evidence of God, a rational belief

this forum has the goal to organize and unite information and compelling evidence for the existence of the God of the bible


You are not connected. Please login or register

evidence of God, a rational belief » Philosophy and God » Why not believe in , lets say, a Pink Unicorn ?

Goto page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

elshamah888


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162088&page=97

First, the ipu is NOT infinite (or it wouldn't be a unicorn) so it does NOT compare with an Infinite Creator.

Second, you know that unicorns (especially pink ones) are a literary
construct which DO NOT explain infinite regress (with respect to Uncaused
Cause, or Unmoved Mover).

Third, you don't have people all over the world worshipping the ipu and
claiming to have a personal relationship with this ipu. There are no
worship songs that I am aware of that are sung by congregations to
the ipu.

Fourth, we are not created in the Image of a horse with a single horn, in
that horses in general do not think, create and work with complex mathematics. Horses are not artistic.

Fifth, the ipu is temporal and moves from place to place and experience
duration (and is limited) from a linear progressive consecutive point of
view. (experiences time by moving from place to place).

Sixth, the invisible pink unicorn has negative evidence to its contrary
(to NOT believe it in). It is nonsense and a ridiculous appeal to an
imaginary construct which doesn't deal with the premises of an Infinite
Creator Who explains infinite regressions.

Seventh, the invisible pink unicorn never became a Man and died for the
sins of the world to demonstrate His Self-Sacrificing Love.

View user profile

Wiccan_Child


elshamah888 wrote:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162088&page=97

First, the ipu is NOT infinite (or it wouldn't be a unicorn) so it does NOT compare with an Infinite Creator.

The claim doesn't specify whether She is infinte or not, nor whether She compares with this 'Infinite' Creator' you speak of. And besides, neither of these impact the veracity of the claim. Claiming something infinite exists is not inherently more rational than claiming something finite exist.

elshamah888 wrote:
Second, you know that unicorns (especially pink ones) are a literary
construct which DO NOT explain infinite regress (with respect to Uncaused
Cause, or Unmoved Mover).

The origin of the unicorn myth varies. Some say it is a horse, some say it is a mistranslation of what we now call rhinos, some say the IPU Herself inspired authors over the world to write of unicorns.
Besides, that doesn't change the veracity of the claim that the IPU exists. The idea of a black swan was once used as a philosophical hypothetical, yet they turned out to be very real.

elshamah888 wrote:
Third, you don't have people all over the world worshipping the ipu and
claiming to have a personal relationship with this ipu. There are no
worship songs that I am aware of that are sung by congregations to
the ipu.

If there were, would that somehow change the veracity of the claim that there exists an IPU?

elshamah888 wrote:Fourth, we are not created in the Image of a horse with a single horn, in
that horses in general do not think, create and work with complex mathematics. Horses are not artistic.

Horses aren't, but unicorns are. Besides, what does the idea (that we are made in the image of X) have to do with the veracity of the claims involved? Christianity doesn't become more likely just because it contains a myth that we were made in the image of God.
Moreover, even in Christianity no one says that we are literally made in the image of God. If God doesn't have to literally make us in his own image, why should the IPU?

elshamah888 wrote:
Fifth, the ipu is temporal and moves from place to place and experience
duration (and is limited) from a linear progressive consecutive point of
view. (experiences time by moving from place to place).

So? We are temporal and move from place to place, etc, yet we exist.

elshamah888 wrote:
Sixth, the invisible pink unicorn has negative evidence to its contrary
(to NOT believe it in). It is nonsense and a ridiculous appeal to an
imaginary construct which doesn't deal with the premises of an Infinite
Creator Who explains infinite regressions.

It doesn't need to. The IPU has just as much rationale supporting its existence as God does (i.e., zero). That's the point. Any argument that concludes the existence of God does so arbitrarily: the word 'God' can be replaced with 'Invisible Pink Unicorn'.
Consider the Kalam argument (a testament to the necessity of a good mathematical education if ever there was one):

  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
  4. That cause was the Invisible Pink Unicorn.


