Hmmm, I wonder why that is. A religion is founded on an unfalsifiable claim and then states that it is correct (by default) if the claim can't be disproven.

A.J. Jacobs

My favorite quote from him:

"I'm Jewish in the same sense that The Olive Garden is Italian."

What about religious cults that take themselves out in mass suicides... or suicide bombers (aka martyrs to Muslims)? These acts are obviously not possible without a fervent belief in a God or some sort of afterlife. How are their actions labeled as misguided but your stated examples are something more than misguided and holier than thou?

This is where I believe you have the wrong impression of me. I don't need God to be happy, I need God to be fulfilled. Such as others do. Understand that Gods Word is my life, not my belief. In order for this to be, I must hold His will above mine and His will is for everyone, everyone, to accept Him. So as you call it arrogance for me to suggest that I could say what others need, it is not really so. It is that God says none are complete without Him, so I am in fact presenting you with His Word, not mine.

Yes, I got myself into drugs. Others get themselves into other things. Some people manage to live a pretty decent life, BUT, none are complete. And I say that none are complete because my Father in Heaven says so. My words are not to cause your patients to run thin on me but rather to open the door of a perfect life. The perfect life being Gods life. Your worldly life cannot be perfect but If your Guiders is, then your capable of being led down the path that leads your life to the fullest it can be.

And I know this for fact. If you choose what it is that you wish for your own life, you will only obtain what you are capable of. But a belief in God allows you to sacrifice (which you would do under no other circumstance) what is needed to obtain that higher level. That higher level isn't present in your current state of mind because you are unaware of it. But it is there.

Oh this is such an art, and almost impossible for me to describe. It is the mere fact that having a love for God really means having a love for oneself. And when that love is obtained, you want the best for it. My daughter, is the most beautiful creation I have ever seen in my entire life and I would go past the human limits to secure her. Because of love. This love is the love that God presents into one who accepts Him. It happens in an unexplainable way. But once this love is established, you have the courage, power, and knowledge to go past the human limits to secure yourself. And this simply CANNOT be done without HIM.

I do not lack respect for others. It is the other way around. I want others to feel this because it is this Love that has the possibility to change the world. The world my daughter will grow up in. I truly mean this. This unselfish love for oneself transcends the human limits and if we all possessed it, the world would change. But it takes determination. It takes a set-in-stone man to walk through adversity and stand up to his persecutors to tell them, TELL THEM, what they need.

I am not just one who sits in front of this screen and likes to dictate. Everyday I wake up to acheive a little more that God has planned for me. My life is dedicated to proving this message of Love. And when I accomplish what it is that God tells me I can, it will be proof that mankind can transcend the human limits to acheive what is possible under only one condition, Gods Love.

So Justin A, I hope you are not done with this debate, sincerely. Because if you want even a glimpse of what can be reality for your life, I will try my best to present it in a way that grabs your attention.

Your examples fail the Love of Self requirement of the Gospel, and are instead motivated by hate or other nefarious things. I've addressed this earlier in the thread.

From earlier:

The fact that someone in history has been motivated to do good by the bible is not evidence of anything at all. It's trivial to present the exact same "evidence" for Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. Also, it's completely irrational to say that the bible deserves credit only when Christians do good things, but not when they do bad.

I would like to demonstrate how these examples are a poor argument not only for the existence of a deity but also for the benefits of religion/ faith/ belief in such a deity. I am going to do this by looking at the sickening irony of Father Michael Judge's example:

Father Michael Judge died as a result of two selfless faith inspired acts. One act was the hi-jacking and suicidal flying of a passenger aircraft into south tower by deeply religious men who must have truly believed they were doing God's work. The second was his brave and indeed heroic attempt to administer last rights to the dead and dying within the North Tower which he must also have truly believed was God's work.

For me this example highlights the weakness of using faith inspired acts as proof of a Deity or indeed as proof of any benefit in such a belief.

I hope this example shows what i feel is the great irony of faith. I also feel that Father Michael Judge would have understood something of this irony as a homosexual member of the Catholic Church which must have been a great test for him on a daily basis and which only serves to further demonstrate the strength of his faith and convictions.

The resurrection is easily falsifiable. Find the body or provide convincing evidence that you something happened to the body other than what was claimed.

Here's another thought: I don't know why it's so hard for atheists to accept theistic unfalsifiable claims. The presupposition of the non-existence of God is on the same philosophical level. At some point, you will make an unfalsifiable claim about the universe in any systematic worldview construction.

These "rational" people demand "rational" proof. Just give up, no amount of (theological) evidence will pass the tests they mustered.

Don't fall into the trap. There are already atheists in this thread that freely interchange the word "evidence" and the word "proof". It is clear what they are aiming for and it should be clear that theists simply can not provide this.

