So a written record of something that happened 30-70 years ago is copied many times over the next hundred years, so therefore its accurate? that's the kind of reasoning they are teaching you at your fancy school?

but more importantly, the biggest problem regarding your response to his questions specifically is this:

Quote :

"born as Sathyanarayana Raju; 23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011"

since his miracles are well documented, and are much more recent, shouldn't we all worship him?

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .\]

12/12/2013 11:39:23 AM

the mental gymnastics this guy performs are unbelievable. i can't understand how any reasonable person could spew and believe such nonsense.

12/12/2013 12:05:08 PM

Man, we would make so much progress in this thread if you applied the same level of scrutiny to your own views as you do the Christian's.

How do we know about anything in ancient history?

With the exception of disco_stu, who is obviously very passionate about this, it seems most of you are just banking on second and third hand accounts of what gets fed to you through undergrad profs and Facebook feeds.

The Scriptures abound in external, verifiable events and people. That was intentional. Fact-checking. The entire Gospel of Luke was written essentially for a skeptic. He sets it up that way from the beginning. Ancient Jewish tradition was the least likely of all traditions to believe in resurrection from the dead, much less the capital offense blasphemy of a man claiming to be God. Yet, the most blasphemous and unlikely of religions caught like wildfire in the most skeptical of ancient religions. The claims could have easily been squelched. The writers intentionally put in genealogies and eye witness reports and other external verifiers for that very reason. There's a ton of documentation for all of this, but you guys hate it when I give you links.

CS Lewis addressed a lot of this. No wonder you guys have never read his stuff. He was a leading literary critic of his day, but in 50 years our dominant institutions are so staunchly materialist that he's silenced. With regard to you wanting academic journals, disco, you're delusional if you think someone who is interested in objectively observing, or especially proving, the case for anything religious at all, could land tenure in an elite Western university. If a publication has anything remotely religious attached to its name, you disqualify it. If you can't see the obvious handicap in the materialists' favor, I don't know what to tell you.

And in case you think it's because we're closer to "truth" these days, watch the (long) video about an inside look on the scientific community. http://vimeo.com/81215936 (they don't get started for 7-10 minutes in and it starts pretty slow...q&a's really good) More and more evolutionary theorists are coming out in favor of Intelligent Design. Fact. It's also fact that philosophy departments have veered heavily away from philosophical materialism. That road's coming to and. Only in the very narrow materialist naturalists Dawkins-esque world, is that world worldview winning.

http://merechristianitystudyguide.blogspot.com/2008/12/richard-dawkins-on-trilemma.html

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

^^haven't read about anything he's done, but yes, I do believe in supernatural/spiritual happenings, though extremely rare. Most of them are farces, Christian or otherwise. The Bible gives an account of why and how these supernatural phenomena occur or don't occur. I've also heard first-hand accounts from close friends- intelligent, post-grad, educated, former atheists, current agnostics, current Christians. [another can of worms! ]

(Btw, every once in a while, just stop and consider the possibility of the existence of God. Then consider the irony of us putting God on trial. Bible talks a lot about that too )

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2013 12:42:14 PM

Quote :

"With the exception of disco_stu, who is obviously very passionate about this, it seems most of you are just banking on second and third hand accounts of what gets fed to you through undergrad profs and Facebook feeds."

you're getting more and more ridiculous with your assertions. my beliefs have everything to do with growing up in a christian community and my learning, thinking and life experiences, and has nothing to do with "undergrad profs and Facebook feeds" (my professors were engineers and rarely talked about philosophy). That's a stupid assumption. Actually, most of my beliefs on god and christianity come from rational thought, logic, and reality.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2013 12:45:32 PM

^nevermind my comment then. I just said it seemed. I give you the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_firestein_the_pursuit_of_ignorance.html

This is helpful for all of us. The real scientists know how far they are from any real answers. Unfortunately what bleeds down to the rest of us is case closed, science has settled it all, God's been disproven.

Christians should admit we're far from any real answers too. When we don't, it's dangerous for many reasons. The Bible talks about that over and over. But it tells us to trust more than our faulty human faculties.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2013 12:52:06 PM

sorry for getting personal, i'll try to stop posting. but i honestly can't understand how you justify your beliefs, and I haven't seen anything in any of your comments that seems to be close to an actual reasonable argument in favor of god and Christianity. and your most recent explanation of "historical evidence in support of the resurrection" really falls short.