You see? Even if the Kalam argument worked (which is a discussion for another time), all it does is conclude that the universe had a cause. There is nothing to suggest that it was God (which is a personal, intelligent, extant being which, typically, involves itself with our lives). So to conclude that the cause was God is just as arbitrary as to conclude that it was an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

elshamah888 wrote:Seventh, the invisible pink unicorn never became a Man and died for the
sins of the world to demonstrate His Self-Sacrificing Love.

So?

View user profile

elshamah888


Wiccan_Child wrote:
  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
  4. That cause was the Invisible Pink Unicorn.


You see? Even if the Kalam argument worked (which is a discussion for another time), all it does is conclude that the universe had a cause. There is nothing to suggest that it was God (which is a personal, intelligent, extant being which, typically, involves itself with our lives). So to conclude that the cause was God is just as arbitrary as to conclude that it was an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

elshamah888 wrote:Seventh, the invisible pink unicorn never became a Man and died for the
sins of the world to demonstrate His Self-Sacrificing Love.

So?


Again, there is NO support in real life, in history, for the existence of a pink unicorn. There is however tons of evidence of the existence of the God of the bible. You can find it right here, on my forum. Wink

View user profile

Wiccan_Child


elshamah888 wrote:
Wiccan_Child wrote:
  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
  4. That cause was the Invisible Pink Unicorn.


You see? Even if the Kalam argument worked (which is a discussion for another time), all it does is conclude that the universe had a cause. There is nothing to suggest that it was God (which is a personal, intelligent, extant being which, typically, involves itself with our lives). So to conclude that the cause was God is just as arbitrary as to conclude that it was an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

elshamah888 wrote:Seventh, the invisible pink unicorn never became a Man and died for the
sins of the world to demonstrate His Self-Sacrificing Love.

So?


Again, there is NO support in real life, in history, for the existence of a pink unicorn. There is however tons of evidence of the existence of the God of the bible. You can find it right here, on my forum. Wink

Then that is your argument against the IPU. The IPU is just as viable a conclusion as any other supernatural explanation for any phenomenon. If someone attributes a person's healing to being caused by the god of the Bible, well, it's arbitrary: it could just have easily been an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

If you have evidence for the existence of the god of the Bible, that's different, because that specifically supports the god of the Bible, and not the IPU. But I'm sceptical that you do (surprise surprise . Wink ).

View user profile

elshamah888


Wiccan_Child wrote:
elshamah888 wrote:
Wiccan_Child wrote:
  1. Everything that began to exist had a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
  4. That cause was the Invisible Pink Unicorn.


You see? Even if the Kalam argument worked (which is a discussion for another time), all it does is conclude that the universe had a cause. There is nothing to suggest that it was God (which is a personal, intelligent, extant being which, typically, involves itself with our lives). So to conclude that the cause was God is just as arbitrary as to conclude that it was an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

elshamah888 wrote:Seventh, the invisible pink unicorn never became a Man and died for the
sins of the world to demonstrate His Self-Sacrificing Love.

So?


Again, there is NO support in real life, in history, for the existence of a pink unicorn. There is however tons of evidence of the existence of the God of the bible. You can find it right here, on my forum. Wink

Then that is your argument against the IPU. The IPU is just as viable a conclusion as any other supernatural explanation for any phenomenon. If someone attributes a person's healing to being caused by the god of the Bible, well, it's arbitrary: it could just have easily been an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

If you have evidence for the existence of the god of the Bible, that's different, because that specifically supports the god of the Bible, and not the IPU. But I'm sceptical that you do (surprise surprise . Wink ).


Well, all is depending on INTERPRETATION. What might serve as supposition to deduce the existence of God, someone else can interprete the evidence in a completely different way. There is always the possibility of different interpretation for certain facts. For me at least, there is a overwhelming accumulative case for the God of the bible.
Some reasons i believe, the bible is true, i have posted at this thread.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/bible-christianity-f6/why-is-the-bible-christianity-the-only-true-religion-t96.htm

View user profile

Wiccan_Child


elshamah888 wrote:Well, all is depending on INTERPRETATION. What might serve as supposition to deduce the existence of God, someone else can interprete the evidence in a completely different way. There is always the possibility of different interpretation for certain facts. For me at least, there is a overwhelming accumulative case for the God of the bible.

