The demand for scientific evidence of God is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for God is actually evidence of His existence.
Vagon, asserts my argument is a victim to reductio ad absurdum by asserting the following;
"The demand for scientific evidence of Allah, praise be to him, is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for Allah, praise be to him, is actually evidence of his existence."
In actuality, my argument does not fall victim to reductio ad absurdum, but rather Vagon falls victim to a common misconception about Allah, which leads me to my initial point.
Abraham had 2 children, Issac and Ishmael. Issac is considered the ancestor of the Jewish people.
Sarah bore Abraham a son, Isaac (in Hebrew, Yitzchak), a name derived from the word "laughter," expressing Abraham's joy at having a son in his old age. (Gen 17-18). Isaac was the ancestor of the Jewish people.
While Ishmael is considered the ancestor of the Arabs.
Both Jewish and Islamic traditions consider Ishmael as the ancestor of northern Arab people
This ancestry is significant because both Jews and Arabs beleive and worship the same God as their father Abraham.
Arabs:
According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews [see Qur'an 29:46]. The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham". Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites.[9] According to Encyclopedia Britannica (see also the following section for comparison between God's love in Islam and Christianity)
While the Jews and Christians obviously maintain that they worship the same God as their Abraham, due to their entire religion being based upon the Torah while the Christians entire religion is based upon the bible. Thus while there are differences and disagreements between the 3 groups, there is no doubt that each group worships the same God, the biggest difference and disagreement among the three religions is Jesus is. It is quite a common misconception(made by Christians and skeptics alike) that Allah is not the same God as Jehovah or God the Father. The main point being that when skeptics appeal to Allah in ways similar to Vagon, they are falling victim to a common misconception.
Counter punches: BUT TD!!! IF MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE SAME GOD YOU DO THEN THEY GET TO GO TO HEAVEN WITHOUT JESUS RIGHT?!???!!!
Not only is this beside the point, it is outstandingly incorrect, Jews worship the same God we do as well, but they like Muslims must accept Jesus as their Savior as well.
BUT TD!!! HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH VERSION IS RIGHT??!!!! THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SAME GOD?! LOL!! YOU HAVE A ONE AND THREE CHANCE OF GETTING IT RIGHT LOL!!! HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE?!?!!!!
Also beside the point of this thread, but it is a great question and is one that is too complex to cover here and must be saved for a later post. As it stands, this argument has been going on for centuries, and as I said, the main difference and disagreement between the three is who Jesus is(which, in a very poetic sense, suggests what the truth is).
29 comments:
TD,
I think the thrust of Vagon's argument is that if you are going to claim a lack of scientific evidence is actually evidence of one god's existence then it can also be said to be evidence of any god's existence; the fact that he chose to use Allah is largely irrelevant.
Apologies, Vagon, if this isn't what you intended.
The requirement of faith is a defining characteristic of God. God wants us to have faith. It does not work with every god, since no where does any other deity states that without faith it is impossible to please Him, nor do they require us to have faith in order to be saved. For that logic to follow, the other gods would have to have the same characteristics of the Christian God.
So that is incorrect.
But does the Bible not also say [major paraphrasing alert] that His 'invisible attributes' (ie, characteristics) are 'plainly seen' which leaves all without excuse?
That would seem to imply that God thinks He's left enough evidence to prove His own existence, no? That doesn't mean that you can't have faith in the things He promises, but his actual existence? You'd have to be a 'fool' not know about that, surely!
The first article of the Islamic faith is belief in one god and that he is worthy of worship.
The requirement is for "Iman" of one god. "Iman" is faith in the "belief without sight/facts" sense.
Not that I'm an expert in Islam or anything.
Also, I thought Vagon was a lady.
The requirement of faith is a defining characteristic of God.
I'm confused. I was under the impression that an insistence on faith was a common thread in many religons. Admittedly few take it as far as the Abramic religons, but it is impossible to believe in the supernatural without faith and almost all religons have a supernatural element (with a few exceptions, like some sects of buddhism).
It then becomes a difference of degree rather than kind.
I'd make a comment about being able to invent a green, invisible, four-eyed god who requires faith for us to be saved from the eternal slime pit, but I'm already a Frodologist and that would be blasphemy.