12/12/2013 1:00:16 PM

Well the major argument against the resurrection is prove it outside of Scripture. Which is a huge unfair handicap.So I had to deconstruct that argument first.

I guess I'm waiting for a specific question. Prove Christ died and resurrected? I'd say read the Bible. They'd say you can't trust that. And I've provided only a very cursory explanation of why you can. So I'd say...next? Or...I'd ask them to prove that he didn't resurrect from the dead considering the mountains of ancient evidence (thousands of early manuscripts and the most influential movement in human history). Then I guess someone would propose some specific hangup, and then we can go from there.

You're right though I haven't provided much if any irrefutable "proof" in this thread. (I don't think irrefutable proof really exists either way) I've been focused mainly on pointing out flaws in other major world views, in hopes that Christianity would seem equally if not more plausible. You can never have a fair discussion, if no one checks the holes in their own presuppositions, so it would have been pointless to start with "evidence"... because it's already been interpreted according to the biased materialist perspective. Vet the materialist worldview enough though, and it falls apart. Vet Christianity, and it holds up, though there are still mysteries (just like the best secular scientists admit).

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 1:10 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2013 1:02:25 PM

Do you truly think the question of the Bible's historical accuracy is settled? Honestly?

V, Yeah.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2013 1:08:29 PM

Quote :

"Vet the materialist worldview enough though, and it falls apart. Vet Christianity, and it holds up, though there are still mysteries (just like the best secular scientists admit)"

alright, i'm done.

12/12/2013 1:12:01 PM

No. There are doubts.

And I've honestly tried to read the best of both sides. We're just so quick to trust history textbooks which rely on so much less than Scripture.

It's like with everything...we have to consider both sets of evidence...and then interpret it to the best of our ability and then trust that our interpretation (framed by our worldview) is the right one. It's not blind faith, though. It's a constant eyes-wide-open, fact-checking faith. Mine as well as yours.

^^See you're late to the party. That's why I called out the peanut gallery. You don't have to agree that Christianity holds up, case closed. But disco and I have agreed that both world views suffer major obstacles. At least he's honest enough to admit it.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 1:14 PM. Reason : ]

meh, whatever. We will go in circles for a while. As all human philosophers do. I would be curious to see what your biggest hangups are with the Reason for God if you get around to finishing it, though, disco. I'll chime in from time to time.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2013 1:13:26 PM

Quote :

"The Scriptures abound in external, verifiable events and people."

You still haven't explained why I should believe supernatural miracles that were documented 30-70 years after the fact. So far your explanation has been that "they were copied a lot in the following 100 years, so they are accurate" which is not at all a reasonable explanation as to why we should trust them as historically accurate.

There are countless books written about the Loch Ness Monster, there are eyewitnesses and a strong oral history of encounters with it. All of these documents and witnesses are just as external and verifiable as the gospels; should I believe that the Loch Ness Monster exists? By your logic I should, and I should not question their authenticity because they have been reproduced so many times over this century that they must be true.

Are you really saying that the gospels are accurate historic documents, or that you have faith that they are historically accurate documents?

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 1:16 PM. Reason : cl]

12/12/2013 1:15:57 PM

^those other events and documents haven't held up though. They've been mostly exposed as frauds.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument that the Gospels are frauds. The only argument I hear is...Well it certainly seems unlikely because we don't see this stuff today. Which any freshman logician could refute.

I've heard Bart Erhman's best arguments. His arguments have been destroyed by Christian apologists, and many secular thinkers as well. I'm curious if there's more.

You'll make fun of me for saying take my word for it, that Erhman's more or less a hack. But you guys want me to give you specific proof, but then don't give me a specific question or specific proof disproving my position.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2013 1:19:09 PM

there are plenty of documents and eye witness accounts that have not been proven to be frauds, are you saying that I am not supposed to believe in the Loch Ness Monster simply because scientific expeditions have not yet been able to confirm them?

Quote :

"I still haven't heard a convincing argument that the Gospels are frauds. The only argument I hear is...Well it certainly seems unlikely because we don't see this stuff today. Which any freshman logician could refute."

then your position is based on faith, and not the historical accuracy of the gospels

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2013 1:22:16 PM

Becoming a bit of a non sequitur... but if there was an entire culture, and then most of human civilization, transformed by the Loch Ness monster? Yeah, I'd say we better do our due diligence.

^Right, my argument is that there are a lot of similarities between our views, in that we are relying on huge presuppositions when you get down to it. Faith. In check with evidence, human reasoning, science, etc. The Bible never calls for blind faith. I don't think the Gospels are historically inaccurate though in any meaningful sense.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2013 1:24:22 PM

Except unfortunately that's not what you claimed. You stated:

Quote :

"I'd say the reliability of the Gospels (despite all of the hardcore efforts to disprove them for 200 years) and the historical evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

and you then clarified afterwards that this historical evidence you are talking about is the gospels.

As we have just concluded, the gospels are not historical evidence that can be used this way.

12/12/2013 1:27:55 PM

no offense, but i'm starting to think you have some mental issues. i don't see any other explanation of how you can believe the stuff you're saying.

12/12/2013 1:29:05 PM

^lol! I'm tempted to take that as a compliment.

^^sorry, the strongest is clearly in Scripture, since...that's what it's mainly about.

There's historical evidence outside of Scripture too.

Sorry I can't give you a succinct paragraph summary of it all. This guy's awesome though. I saw him speak about a month ago.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

Quote :

"There are five possible theories: Christianity, hallucination, myth, conspiracy and swoon. 1 Jesus died Jesus rose Christianity 2 Jesus died Jesus didn't rise—apostles deceived Hallucination 3 Jesus died Jesus didn't rise—apostles myth-makers Myth 4 Jesus died Jesus didn't rise—apostles deceivers Conspiracy 5 Jesus didn't die Swoon Theories 2 and 4 constitute a dilemma: if Jesus didn't rise, then the apostles, who taught that he did, were either deceived (if they thought he did) or deceivers (if they knew he didn't). The Modernists could not escape this dilemma until they came up with a middle category, myth. It is the most popular alternative today. Thus either (1) the resurrection really happened, (2) the apostles were deceived by a hallucination, (3) the apostles created a myth, not meaning it literally, (4) the apostles were deceivers who conspired to foist on the world the most famous and successful lie in history, or (5) Jesus only swooned and was resuscitated, not resurrected. All five theories are logically possible, and therefore must be fairly investigated—even (1) ! They are also the only possibilities, unless we include really far-out ideas that responsible historians have never taken seriously, such as that Jesus was really a Martian who came in a flying saucer. Or that he never even existed; that the whole story was the world's greatest fantasy novel, written by some simple fisherman; that he was a literary character whom everyone in history mistook for a real person, including all Christians and their enemies, until some scholar many centuries later got the real scoop from sources unnamed. If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved the truth of the resurrection (1). The form of the argument here is similar to that of most of the arguments for the existence of God. Neither God nor the resurrection are directly observable, but from data that are directly observable we can argue that the only possible adequate explanation of this data is the Christian one."

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2013 1:39:05 PM

that's just a wordy version of the bible school "liar, lunatic, or lord" defense, which is a pretty shitty one. the argument in the link isn't any better, its still faith in the account of an event that wasn't even recorded for the first time until 30 years after it happened.

when someone asks

Quote :

"Please tell us why your religion is the right one, why your God is the right one, or why "Christianity is the most plausible" as you put it."

and you reply

Quote :

"I'd say the reliability of the Gospels (despite all of the hardcore efforts to disprove them for 200 years) and the historical evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

when in fact this is just based on faith, since the historical evidence you cited is just faith, then it doesn't answer why we should pick Christianity over another religion. Why should I not believe documented miracles that call me to worship another faith?

12/12/2013 1:44:53 PM

Well you'd have to consider what that faith is really saying and whether it holds up. Is it worth checking out? I think so.

The liar, lunatic, lord defense is pretty rock solid by the way. And eyewitnesses are still alive 30 years after it happened.

12/12/2013 1:47:34 PM

Eyewitnesses who have seen the Loch Ness Monster are still alive

^let's say I've checked it out, and I've checked out other faiths, why should I make the god -> God -> Christian God conculsion?

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ?]

12/12/2013 1:59:12 PM

Hold up, isn't the Bible the last link in your chain?

Quote :

"believe in the existence of the transcendent, then a god, then the God, then the God of the Bible, and then, the logical next step would be to believe that what the Bible says is true."

Why are we working backwards here? Let's start with believing in the transcendent. First, define what that means and what epistemology you should use to understand it (and why).

Quote :

"Eyewitnesses who have seen the Loch Ness Monster are still alive"

It will be more credible in 1800 years after many copies.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2013 1:59:45 PM

Pics and video of the Loch Ness this summer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/loch-ness-monster-sighting-photo_n_3817842.html

12/12/2013 2:05:45 PM

But how many times has it been reblogged? Because the number of times it was shared is what makes it credible.

12/12/2013 2:14:15 PM

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD....and he has a facebook page https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove

12/12/2013 2:31:02 PM

Quote :

"I think the existence of sociopaths throws a monkey-wrench into the idea if "intrinsic goodness" in humanity even of a naturalistic origin."

To clarify, I meant an innate sense of good is likely responsible for people who engage in humanitarian efforts, which was part of what I quoted. I didn't mean that ALL humans have that. And I think humans have innate senses of morals and ethics; this has been shown in studies with babies. But again, not all of them have "good" morals and ethics.

12/12/2013 3:08:09 PM

Quote :

"And I think humans have innate senses of morals and ethics; this has been shown in studies with babies."

citation on the baby studies? I'm concerned with how difficult it would be to properly blind such a study from the researchers themselves.

Also, in my token searching for this I came across this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/babies-may-not-be-moral-after-all_n_1783372.html

So I'm not certain the book is closed on this question.

I think that at least a large portion of our sense of altruism is developmental: we are cared for ourselves for over a decade during our most formative years, and then care for others for a good amount of time and we witness countless other humans caring for their young and old. Our biological necessity for our brains and bodies to develop slowly itself trains us (read: physiologically normal brained people) to be altruistic.

Maybe some portion is also built-in to our physiology by genetics.

12/12/2013 4:11:42 PM

altriusm and at least some morals are evident in other species, i don't understand why it can't just be a result of our biology/physiology. it doesn't have to mean anything.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2013 4:50:51 PM

The overarching point is that it's a question worth discussing rather than just saying "goddidit".

And even worse, basing other arguments off of "well, we all have morality so the Christian God must exist."

12/12/2013 4:52:44 PM

Quote :

"citation on the baby studies? I'm concerned with how difficult it would be to properly blind such a study from the researchers themselves"

I'm not really interested in debating about that here, but you can look into it more if you're interested. Of course more research needs to be done in this area, and I probably have expressed too much confidence in the science so far.

Anyway, here is something I saw recently:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality-50135408/

Quote :

"I think that at least a large portion of our sense of altruism is developmental: we are cared for ourselves for over a decade during our most formative years, and then care for others for a good amount of time and we witness countless other humans caring for their young and old. Our biological necessity for our brains and bodies to develop slowly itself trains us (read: physiologically normal brained people) to be altruistic."

That sounds reasonable. But, like you said, the book isn't closed on this.

12/12/2013 4:58:16 PM

Quote :

"The overarching point is that it's a question worth discussing rather than just saying "goddidit"."

right, but it doesn't seem like anyone is pointing out that the part of our morals that are inherent, and in fact our entire being and "soul", is merely a product of the physical structure of our brain.

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 5:06 PM. Reason : sp]

12/12/2013 5:01:36 PM

Quote :

"With the exception of disco_stu, who is obviously very passionate about this, it seems most of you are just banking on second and third hand accounts of what gets fed to you through undergrad profs and Facebook feeds."

12/12/2013 9:45:42 PM

Quote :

""I'd say the reliability of the Gospels (despite all of the hardcore efforts to disprove them for 200 years) and the historical evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ." "and you then clarified afterwards that this historical evidence you are talking about is the gospels. ""

Yep, it comes down to the the classic circular argument, once again: the Bible is right because it says so. It's just that ohmy has dedicated a great deal of time and intellectual effort to rationalize this with Christian apologist arguments, and by deluding himself that other worldviews are just as flawed, or even more so. Even when Christians follow many of the same core humanistic tenets of secular or non-theistic worldviews.

Ohmy, sorry man, but you're just like any other Christian apologist out there. You can keep spending your life trying to defend your faith, but it's just that: Faith.

12/12/2013 10:30:48 PM

Sorry, but you're terribly missing the point. I didn't even bring the Bible into this thread until this page. Every. single. person. places faith and reason in tension. You can recite the same tired diatribes we've all heard before, but we've already established in the first few pages of this thread that every worldview places faith in something because every worldview has holes and mysteries. Faith in human cognition. Science. our sensory experience. all the byproducts of random mutations? human reason. etc.

I'll settle at this point for you saying that you find your world view more reasonable than mine. But to deny that you are making leaps of faith is intellectually dishonest. There's better arguments that explain this if you're interested, but the first few pages of this thread do a nice job itself.

12/12/2013 11:06:44 PM

this is boring now. you're bringing nothing new to the table.

12/12/2013 11:32:47 PM

Yeah, I get it. You think your faith (belief in something for which there is little or no proof), is the same as or better than our "faith" (trusting in things that conform to demonstrable reality.) When it's not. It's far, far from it. But you can't or won't acknowledge that.

12/13/2013 2:12:50 AM

ancient weapons and hokey religions

12/13/2013 4:43:39 AM

Quote :

" When it's not. It's far, far from it."

I've addressed this several times. Did you God this text onto the Internet or did you use a computer?

Our worldview is more closely mapped to reality because it works. Inductively. I know that's somewhat philosophically weak but your worldview doesn't even have that.

12/13/2013 7:04:26 AM

Quote :

"every worldview places faith in something because every worldview has holes and mysteries"

this is so disingenuous. most atheist or agnostics place "faith" in science, and accept that some things can't be explained, at least for now, although through the thousands of years, science keeps explaining more. The common atheist/agnostic doesn't try to use the supernatural/religion/god to explain it.

and you've still yet to form any kind of reasonable argument for christianity being the only "true" faith, except "because the bible tells me so".

12/13/2013 9:49:25 AM

Quote :

" I didn't even bring the Bible into this thread until this page."

That's not true, unless that you didn't mean the Bible when you said "scripture".

One problem is that you still have not explained why anyone should make the higher power -> god -> God -> Christian God conclusion.

You were asked

Quote :

"Please tell us why your religion is the right one, why your God is the right one, or why "Christianity is the most plausible" as you put it."

and replied

Quote :

"I'd say the reliability of the Gospels (despite all of the hardcore efforts to disprove them for 200 years) and the historical evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

you cited "historical evidence" as the reason why we should make the god -> God -> Christian God conclusion.

unfortunately, that historical evidence that you cited was just scripture. as we concluded on this page, that historical evidence is faith based. we concluded this because when asked why we should believe the scripture you replied by posting a response to an argument that I did not make. The response you posted addressed the argument that we should not believe the scripture because it has been mistranslated, but that is not the argument I made. Even if the translation was perfect, we can still not trust scripture as historical evidence.

because your historical evidence is scripture, and because believing scripture is based on faith, you still have not explained why someone should make the god -> God -> Christian God conclusion because having faith in that scripture relies in already believing in the Christian God. Why should someone not believe in another faith?

(And also, if you can't address this simple issue made by someone without an Ivy League education, why should I give you any credibility?)


[Edited on December 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2013 10:02:32 AM

Carl Sagan lived and loved and learned.

He used his life to explore and to teach the gospel that is science.

Praise him for he has left us 13 episodes so that we may know ourselves.

COSMOS

12/13/2013 11:14:54 PM

^^by all means, believe in other faiths. "Reasonable arguments in favor of God". To say, "oh, well I can't choose amongst the gods, so I'll pretend they don't exist" is the most intellectually dishonest of them all.

the most faith-based assumptions of all are those of the new atheists. http://tinyurl.com/mnwzjnb

[Edited on December 17, 2013 at 10:24 AM. Reason : ]

12/17/2013 10:21:15 AM

a "reasonable argument in favor of God" has to include: higher power -> gods -> god -> God

are you conceding that you can not make a reasonable argument in favor of God?

12/17/2013 10:24:33 AM

higher power = God = "capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality"

Thank you, Merriam Webster.

Not conceding, just pointing out your illogical reasoning. You can't proceed in reasoning with someone who cries FAITHMONGERER! when they won't acknowledge the immense amount of faith in their own reasoning, much less the gaping flaws in logic.

[Edited on December 17, 2013 at 10:39 AM. Reason : you have a valid question, of course, but never what I set out to do ITT ]

12/17/2013 10:38:23 AM

Quote :

"the most faith-based assumptions of all are those of the new atheists."

You're right. Believing that the storm god of ancient Hebrews is real is way more parsimonious than believing that science is reliable.

I can't believe I paid for this piece of trash book. What a maroon I am.

Quote :

"Not conceding, just pointing out your illogical reasoning. You can't proceed in reasoning with someone who cries FAITHMONGERER! when they won't acknowledge the immense amount of faith in their own reasoning, much less the gaping flaws in logic."

Hey fella. Explain to me WITHOUT USING REASON OR LOGIC how you can know anything about your god.

What's that? You're in the same boat as the rest of us but you believe in talking animals and people rising from the dead? Thought so.

12/17/2013 10:44:47 AM

you made a semantics argument at the same time that you accused me of poor logic?

okay aaronburro, let me explain the problem with your post using your very own semantics:

higher power does not necessarily mean that there are gods, for example it could be a computer operating with an additional dimension and we are just a simulation. you first have to explain why we should conclude that this higher power is supernatural, that it is a god, and then you have to explain why someone should conclude that it is only one god. I'll let you skip making the jump from one god to the God, but that still leaves you a few steps shy.

(and you still have some problems that others have pointed out, but lets start here)

Quote :

"but never what I set out to do ITT "

then i have to conclude that you can not make a "Reasonable argument in favor of God" and were lying when you implied that you could.

[Edited on December 17, 2013 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2013 10:45:16 AM

Quote :

"To say, "oh, well I can't choose amongst the gods, so I'll pretend they don't exist" is the most intellectually dishonest of them all."

Holy shit, you're so disingenuous and full of it.

12/17/2013 10:56:59 AM

holy smokes. that hit a nerve.

^^can we apply the same religion-vs-science-which-seems-more-reliable false dichotomy you guys use to this instance? if so, which seems more reliable...a computer simulation? or god(s)?

12/17/2013 11:16:30 AM

I'M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING I CAN MAKE ANY REASONABLE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ANY SHIT, YOU ARE

(however, a simulation is more likely: http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328 )


[Edited on December 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM. Reason : conclusion: you actually can't make a reasonable argument in favor of God]

12/17/2013 11:17:56 AM

I've already made a reasonable argument. of Jesus Christ? no. of God (as webster describes it)? Yes. If anything, I've shown that we're all taking shots in the dark, in which case, it shouldn't matter where we land (from the materialist perspective...a supernatural/metaphysical worldview is the only perspective from which you can argue that this discussion is even worth having, that "being right" matters)

We live in a hologram? That's the answer to life's meaning? From a rational perspective, god is more plausible. The reason why has already been covered.

Quote :

"Believing that the storm god of ancient Hebrews is real is way more parsimonious than believing that science is reliable."

I believe that science is reliable. You just claim science can make claims about what it inherently cannot. Bad philosophy.

[Edited on December 17, 2013 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ]

12/17/2013 11:25:41 AM

except that the argument that you have made so far is not reasonable, and it still hasn't tried to make the jump from higher power/something more to God

Quote :

"We live in a hologram? That's the answer to life's meaning? From a rational perspective, god is more plausible. The reason why has already been covered."

If we do live in a hologram, why would that be the answer to the meaning of life? And why does that have to have an answer or be an important question?

Your reason, as you just said, only goes so far as "higher power". Since that is the case, a simulation should be equally as reasonable as God- that's your argument. You said that you can only make an argument up the point of the merriam-webster definition and a computer simulation meets that definition

So, in the worst case scenario, and by your own argument, a computer simulation is equally as reasonable as God

[Edited on December 17, 2013 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2013 11:35:06 AM