I disagree. Facts are facts, objective and independent of what we think. You cannot take the evidence for, say, quantum mechanics and legitimately 'interpret' it as a disproof of quantum mechanics. Similarly with other claims: the evidence either does or does not support the Bible.

Which begs the question: which Bible? Which set of documents constitute the Bible? Which translation of which documents? Which interpretation of which translation of which documents? Suddenly, it becomes clear why there are over 13,000 denominations within the general 'Christianity' umbrella.

elshamah888 wrote:
Some reasons i believe, the bible is true, i have posted at this thread.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/bible-christianity-f6/why-is-the-bible-christianity-the-only-true-religion-t96.htm

I'll have a look.

View user profile

elshamah888


Wiccan_Child wrote:
I disagree. Facts are facts, objective and independent of what we think.


truly they are, but there are many questions, which do not have a answer through science. There are many facts, aka scientific discoveries, which are used as pressuposition of a argument. Thats what we are talking about. Historic Science always lets different interpretations open, based on the scientific findings, like archaeology, pantheology, astronomy, physics etc. to find answers of ultimate truth, like meaning, origin of the universe, life etc.



You cannot take the evidence for, say, quantum mechanics and legitimately 'interpret' it as a disproof of quantum mechanics. Similarly with other claims: the evidence either does or does not support the Bible.


Of course. Virtual particles are observed through scientific experiments. But the interpretation is the key point, and all we are discussing about.



Which begs the question: which Bible? Which set of documents constitute the Bible? Which translation of which documents? Which interpretation of which translation of which documents? Suddenly, it becomes clear why there are over 13,000 denominations within the general 'Christianity' umbrella.


This is a pseudo-argument against the bible. It is very easy today, through the net, to make own research, comparisons etc. to etablish which translation fits best your needs of understanding. Also the texts of the original languages are freely available on the net.

View user profile

Wiccan_Child


elshamah888 wrote:truly they are, but there are many questions, which do not have a answer through science. There are many facts, aka scientific discoveries, which are used as pressuposition of a argument. Thats what we are talking about. Historic Science always lets different interpretations open, based on the scientific findings, like archaeology, pantheology, astronomy, physics etc. to find answers of ultimate truth, like meaning, origin of the universe, life etc.

Of course. Virtual particles are observed through scientific experiments. But the interpretation is the key point, and all we are discussing about.

There is no interpretation. There are only cold, hard facts. There is nothing interpretive about inferring the existence of virtual particles from the data: it is objective, not subjective.

elshamah888 wrote:This is a pseudo-argument against the bible. It is very easy today, through the net, to make own research, comparisons etc. to etablish which translation fits best your needs of understanding. Also the texts of the original languages are freely available on the net.

Precisely: which translation best fits your needs. You can pick whatever translation you want, whatever method of interpretation you want. One person says the Bible implies the Earth is 6000 years old, another person says Genesis is allegorical; one person affirms free will, another stresses God's sovereignty. There are no hard facts here; there is only ancient text that can be interpreted and translated however you want, to support any argument you want.
So, no, it's not a pseudo-argument. There really are a plethora of ways in which you can compile, translate, and then interpret the Bible

View user profile

elshamah888


Wiccan_Child wrote: There really are a plethora of ways in which you can compile, translate, and then interpret the Bible[/b][/color]


that is true. The bible is not just one book. Its a collection of many different books, and its about many different issues. Many can in fact be interpreted in may ways, and it is not wrong at all to do so. We shall finally think about the meaning of the word in the bible, and substract what edificates us. But there are key points in the bible, and these are VERY clear, and there are only two positions : or you belief what is said, or you reject it. You can find a summary here :

http://www.understandingthebible.org/One_word_summary_of_the_christian_faith.htm

View user profile

Wiccan_Child


elshamah888 wrote:
Wiccan_Child wrote: There really are a plethora of ways in which you can compile, translate, and then interpret the Bible[/b][/color]


that is true. The bible is not just one book. Its a collection of many different books, and its about many different issues. Many can in fact be interpreted in may ways, and it is not wrong at all to do so. We shall finally think about the meaning of the word in the bible, and substract what edificates us. But there are key points in the bible, and these are VERY clear, and there are only two positions : or you belief what is said, or you reject it.