So with Islam it's works that saves you and with Judaism its sacrifice for ones sins or am I wrong for that one?
With Christianity it's faith in Jesus as the saviour, I think I got that much right ;)
But does the Bible not also say [major paraphrasing alert] that His 'invisible attributes' (ie, characteristics) are 'plainly seen' which leaves all without excuse?
Yes, that is speaking of order and design. In regards to scientific evidence, there is no scientific evidence that God is the one that designed it.
That would seem to imply that God thinks He's left enough evidence to prove His own existence, no? That doesn't mean that you can't have faith in the things He promises, but his actual existence? You'd have to be a 'fool' not know about that, surely!
Yes, He has left enough evidence but not scientific evidence. There are other forms of evidence, historical, testimonial, and personal experience evidence, all of which produce and generate faith. I know God exists, not through scientific evidence but through personal experience, historical evidence and testimonial evidence as well.
Look at the original comment for my commentary. Let me make this simple for you.
1. Islamic people do not worship Jesus.
2. Islamic people worship Allah.
3. You believe Jesus is God.
4. Therefore, Allah is not God.
I do not argue he once was the same god, but its clearly not the case now.
Your attempt to answer the reductio ad absurdem claim that Matt reiterated is lacking. As Quasar pointed out, all religion requires faith.
Now, I reiterate because you have failed to adequately address the concerns multiple times:
Why isn't a lack of scientific evidence for other gods evidence for their existance?
Why do you assume that the hypothesis in the bible (such as the flood) are not falsifiable?
Ok, TD, you might have done this before; but could you please spell out what definitions you're using for 'scientific evidence' and 'other evidence'?
I think it would be useful to the discussion if we all know what terms we're using....
Regards,
1. Islamic people do not worship Jesus.
2. Islamic people worship Allah.
3. You believe Jesus is God.
4. Therefore, Allah is not God.
Thanks for proving your ignorance of theology again.
1. Jewish people do not worship Jesus
2. Jewish people worship Jehovah
3. I believe Jesus is God
4. Therefore, Jehovah is not God
As anyone can see, when you apply the same logic to Jewish beliefs, it exposes Vagons inability to think coherently, the point that the ignorant atheist Vagon seems to be completely missing is that Jewish and Muslims are worshiping an incomplete/incorrect version of God. Just because they are worshiping Him incorrect does not mean they are worshiping a completely different God.
1. I am a fan of Roy Jones Jr becuase of his hand speed, foot speed and good jab.
2. My friends are fans of Roy Jones Jr because of his hand speed and foot speed, they say he does NOT have a good jab.
3. Just because my friends do not acknowledge he has a good jab doesn't mean they are fans of a different fighter, they are still fans of Roy.
Similarly.
1. I believe God is a Trinity, God the father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all are God.
2. Jewish and Muslims believe that God is not a Trinity, they don't beleive Jesus is God, they just believe in God the Father but have 2 different names for Him
3. Just because Jews and Muslims beleive that God is NOT a trinity and that Jesus is NOT God doesn't mean they are worshiping a different God.
Your attempt to answer the reductio ad absurdem claim that Matt reiterated is lacking. As Quasar pointed out, all religion requires faith.
And your response is lacking because you cannot tell the difference between someone commanding and desiring faith and an after the fact requirement of faith.
1. My coach commands and desires for people to know how to fight before they join the gym.
#1 is different from realizing I need to know how to fight after I got beat up in the street or realizing after I got beat up in the street that I am required to learn to fight.
so you're once again completely incorrect. Like I said, you cannot tell the difference between God requiring and commanding that we have faith initially, and a requirement of faith because of an after the fact realization that you have no scientific evidence. The former we have a good solid reason as to why we see no scientific evidence, the latter we are forced to rely on faith because of lack of scientific evidence, and we have no good solid reason why there is no scientific evidence. You obviously cannot tell the difference between the 2.
Why isn't a lack of scientific evidence for other gods evidence for their existance?
Because there is no reason given that they shouldn't give any.
Why do you assume that the hypothesis in the bible (such as the flood) are not falsifiable?
