to show how little intervening God has to do in order to move from being deistic to theistic. I'm truely stunned that flew right over your head.


Thats pretty much the argument for theism in a nutshell. You can't completely explain the world without God. Atheists can chip away at that but they can never show the theistic position untenable. The atheistic worldveiw is an always will be incomplete.

Intelligent Christians are cringing at your post. There is nothing going on around you right now that you wouldn't consider evidence for a personal God? Even atheists would admit there is.

Actually, I cringed (edit: though not a fundamentalist Christian) at the post based on the fact that Carded seems to have a hugely distorted view of what the Bible is, even if it is indeed the divine revelation of God.

Even in that case, it's still a Jewish text, written with the needs of the Jewish people in mind (in the OT) and how people can understand and relate to the Creator God (both OT and NT helps with this).

The Bible is absolutely not "[all the] collected evidence they have of a God." In a huge facepalm, even The Bible itself refutes this, as Romans 1 (specifically verse 1:20, although as always, context is good) claims that the evidence for the existence of God is so pervasive in the natural world, since the very beginning of creation, that all men are without excuse.

Also, it's a solid facepalm to claim that "The compilation of all the evidence from many different sources" is true in the context of the post. Yes, there are many sources in the Bible, but believing that it is an exhaustive compilation of knowledge, rather than understanding the cultural context in which the book (or the books, if you prefer) was written, is just ignorant.

david - seriously, what do you think when you read posts like this?

do they crack you up or do you just ignore them now?

Errr, actually the expert reports would not be admissible unless the experts themselves took the stand to testify. That's kinda the point -- or at least one of them.

peace, love, happiness, goodness, etc.

I think you're comparing all Christians with Christians that are serious students of science. With a strong knowledge of science you could find something in the natural world to suggest God.

Or if you had an overwhelming sense of spirit or intuition harnessed to the right degree of intellect, perception and analytical ability you might be able to sense a personal God.

But these are outliers doing some very extended analysis. Because today even the more scientific Christians tend to check nature against the bible.

what? maybe im misunderstanding, but are you saying that when scientific christians sees something in nature that is contradictory to the bible that it is nature that must be incorrect or inconsistent? this makes no sense to me...

No I'm not saying that.

Some Christian scientists tend to be like the Dalai Lama and say where science is strong religion must give way but then there are some that think God got it right and we haven't fully understood all his scientific principles yet. There's a whole spectrum of opinion here and its apt to vary by individual, amount of training and scientific area of study.

Saying "I don't know" isn't the same thing as what you're making it. You're trying to attach a creator to atheism -the Universe Generating Mechanism - and it makes you sound stupid.

Stop trying to bring us down to your level please.

Can't completely explain the world without the Flying Spaghetti Monster so that is my argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Seriously, why is it so hard for theists to just say they don't know?

And the question of how the universe came about will probably be incomplete for a long, long time - and maybe will never be answered to humans walking the Earth. That doesn't justify saying 'goddidit'.

I think people have to understand that outside of the Bible there is no truth. All truth is rooted in the Bible. There is no proving God without the Bible because God is the word. When God created the universe he spoke it into existence. Nature is a reflection of the character of God; likewise the word. Science, math, physics etc. are all reflections of the character of God.

If an incomplete worldview means you can't completely explain the world, then yes the atheistic worldview will always be incomplete. I don't see why you insist on using weird definitions such as that one though.

What good is a complete worldview (by your definition) if it's based on guesses?