he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, it's pretty dumb for Christians to believe we evolved from lower life forms.
If the Bible is a lie, then there is no reason for anyone to be a Christian.This sounds like an admission that it would be "pretty dumb" for Christians to believe true things. I'm sure that's not how you intended it, but nevertheless.
Given there is very little in the Bible that is even close to being true, one has to wonder why there are still so many Christians.If the Bible is a lie, then there is no reason for anyone to be a Christian.
If the Bible is a lie, then there is no reason for anyone to be a Christian.
This sounds like a off the cusp response, typical of members of your group. Have you spent much time actually thinking about it?Given there is very little in the Bible that is even close to being true, one has to wonder why there are still so many Christians.
That's not strictly true, there could be other reasons to be a Christian. Even if the Bible didn't exist and never had, there could still be other reasons.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Give us an example of what you think would be the best test for the existence of the God of the Bible/The Christian God.The problem is, when those other reasons are offered they are usually untestable, and thus unfalsifiable. When they are testable, they fail the test, every time.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Give us an example of what you think would be the best test for the existence of the God of the Bible/The Christian God.
I like Dr. William Lane Craig. He’s a really nice guy. He is beautifully eloquent. He is an outstanding debater – possibly world class. There are respected atheists who consider that he rarely if ever loses a debate and respect him.
What I mean is, claims about God(s) (the existence thereof) tend to fall into one of two categories.
1 - Untestable.
Claims that fall into this category are non-starters. If they're not testable, they're not falsifiable. Unfalsifiable claims are useless in any investigation.
2 - Testable.
Claims falling into this category are much more useful. If the claim is testable, then we can do exactly that - test it. And when we do, thus far we have always found claims (testable ones) regarding God(s) to fail said tests.
As an example of the latter, prayer. Prayer is testable, and has in fact been tested several times in controlled trials. It fails. It works at roughly the same rate as chance, and in cases where, for example, hospital patients were informed they were being prayed for, the rate of success was actually less than the rate of chance. Ergo, prayer has been shown to not work.
Clever.Another example, although not necessarily related to God stuff, but often tied to it in many cases, is "Outer Body Experiences" - People in operating theatres claiming to have floated out of their body and watching the surgeon doing whatever it is. This can (and has been) tested. They just put a piece of paper with some number, word or symbol on it on top of something above the patient. Like, a cabinet or something. They ask the patient who claims to have been floating around what was on the paper. They have never gotten it right, most of the time it's "what paper?"
Can you give a couple examples of what you would call untestable claims about God?
I often feel like Im the only one on this forum who isnt afraid to lay all his cards on the table while my opponants offer mostly petence and facade.
One reason I feel this is because I think you are smart enough to know that all this really tells is that God doesnt go around performing miracles for people, just like He doesnt keep us safe from every harm nor does He go around giving everyone what they ask Him for.
Yeah.
Personal experiences for one. If you were to claim you'd had a "personal experience" with God, there's no possible mechanism by which we can test this to verify that whatever experience you had has anything to do with any God. We can even refrain from calling you a liar, or delusional, we can instead grant that you did have an experience, but we can't verify any God or other was involved in it.
OK! Well I guess I would say that the idea that God should always do whatever we ask Him to do is a bit immature.I have no idea what you're talking about here. What pretense or facade do you imagine is at play on my part here?
I don't think God exists, dude, so that seems to align pretty well with him "doing" a sum total of precisely fuck all. But I digress, because you are missing the point. I didn't say anything about miracles or harm. What I said was in the case of prayer, this falls into the category of testable claims. And we HAVE tested it (because we CAN) and it FAILS the tests. Every time.
These tests are repeatable, meaning we can test it as many times as we want. When these tests fail to confirm, over and over again, that prayer works, that doesn't exactly support a case for believing it does. It does the opposite.
I think God probably gave us an ability to know certain things are true without us having to perform scientific experiements
The Bible talks a lot about truth and about people who hear truth and about people who accepet truth and about people who deny truth
Jesus said "I am the Truth"
Pilate questioned the existence of truth and condemned Jesus to death
No matter what you say you believe, you have to admit that this provides us an awesome model of the reality we live in
Do you believe that it is true when I say murder is wrong? How would you verify it?
OK! Well I guess I would say that the idea that God should always do whatever we ask Him to do is a bit immature.
The Bible says lots of things. Most of which are demonstrably false.
Did he? How do you know that? I'll help you out - you don't.
Did he? How do you know that? I'll help you out - you don't.
I have to admit no such thing.
If you want to have a discussion about prescription vs description, or objective vs subjective morality. that's going to need a thread all to itself.
Dude you are the one who suggested that this was a good way to test if god exists or not. I ASKED YOU for what you thought was a good example of a testable claim about God. Im not even contesting the results of the test. Personally I dont believe you can ask God to heal someone and expect Him to do it. And I have never made such a claim. I am actually kinda on your side here. I just think the claim AND the test are both kinda stupid. Probably the only reason such a test was ever done was because of stupid TV christian faith healers or something like that.You keep doing this, and I'm going to keep pointing it out. I didn't say anything about God always doing whatever is asked of him, that's not even a possible state of affairs. Even if God existed, it still wouldn't be a possible state of affairs. What was being contested is the idea that prayer works. So once again, I shall point out that prayer has been tested, over and over again, and it doesn't work.
Well anyone that can read can see the Bible is inaccurate.Oh. I see you're an expert.