This was answered already. The flood is falsifiable, but even if you were to prove a global flood didn't happen it does not disprove the existence of God since the existence of God is not dependent upon a global flood.
I'm just curious, I've had Christians tell me that Allah is not God but a false idol. Do you believe they are wrong or are you speaking as an impartial outside observer?
If I say that I believe in God, but I don't have complete faith in scripture, am I worshiping the same God?
I'm just curious, I've had Christians tell me that Allah is not God but a false idol. Do you believe they are wrong or are you speaking as an impartial outside observer?
Those Christians are wrong, all you need to do is ask them the same question regarding the Jews, do the Jews worship a false idol?
If I say that I believe in God, but I don't have complete faith in scripture, am I worshiping the same God?
Depends on what you mean by complete faith in scripture. The disciples along with the early church worshiped Jesus without scripture, so you can worship God without scripture. I just don't get what you mean by not having complete faith in scripture.
To the people who call themselves "true Christians" I am worshiping an false idol of a god and not God himself because I don't believe the bible is 100% literal but that it can be figurative in some instances. To them I am not showing complete faith in scripture.
Your statements about the flood is a good example. They believe it was a literal worldwide flood, but you propose it could be a local flood, which would be the world as they knew it at the time.
To the people who call themselves "true Christians" I am worshiping an false idol of a god and not God himself because I don't believe the bible is 100% literal but that it can be figurative in some instances. To them I am not showing complete faith in scripture.
I see, these Christians are confusing faith in scripture with faith in their own personal interpretation of scripture. You must remember though, one cannot read whatever it is they think the bible means, there are only a certain number of valid translations and interpretations of scripture.
Your statements about the flood is a good example. They believe it was a literal worldwide flood, but you propose it could be a local flood, which would be the world as they knew it at the time.
Yes, this is a valid interpretation of scripture that can be read as literal YECs read a global flood. I honestly don't know which is the correct version, but in the grand scope of things it really isn't important.
Pfft.
As predicted your requirement for "Faith"(TM) is not a valid argument, its just you playing a poor game of semantics to suit your cognitive dissonance.
First you think reductio ad absurdem is fallacious, then you say it can be fallacious, from which it is observed you have no concept of common fallacies.
You assume Allah is the same as the Triune God is the same as Jehovah. Despite the clear differences between each version.
You don't accept falsification as being part of the scientific method.
As such there is no reason for anyone to argue with you until you educate yourself on some fairly basic matters.
I suggest you look up the Dunning-Kruger effect and maybe practice dodging those strikes a bit better.
Good day.
If the flood was local, why could the water be 15 cubits above the mountains (Gen 7:20)?
And if it was even just Middle Eastern why don't the Egyptians mention it in their historical records? Why no water marks on the Great Pyramid of Cheops which was built hundreds of years before the flood.
If it was global why didn't the Chinese records mention it?
By adding the genealogies, the flood is said to have occurred about 2348 BC.
Pfft.
As predicted your requirement for "Faith"(TM) is not a valid argument, its just you playing a poor game of semantics to suit your cognitive dissonance.
Due to your ignorance which is quite common amongst atheist you cannot seem to tell the difference between asserting my requirement is not a valid argument and actually PROVING it is not a valid argument. Due to your ignorance and atheism I don't expect that you to understand that. Now provide valid evidence besides your own ignorant opinion of why it is not a valid argument or admit you have none.
First you think reductio ad absurdem is fallacious, then you say it can be fallacious, from which it is observed you have no concept of common fallacies.
Not only is this insignificant to the main point, but you have effectively proved you obviously can't tell the difference between reductio ad absurdem being used fallaciously and explaining it can be fallacious. More ignorance.
You assume Allah is the same as the Triune God is the same as Jehovah. Despite the clear differences between each version.
Aww an ignorant atheist can't read or think coherently. He can't understand the concept of a Trinity and 2 religions worshiping one part of the Trinity and denying the other 2 parts.
You don't accept falsification as being part of the scientific method.
Now you're just making things up.
As such there is no reason for anyone to argue with you until you educate yourself on some fairly basic matters.
Actually it is the other way around, there is no reason for me to argue with ignorant atheists such as yourselves because you are not educated on logic, facts, and simple things like reading comprehension.
I suggest you look up the Dunning-Kruger effect and maybe practice dodging those strikes a bit better.
I suggest looking up logic and how it works, wiki might be a good starting place for one as ignorant as your self to grasp it, but first I suggest learning basic reading comprehension.
If the flood was local, why could the water be 15 cubits above the mountains (Gen 7:20)?
I suggest looking at the word for mountain. The word is 'har' and a valid translation of the word is hill, mountain, hill country, mount.
And if it was even just Middle Eastern why don't the Egyptians mention it in their historical records? Why no water marks on the Great Pyramid of Cheops which was built hundreds of years before the flood.
The flood took place before pyramid and the Egyptians were even existed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, stop using arguments from silence. The Egyptians didn't record a lot of things in their history, the exodus being one of them, they do have flood myths however, I suggest looking up where Ra flooded the nile.
If it was global why didn't the Chinese records mention it?
By adding the genealogies, the flood is said to have occurred about 2348 BC.
I am not a YEC, I don't even adhere to their timeline, as I said an old earth is a valid translation of the bible.
I am not a YEC, I don't even adhere to their timeline,
It's the Bible's time-line.
It's the Bible's time-line.
No it is a YEC interpretation of the bibles timeline.
The date of the flood is got by adding up chronologies in the Bible. The numbers are from there. Maybe you don't believe in the Bible...
The date of the flood is got by adding up chronologies in the Bible. The numbers are from there. Maybe you don't believe in the Bible...
Where exactly did those chronologies start flute? did they start 6,000 years ago or millions and millions of years ago. I'll give you a hint, one of them is a YEC interpretation the other is not.
You start at Jesus' birth and work backwards.
Jesus was born about 4BC. The chronologies only measure whole years so the date of the flood could be about 100 years wrong so cira 2350 BC.
So you don't need to interpret the earth's age YEC-style. You just need to count the years in the chronologies backwards, then BINGO!
You start at Jesus' birth and work backwards.
Jesus was born about 4BC. The chronologies only measure whole years so the date of the flood could be about 100 years wrong so cira 2350 BC.
So you don't need to interpret the earth's age YEC-style. You just need to count the years in the chronologies backwards, then BINGO!
You are completely ignorant to the fact that there are gaps in biblical genealogies, biblical genealogies are telescoped, while historically accurate they were never meant to be complete. Matthew had his genealogy listed in 3 groups of 14 names, while luke had his genealogy in one list, with 14 names from Abraham to David, 21 from David to exile, and 21 from the exile to Jesus, luke also has an additional 21 names from Abraham back to Adam. So you thought you had a point only to have it blow up in your face AGAIN. Now concede the point per rule #4 unless you have anything to refute what I said.
But TD, you will concede, surely, that this is a valid interpretation of Scripture, won't you?
I mean, a number of prominent Christian organizations clearly think it is (to the point that they'd call you a heretic for not accepting it!)
If they are historically accurate and, when combined, chart a continuous genealogy from Adam to Jesus, then I don't see why a Christian wouldn't take this as the time-line from the Fall at least.
Could you explain your rejection of this interpretation in a bit more detail please?
Thanks,
But TD, you will concede, surely, that this is a valid interpretation of Scripture, won't you?
It is a valid interpretation of scripture no doubt about that, but so is mine.
I mean, a number of prominent Christian organizations clearly think it is (to the point that they'd call you a heretic for not accepting it!)
I would be a heretic for not accepting it yes, saying that there are gaps in the genealogies no. I accept the genealogies as valid, but I simply say that there are gaps in them, there is a difference.
If they are historically accurate and, when combined, chart a continuous genealogy from Adam to Jesus, then I don't see why a Christian wouldn't take this as the time-line from the Fall at least.
They are historically accurate but there are gaps in them, you cannot chart a continues genealogy from Adam to Jesus with gaps in said genealogy.
Could you explain your rejection of this interpretation in a bit more detail please?
Sure, I'll make it my next post.
I'm very interested in what you have to say about that topic
Cheers from a non-genealogist!
Post a Comment