Just let them make their argument and force their scientific modus operandi on the theists futily. Sure when atheists assume the scientific method is the sole way to establishing truths and that classical logic can describe God or evidence for God: sure, then there is no meaningful evidence for any religion.

Religion and Gods do not function inside a valid method of deduction. So? Let's force the theists to try to use a valid method of deduction to provide arguments and proof for religion or Gods...

If people living good lives does not suffice for evidence for the correct modus of reverance, then the apparent absence of God's acts to the non-believer can't function as evidence for atheism as well.

The practice of reasoned argumentation has value even if there is little end result from this particular argument. The practice of articulating the reasons one believes here will strengthen the ability to do it with persons with whom you have an actual relationship, with those whose lives you may actually be able to impact.

-----

I also agree that false equivalents must be pointed out as they arise to keep both sides honest.

It also seems clear at this point that the so-called "evidence against religion" had a gaping logical hole in it, which is why the fatal flaw in that argument has not been addressed or amended.

In light of the Father Judge example, I expected the counterpoint of the 9/11 terrorists doing something *similar*. My main thesis is that according to the Gospel, God is Love. Love enabled Father Judge to storm the tower to care for the fallen, selflessly, epitomizing the Gospel and validating its message. That the hijackers were "Faith inspired" is where the comparison ends. Following their faith to extreme ends produced nothing but hate, bitterness, suffering, death, and destruction. As I've stated earlier, suicide, even for the noble monk self immolating as a form of protest, is a grave sin that violates the Commandment of Love of Self. The fact that the hijackers used their own suicides to kill 3000 Americans compounds the evil of their act. As for arguing that the hijackers were *selfless*, go ahead. If you think killing yourself to wreak incalcuable human suffering is somehow selfless, not many will agree with you IMO. If you want to, on the other hand, argue that hate and evil can inspire, at least on some level, equally extraordinary things (which I think is what you're trying to do), then I concede the point.

In light of Father Judge's homosexuality, I might add he fully supported the Church's teaching on the subject. Further, Father Judge was a paragon of the celebate lifestyle that God calls our brothers and sisters with a homosexual orientation to lead.

A recent argument for the existence of God is intelligent design, which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the traditional argument from design, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.

Because Christians who do "bad" things on account of the Bible obviously screw up and distort the Gospel's message (God is Love). I'm not throwing the baby out w/the bathwater because *some* Christians get it wrong.

[x] I am a devout Catholic, who like fellow Catholic and renowned biologist Dr. Ken Miller, believes strongly in evolution.

[x] I want nothing to do with the ID movement

[x] ID is a bad place to take this thread...numerous existing ones are a better spot

Easily falsifiable?!

Okay, how true is this claim:

There were 20 other cases of crucifixions before Jesus and they all rose from the dead too. If you can't find the bodies or any evidence that they didn't rise from the dead, then I'm right.

So...

God == all that is good
and
Christian == someone who only does the good things from the Bible

At least you're not making the definitions self-fulfilling or anything.

Give me a reasonable reason to believe that anyone during that time made such a claim, and that they were not proven to be wrong.

An equivalent to this would be the following: In 300 years, somebody looks back and tries to prove OJ Simpson was not responsible for some unsolved murder spree in 1997. (After the trial was over)

Take a look at the contemporary evidence.

What? The two areas of beliefs is a total contradiction and you are making a mockery of the bible and of God. IMO

Point is that you're asking for something that cannot be done as falsifiable evidence.

Did Jesus leave fingerprints?
Did Jesus leave DNA samples?
If we found a skeleton of Jesus, what would it look like?

Tell me ONE SINGLE WAY to verify what you're asking for.

Contemporary evidence.

You are temporally bound to the year 2009 AD. You are trying to assess the state of the world in about 32 AD. You have to recognize the limitations of your historical situation.

Pope John Paul II disagrees with you

Don't shift the goalpost. You just said that the resurrection is easily falsifiable. The fact that we're in 2009 makes that a ridiculous statement.

As a contrast, think of all the possible ways that the resurrection could be false to begin with.

1) There was no crucifixion.
2) There was no Jesus.
3) People lied about where he was buried.
4) Someone removed the body.
5) People didn't check the gravesite until long after the body decomposed.
6) Stories got exaggerated.
7) etc.
8) ....

I mean, people still make **** up and exaggerate stories nowadays. It's not reasonable to ask for evidence of your claim??

Our House, do you want to believe differently then you do now? Do you want to be convinced that it's plausible God exists? You know it's a matter of fact that no one here can give you proof, I mean actual physical proof, so can you settle for that?

Or are you trying to present a case that proves God doesn't exist? Because I'm pretty sure you know as well it's a matter of fact that you cannot do that.

So then I wonder one of two things which are either that you want to see something that allows you an experience of enlightenment, or you just want to argue.

I think I would rather take the word of the bible than of any pope/man.

http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp