I can't prove it to you, but I know it's true

[jgh7]

Thanks Christians. After all the years on this forum, this is the best summary I can make for you guys as far as your debating goes. And where does that get me or anyone else for that matter in a debate...

Nowhere.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 15 by OpenYourEyes]

One thing I admire about atheists like yourself is that you guys usually have a skeptical spirit of not wanting to be duped.

Thank you.. but of course, atheism doesn't imply critical thinking at all. It's just that some atheists who debate Christians have found that using good reason is best.

And who wants to believe just anything?
I don't know about you, but I don't like to be wrong.

I kinda don't blame you but when you only approach to the matters discussed on this forum is all about science, that shows an unreasonably restrictive approach.

I don't know what you mean by "unreasonably restrictive approach".
What approach WOULD you like us to use.... the Christian one?

Maybe you can clarify your complaint a bit.

Although, those like you don't claim to adhere to scientism, but it always tend to creep into your views, like when you make unreasonable demands relating to historical matters just as liamConnor has exposed time and time again.

I'm not too sure what you mean by "scientism".

I sure don't want to fall into THAT trap if it is one. In any case, since it's your major point, could you please give us a heads up as to your MEANING?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 17 by OpenYourEyes]

Sure, a logical argument can be true in terms of form (modus ponens, modus tollen, etc), but still false in the real world but that's because logic is more focused on validity or process of reasoning than on the truth of premises. The truth of the premises can be verified by other fields of inquiry, which is why I stressed the fact that the premises in Kalam's argument are scientifically validated.

That's utterly ridiculous, sorry.

I don't know about YOUR WORLD, but in MY REAL WORLD... I care about the truth , and not JUST validity.

Arguments in which the premises are not demonstrated TRUE are UNSOUND. And that matters to me. And it will also matter to you, IF and only IF you care a WHIT about the truth.

If your arguments aren't founded on the TRUTH, you can keep them.
NOT INTERESTED, sorry.

Should we start to believe just ANYTHING?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 19 by OpenYourEyes]

I usually like to start by showing the inadequacy of materialism, and from this point I build a more specific case that would point towards the Christian worldview.

Big mistake. When using an argument to 'prove' the existence of something, do NOT start out by trying to weaken some other position FIRST.
This raises all sorts of red flags. I see it all the time here on this site: certain users who think that by 'disproving' the theory of evolution, that Christian Creationism is automatically supposed to be considered true.
Whenever I've discussed my arguments for how reality is, I do NOT start out by showing the inadequacy of Christian theism. I make no mention of it.

I usually start with the 'Argument from Consciousness' because it relates to the inadequacy of materialism while also making non-materialism more plausible in referencing the human 'mind'. However, unlike philosopher Richard Swinburne, I don't use that argument to argue for God's existence but rather use it to argue against materialism.

So when jgh7 asked you for arguments "arguing for the Christian God's existence", you use an argument that in your own words, not to argue for his existence, but to argue against some other position entirely.
Again, I'm seeing the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy here.

1. Kalam's Cosmological Argument - shows that there needs to be a cause and the attributes that the cause should contain - In terms of which God, this argument also narrows it down to something similar to the Abrahamic God.

No it doesn't. Kalam, if followed, just 'proves' that there 'needs' to be a first cause. What that first cause is, can be anything, since that first cause is in a realm that, from what the theists are telling me, science cannot touch or examine.

Argument from Morality - explains where/foundation of objective morality and why we 'ought' to do it. In my view, objective morality makes no sense in an atheistic worldview where there is no god, no free-will, and no ultimate purpose (except for a few biological drives that impact physical survival)

I'm seeing the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy here again. Simply because the atheistic worldview (which by the way is NOT a term I agree with, I had a discussion recently with JLB over that one) does not make sense to you does NOT in any way shape or form validate the claim for the Christian God's existence.
So far, you haven't presented ANYTHING to us that actually argues FOR the Christian God's existence. Everything you've presented has to do with trying to knock down some other position.
To give you an analogy of how weak your arguments have been - imagine someone trying to convince you to vote for Politician A and all they say is "Here are all the horrible things about Politician B!" Well, even if what they say about B is true, that does nothing to actually establish why A is a good candidate at all.

3. Historicity of Jesus and his resurrection

Find me a history department, a history professor, someone who while wearing a history hat and not a theology hat, says that the resurrection happened, based on historical evidence, and then we can discuss this.

There are some sites claiming that there are as many as 36 arguments for God's existence, but I think the 3 I listed are the best topics that I've come across and that point towards Christianity.

Then in my opinion, you don't really have anything.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 15 by OpenYourEyes]

I kinda don't blame you but when you only approach to the matters discussed on this forum is all about science, that shows an unreasonably restrictive approach.

I don't know what you mean by "unreasonably restrictive approach".
What approach WOULD you like us to use.... the Christian one?

Maybe you can clarify your complaint a bit.

Besides science, there's also history, philosophy, experience, etc. When all someone mostly wants to do is ask for or expect scientific verification (often disguised as "verifiable evidence") for all types (as in historical, religious, philosophical) claims, then that shows that they favor relying on science for virtually all intellectual inquiries. This is actually a MISuse of science because they are using science beyond its intended scope.

Although, those like you don't claim to adhere to scientism, but it always tend to creep into your views, like when you make unreasonable demands relating to historical matters just as liamConnor has exposed time and time again.

I'm not too sure what you mean by "scientism".

I sure don't want to fall into THAT trap if it is one. In any case, since it's your major point, could you please give us a heads up as to your MEANING?

Scientism is usually defined as being the view that the scientific method and approach can or should be universally applied. However, I use the term for anyone who tries to misapply science even in one area, like using scientific method for historical past events. This is why the lack of responses to requests of scientific evidence for God does not phase my Christian beliefs because I fully understand that science is not a tool for examining metaphysical claims.

The inadequacy of science to deal with all of reality necessitates that we should be taking a multi-disciplinary approach to understand matters. If you want to examine the God issue then you should rely on Christian theology, natural theology, history, philosophy, experience, and science. Some atheists have changed to theism based on experience alone. That's not to say that experience is scientifically valid, but it still serves as some evidence on some level (something more than faith or nothing) unless proven false.

[Zzyzx]

.

One thing I admire about atheists like yourself

Before admiring Atheists “like myself�, it would be prudent to read line five of my signature – and look up the meaning of Ignosticism if necessary.

is that you guys usually have a skeptical spirit of not wanting to be duped.

Experience teaches many people (regardless theistic position) that being naïve and gullible (believing what one is told without checking for truth regarding matters of importance) is not beneficial to individuals or societies.

I kinda don't blame you but when you only approach to the matters discussed on this forum is all about science, that shows an unreasonably restrictive approach.

Astute readers understand that I approach debates with nearing eight decades of experience observing and interacting with the real world. Although I have a background is science, that is NOT required for me to understand much of what works and does not work in the world I inhabit.

Although, those like you don't claim to adhere to scientism, but it always tend to creep into your views,

Science (not “scientism�) creeps into my views each time I boot up this computer, drive an efficient vehicle, open the refrigerator, or seek medical attention. One could say that I depend on science – and that you do too.

However, I do not then turn around and reject science when its findings contradict what I thought previously. If / when new and more accurate information becomes available, I adapt by incorporating it to update, refine or replace previous positions.

That is apparently a foreign concept to many people.

like when you make unreasonable demands relating to historical matters just as liamConnor has exposed time and time again.

Those who maintain that the KNOW about events and conversations from the past ARE asked to show evidence (not restricted to “scientific evidence�) that they speak truth.

Of course that is resented by those who cannot “walk the talk� – cannot show actual, verifiable evidence that what they say is true and accurate – and therefore depend upon “Take my word for it (or his or this book)�.

Is there ANY verifiable evidence of ANY kind to support claims of knowledge that “miracle� / supernatural claims and stories are true and accurate?

[OpenYourEyes]

One thing I admire about atheists like yourself

Before admiring Atheists “like myself�, it would be prudent to read line five of my signature – and look up the meaning of Ignosticism if necessary.

If you're not an atheist than you're an agnostic. Either way, you're a non-believer.

Is there ANY verifiable evidence of ANY kind to support claims of knowledge that “miracle� / supernatural claims and stories are true and accurate?

Read my previous post here which addresses your question. It really depends on the nature of the claim. For instance, if I experience a supernatural occurrence, should you reasonably expect for a non-reproducible or uncontrollable personal experience to be shown to you? (And by showing it to YOU and inquiring scientists I assume meets your requirements for verification).

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 17 by OpenYourEyes]

which is why I stressed the fact that the premises in Kalam's argument are scientifically validated.

That's news to me, and everyone knows how active I am on this site. Kalam being scientifically validated?
Citation needed. Be careful when you're about to give me a link. There has to be actual science involved, NOT JUST a series of logical arguments.

Sure, a logical argument can be true in terms of form (modus ponens, modus tollen, etc), but still false in the real world but that's because logic is more focused on validity or process of reasoning than on the truth of premises. The truth of the premises can be verified by other fields of inquiry, which is why I stressed the fact that the premises in Kalam's argument are scientifically validated.

That's utterly ridiculous, sorry.

I don't know about YOUR WORLD, but in MY REAL WORLD... I care about the truth , and not JUST validity.

Arguments in which the premises are not demonstrated TRUE are UNSOUND. And that matters to me. And it will also matter to you, IF and only IF you care a WHIT about the truth.

If your arguments aren't founded on the TRUTH, you can keep them.
NOT INTERESTED, sorry.

Should we start to believe just ANYTHING?

Seems you two are questioning my every view eventhough I am not here to debate these matters. Also, this is a "DISCUSSION" subforum so you are probably in the wrong place if you're looking for debate.

Also, my current goal on this forum is just to introduce to people the intellectual side of Christianity. I've explained my reasons elsewhere but I will quickly say that I find I find a foundational dialogue (like in the previous sentence) to be more effective due to there being many atheists who show or have a lack of understandig and research towards Christianity.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 25 by OpenYourEyes]

For instance, if I experience a supernatural occurrence, should you reasonably expect for a non-reproducible or uncontrollable personal experience to be shown to you? (And by showing it to YOU and inquiring scientists I assume meets your requirements for verification).

So let's consider that. Let's hypothesize that today, God spoke to OpenYourEyes and OpenYourEyes said that on the forum. How is anyone else supposed to verify that that actually happened?
I've had many a conversation with another user of this site who claims to hear Christ. At no point have they offered any way at all for me to verify such, other than read the Bible.
Do you realise the position you'd be in, given that apparently we're to toss science out the window, so to speak?

[Zzyzx]

.

One thing I admire about atheists like yourself

Before admiring Atheists “like myself�, it would be prudent to read line five of my signature – and look up the meaning of Ignosticism if necessary.

If you're not an atheist than you're an agnostic.

"Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term 'god' has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence."

I understand that many or most Theists classify all who do not worship their favorite “god� as an “Atheist� (excepting those who worship competing gods) – a variation on the theme “They all look alike to me� (thus ignoring fundamental differences).

My actual position, frequently and clearly stated: Any of the thousands of “gods� worshiped, feared, loved, argued about, fought over by adherents MAY exist and MAY perform as depicted – awaiting verifiable evidence upon which to make an intelligent, informed decision which, if any, are more than products of human imagination.

Either way, you're a non-believer.

I clearly identify as a Non-Theist. Is that a problem for your thinking? Do you feel a need to critique or change my stated position?

It is a policy in this Forum to accept whatever theistic position a person self-identifies – without need for approval or “interpretation� by others.

Is there ANY verifiable evidence of ANY kind to support claims of knowledge that “miracle� / supernatural claims and stories are true and accurate?

Read my previous post here which addresses your question. It really depends on the nature of the claim.

No matter what the claim, if someone presents it as truthful and accurate in reasoned and honorable debate, THEY ARE responsible for demonstrating its truth and accuracy if challenged.

Take ANY of the biblical “miracle� stories / claims and show readers verifiable evidence that the story / claim is true and accurate (perhaps in a separate thread).

For instance, if I experience a supernatural occurrence, should you reasonably expect for a non-reproducible or uncontrollable personal experience to be shown to you? (And by showing it to YOU and inquiring scientists I assume meets your requirements for verification).

I have no opinion regarding what you (generic term) experience personally.

However, if you TELL about such an experience that is a testimonial – a STORY that may or may not be truthful and accurate. I do not believe everything I am told. Do you?

What makes your testimonial any more significant (outside yourself) than any other?

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 25 by OpenYourEyes]

For instance, if I experience a supernatural occurrence, should you reasonably expect for a non-reproducible or uncontrollable personal experience to be shown to you? (And by showing it to YOU and inquiring scientists I assume meets your requirements for verification).

So let's consider that. Let's hypothesize that today, God spoke to OpenYourEyes and OpenYourEyes said that on the forum. How is anyone else supposed to verify that that actually happened?
I've had many a conversation with another user of this site who claims to hear Christ. At no point have they offered any way at all for me to verify such, other than read the Bible.
Do you realise the position you'd be in, given that apparently we're to toss science out the window, so to speak?

Evidence via experience is not on the same level of science, therefore science would not accept it as a 'scientific' explanation for anything. The same applies for historical evidence, legal evidence, philosophical reasoning, etc.