Atheist objections to evidence for God's existence

[brakelite]

brakelite,

What is the evidence Romans 1:18-20 states to demonstrate God's existence?

Oz

Everything we see around us. The choice a non believer makes I guess is whether to accept or reject the obvious. Again, it's a matter of desire. Do they want to accept the truth, or reject it because in the famous words of that great scientist,Al Gore, some truth is inconvenient.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BGE,

There is no need to go into a lengthy explanation of your theory of knowledge - epistemology. Please tell me if you accept historical science and the investigation of the actions of Abraham Lincolcoln (USA), James Cook (Australia), Adolph Hitler (Germany), and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Oz

I accept historical evidence that has an implicit empirical basis. For example, I can accept that a Jewish apocalyptic preacher named "Yeshua" could have existed and may have died from being crucified by the Romans. This is because we know from examining ancient records that there were men named "Yeshua" who existed during the 1st century in that part of the world, we know from reviewing contemporary manuscripts that there were numerous apocalyptic preachers roaming around, we've discovered a few 1st century human bones buried in the area that featured wounds consistent with the descriptions of how Roman's crucified people, and we know from studying biology that the human body is unlikely to survive the crucifixion process. Now, having an implicit empirical basis to justify the belief that a Jewish apocalyptic preacher named "Yeshua" who was crucified probably existed does not demonstrate that the "Jesus" character described in the New Testament actually existed. The possibility that the Biblical character of Jesus may be a legendary version of a historical Jesus or an amalgamation of several apocalyptic preachers cannot be ruled-out because the development of legendary characters from historical persons has an implicit empirical basis as well.

However, I cannot accept historical claims that do not have an implicit empirical basis because there is no way to know if what is being claimed could have actually occurred as described. For instance, we cannot know if it is possible for someone to supernaturally resurrect after being dead for approximately 36 hours because all of our observations consistently indicate that long-dead corpses tend to stay dead. If Jesus was the only person to have ever been resurrected after being a corpse for about 36 hours, then that isolated occurrence more than 2,000 years ago at a time when it was not possible to scientifically validate and record the event prevents us from knowing if the claim is true or just a legendary account. Unfortunately, ancient eyewitness testimony will never be sufficient to validate historical claims which have no implicit empirical basis. We can only accept eyewitness accounts for historical claims that have an implicit empirical basis.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BGE,

Do you know how to turn people OFF reading and responding to your posts? Do what you did here with 5 lengthy posts on your view of epistemology?

This is not a forum for Stanford University's degrees in philosophy.

Oz

Well, the question you asked required a highly nuanced answer to be properly understood. I've been burned before for not having clearly articulated my perspective and prefer not to be burned again.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Who said so?

Are you telling us that the design of the universe recognised by NASA scientists is not related to the complexity of the universe?

NASA has examined the 'complex molecular universe'.

The word "design" is a loaded term in that it implies agency and should be avoided until it can be objectively established that an agent designed the universe. Scientific recognition of complexity does not imply agency. There are many examples of complex things which occur naturally.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

I don't know about all that, but you just described the severity of your ignorance.

Your ignorance about the greater sum of life, is not the measure of it, but rather--just your own part.

Thanks for your transparent confession!

If you don't understand something I've written, please just indicate as such and I'll try to clarify it for you. If you can disprove something I've written, then please demonstrate where it is false. If you are frustrated by something I've written, please explain why it frustrates you and we can try to work through it. However, it is neither honest nor productive to deploy ad-hominem attacks against me when I've been patient and polite with you.

 

[ScottA]

If you don't understand something I've written, please just indicate as such and I'll try to clarify it for you. If you can disprove something I've written, then please demonstrate where it is false. If you are frustrated by something I've written, please explain why it frustrates you and we can try to work through it. However, it is neither honest nor productive to deploy ad-hominem attacks against me when I've been patient and polite with you.

I didn't mean I don't understand the problem--I do. Your going of on a tangent that does not have anything to do with the problem, on the other hand, I have no need or intention of delving into. It is pointless--which was my point.

The point is, you are acting like a blind person expecting to get proof of sunsets, and at the same time going on and on with intellectual ideas and philosophies that do not change your own deficit position. And I am not picking on you...we are ALL in the same situation--we're getting a second chance, but with certain stipulations.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

I didn't mean I don't understand the problem--I do. Your going of on a tangent that does not have anything to do with the problem, on the other hand, I have no need or intention of delving into. It is pointless--which was my point.

The point is, you are acting like a blind person expecting to get proof of sunsets, and at the same time going on and on with intellectual ideas and philosophies that do not change your own deficit position. And I am not picking on you...we are ALL in the same situation--we're getting a second chance, but with certain stipulations.

I propose we simplify this conversation a bit. Let's begin with a single Christian claim that you believe is true and describe a reliable reason other people should agree to share your belief.

 

[ScottA]

I propose we simplify this conversation a bit. Let's begin with a single Christian claim that you believe is true and describe a reliable reason other people should agree to share your belief.

Okay.

But let me remind you to pay attention (because I already repeatedly have told you I do not "believe").

Now that we are clear on that: I do not have "a single Christian claim that I believe." On the contrary, I "know" of what I speak.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Okay.

But let me remind you to pay attention (because I already repeatedly have told you I do not "believe").

Now that we are clear on that: I do not have "a single Christian claim that I believe." On the contrary, I "know" of what I speak.

Please describe the objective and reliable method you use to distinguish knowledge from belief.

 

[ScottA]

Please describe the objective and reliable method you use to distinguish knowledge from belief.

I could not call my objective position a "method", that would assume that I have done something when I have not. I did do something to arrive at that position, but I did nothing to distinguish the knowledge. Such is the nature of revelation (from God).

So, if you truly want to learn of this nature and the means by which men can know things beyond the realm of men...denial will be a continual roadblock.

Given the terms as I have described, what would you like to do, stop, or press on?

 

[OzSpen]

Well, the question you asked required a highly nuanced answer to be properly understood. I've been burned before for not having clearly articulated my perspective and prefer not to be burned again.

No it didn't. Five small paragraphs would have done it. By doing it that way, you would have encouraged people to come back for more of your writings.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

I could not call my objective position a "method", that would assume that I have done something when I have not. I did do something to arrive at that position, but I did nothing to distinguish the knowledge. Such is the nature of revelation (from God).

So, if you truly want to learn of this nature and the means by which men can know things beyond the realm of men...denial will be a continual roadblock.

Given the terms as I have described, what would you like to do, stop, or press on?

When two people with competing theological beliefs each claim to have received knowledge directly from God through the process of divine revelation, how does an objective observer determine which person actually received knowledge from God and which person is mistaken or if they are both mistaken?

 

[OzSpen]

I accept historical evidence that has an implicit empirical basis.... However, I cannot accept historical claims that do not have an implicit empirical basis because there is no way to know if what is being claimed could have actually occurred as described.

BGE,

That's an oxymoron. Empirical evidence is based on observation and repeatability. That did not happen with Jesus Christ and there cannot be an 'implicit empirical basis' as Jesus lived and died once and for all (1 Peter 3:18). How do we know? We apply the same criteria for historical investigation for the NT as we do for the History of Australia (Manning Clark) and the destruction of the twin towers in NYC in 2001.

What are the criteria used to demonstrate historical reliability?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The word "design" is a loaded term in that it implies agency and should be avoided until it can be objectively established that an agent designed the universe. Scientific recognition of complexity does not imply agency. There are many examples of complex things which occur naturally.

BGE,

That's your view. It's not mine. My grand-daughter and her instructor design and practise roller skating prowess that have earned her national titles in Australia for a teenager. Too speak of not using 'design' in this regard is a joke. There is agency in the roller skating design for winning techniques.

You stated that 'scientific recognition of complexity does not imply agency' and then you conclude: 'There are many examples of complex things which occur naturally'. So here you attribute complex designs to that 'which occur(s) naturally'. You attribute the design to nature.

Your presuppositions are shouting and you can't see the paradox in what you write.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

When two people with competing theological beliefs each claim to have received knowledge directly from God through the process of divine revelation, how does an objective observer determine which person actually received knowledge from God and which person is mistaken or if they are both mistaken?

Which kind of 'knowledge directly from God' are you referring to? Is it through the Scriptures or through experiential 'God spoke to me' or some other means?

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BGE,

That's an oxymoron. Empirical evidence is based on observation and repeatability. That did not happen with Jesus Christ and there cannot be an 'implicit empirical basis' as Jesus lived and died once and for all (1 Peter 3:18). How do we know? We apply the same criteria for historical investigation for the NT as we do for the History of Australia (Manning Clark) and the destruction of the twin towers in NYC in 2001.

What are the criteria used to demonstrate historical reliability?

Oz

The term "implicit empirical basis" means the objects and events described in the claim have been demonstrated to empirically exist in other contexts even if we cannot directly observe the exact objects and events from the historical claim itself. For instance, imagine someone claims a window in a house located on the next block was broken last year by a baseball that was thrown at it. You did not directly observe the window being broken by the baseball last year, but you have personally observed glass being broken when impacted by solid objects in other situations. Your past experiences with solid objects breaking glass serves as an "implicit" empirical basis for the claim about the window being broken by a baseball last year. You could also recreate the described event with another window and a baseball to observe if the consequences are consistent with those from the historical claim to know if it has an implicit empirical basis. Now, if someone claimed a baseball passed directly through a closed window without breaking the glass, there would be no implicit empirical basis by which we could justify belief in that claim.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

BGE,

That's your view. It's not mine. My grand-daughter and her instructor design and practise roller skating prowess that have earned her national titles in Australia for a teenager. Too speak of not using 'design' in this regard is a joke. There is agency in the roller skating design for winning techniques.

You stated that 'scientific recognition of complexity does not imply agency' and then you conclude: 'There are many examples of complex things which occur naturally'. So here you attribute complex designs to that 'which occur(s) naturally'. You attribute the design to nature.

Your presuppositions are shouting and you can't see the paradox in what you write.

Oz

We know intelligent agency is behind the design of roller skates because we've observed intelligent agents designing and producing roller skates. We don't observe roller skates occurring naturally. So, in that context, it is appropriate to use the word "design." Yes, when a complex thing occurs naturally, the "design" of that thing is attributed to nature in the sense that it developed through natural processes without input from an intelligent agent. There is no paradox within that view, only intellectual honesty. To presuppose a naturally occurring but complex thing was intelligently designed is to unnecessarily import an additional, unnecessary, and unfalsifiable assumption. If there is an intelligent agent responsible for the design of naturally occurring complex things, that claim has not yet been observed or demonstrated to be the case. Only after someone observes or demonstrates an intelligent agent designing and producing the complex things that otherwise occur naturally will the "intelligent design" claim have an implicit empirical basis, not before.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Which kind of 'knowledge directly from God' are you referring to? Is it through the Scriptures or through experiential 'God spoke to me' or some other means?

I fail to understand how the sources of the claims about divine revelation make a difference since all such claims are inherently based on personal experiences. The Scriptures are just the written descriptions of divine revelation claims from the authors who wrote those texts based on their subjective experiences with what they believed to be God speaking to them. It is the same situation for the holy books of other religious traditions and for random people alive today who claim God speaks directly to them. What is an objective method we can use to determine who, if any of them, actually received a divine revelation from God?

 

[ScottA]

When two people with competing theological beliefs each claim to have received knowledge directly from God through the process of divine revelation, how does an objective observer determine which person actually received knowledge from God and which person is mistaken or if they are both mistaken?

Oh...you're not paying attention again!

I specifically said NOT "believe." But now here you go right back and couple me with those who "believe."

Try harder.

However, to answer your question: An "objective observer" under those circumstances should determine that one is not telling the truth and one perhaps is. But that doesn't help, because those are not the circumstances here. You should not be searching for the one who "believes" the correct information and trying to determine how or why they are different from all the other believers. That would be a gamble (and I don't blame you for your objections). But instead consider how a blind person would "objectively observe" the claims of those claiming to have sight. Such an exercise should show you that your approach is flawed and will get you nowhere.

The correct approach would be to determine if it is possible that there is life beyond the bonds of the organic man. Ask yourself: Is humanity only organic...do I care? If you care to pursue it and have any idea that it might be possible, then pursue it. If not, then don't. But nothing will come of a blind man debating sunsets with those who may or may not have sight.

The real question then, becomes: On what shall I establish my own trust and belief? If on the words of another--take your pick, or do your homework. In which case there is only one consistent (however confusing) ribbon of witness testimonies since the beginning of time...and the others are all organic, man-made junk. Or you could appeal to the Source. The alternative is to waste this time allotted for this purpose.

In your search, consider this parable: If you were born into a large room and no one inside the room had been out or seen outside the room, who in the room could tell you what is outside...a teacher, a scientist, a great leader? No. The only way that anyone inside such a room could actually "know" anything about the outside...is if the knowledge came in to them from the outside. This is the knowledge that you are looking for.

 

[OzSpen]

I fail to understand how the sources of the claims about divine revelation make a difference since all such claims are inherently based on personal experiences. The Scriptures are just the written descriptions of divine revelation claims from the authors who wrote those texts based on their subjective experiences with what they believed to be God speaking to them. It is the same situation for the holy books of other religious traditions and for random people alive today who claim God speaks directly to them. What is an objective method we can use to determine who, if any of them, actually received a divine revelation from God?

BGE,

This demonstrates your ignorance of faith founded on the facts - not of personal experience - but of historical Christianity. A personal encounter with Christ is not based on existential experience. it is founded on the historical Jesus.

Subjective experiences hold no more weight that your subjective understanding here: 'All such claims are inherently based on personal experiences'. They are your presuppositional, subjective claims.

As for an objective method, read:

• Dr Paul W Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (IVP 1997). Dr Barnett is a retired professor of ancient history at Sydney's Macquarie University. He is a former Anglican Bishop of North Sydney.
• Dr John R Meier, A Marginal Jew (Doubleday 1991).

Acts 1:3 (NRSV) provides a pointer to the objective method used: 'After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over the course of forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God'.

Note that it is not 'by many convincing experiences'.

Oz