I reject some of it, not all. I agree with the Bible that there was a place called Egypt, that there were Pharaohs, etc. I disagree with the Bible that a man named Jesus ever existed, that God created the world in six days, that having your goats have sex in front of a stripy stick will make them have stripy offspring, that serpents can speak, that there was ever a year-long global flood, etc.

Notice that the only things I find believable are the things with independent evidence to support them. The Bible, in and of itself, is an untrustworthy source.

View user profile

elshamah888


Wiccan_Child wrote:
elshamah888 wrote:
Wiccan_Child wrote: There really are a plethora of ways in which you can compile, translate, and then interpret the Bible[/b][/color]


that is true. The bible is not just one book. Its a collection of many different books, and its about many different issues. Many can in fact be interpreted in may ways, and it is not wrong at all to do so. We shall finally think about the meaning of the word in the bible, and substract what edificates us. But there are key points in the bible, and these are VERY clear, and there are only two positions : or you belief what is said, or you reject it.

I reject some of it, not all. I agree with the Bible that there was a place called Egypt, that there were Pharaohs, etc. I disagree with the Bible that a man named Jesus ever existed, that God created the world in six days, that having your goats have sex in front of a stripy stick will make them have stripy offspring, that serpents can speak, that there was ever a year-long global flood, etc.

Notice that the only things I find believable are the things with independent evidence to support them. The Bible, in and of itself, is an untrustworthy source.


Well, thats why things in the bible must be accepted, or be rejected. They cannot be proven. But i think there are many reasons to believe, the bible is trust worthy.

here a example :

http://www.onlinethoughts.com/bible_evidence/bible_evi.htm

View user profile

Wiccan_Child


elshamah888 wrote:Well, thats why things in the bible must be accepted, or be rejected. They cannot be proven. But i think there are many reasons to believe, the bible is trust worthy.

here a example :

http://www.onlinethoughts.com/bible_evidence/bible_evi.htm

Can you pick a specific example, so we can discuss it?

View user profile

elshamah888


Wiccan_Child wrote:
elshamah888 wrote:Well, thats why things in the bible must be accepted, or be rejected. They cannot be proven. But i think there are many reasons to believe, the bible is trust worthy.

here a example :

http://www.onlinethoughts.com/bible_evidence/bible_evi.htm

Can you pick a specific example, so we can discuss it?


six days, that having your goats have sex in front of a stripy stick will make them have stripy offspring, that serpents can speak, that there was ever a year-long global flood, etc.

Well, i believe, God can do all these things, if he is the creator of the heavens and the earth. Why should it not be possible to him ?

View user profile

Wiccan_Child


elshamah888 wrote:
Wiccan_Child wrote: six days, that having your goats have sex in front of a stripy stick will make them have stripy offspring, that serpents can speak, that there was ever a year-long global flood, etc.



Well, i believe, God can do all these things, if he is the creator of the heavens and the earth. Why should it not be possible to him ?

Of course it's possible for an all-powerful (or even a finitely powerful) being to accomplish these things. But that's just it: there is no reason to believe that any of those events actually occurred, nor that such a being actually exists. That's why I don't believe in them.

View user profile

elshamah888


Wiccan_Child wrote:
elshamah888 wrote:
Wiccan_Child wrote: six days, that having your goats have sex in front of a stripy stick will make them have stripy offspring, that serpents can speak, that there was ever a year-long global flood, etc.



Well, i believe, God can do all these things, if he is the creator of the heavens and the earth. Why should it not be possible to him ?

Of course it's possible for an all-powerful (or even a finitely powerful) being to accomplish these things. But that's just it: there is no reason to believe that any of those events actually occurred, nor that such a being actually exists. That's why I don't believe in them.


There is in my opinion plenty of reasons to take the bible seriously, as shown in the cited homepage. But its in the end a matter of faith.

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Goto page : 1, 2  Next

evidence of God, a rational belief » Philosophy and God » Why not believe in , lets say, a Pink Unicorn ?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum