5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Theophilus]

@Theophilus: it might be good if you address some of the points people have raised by way of argument to your stance, rather than ignoring their valid criticisms and continuing on your (predictable, I'm sorry to say) religious track.

@Theophilus again: As I said. You are sticking to the arguments that you think you can win - you can't actually, for you are presenting nothing new in terms of evidence, and your argument from the point of history is being blown out of the water as I write. Why not address the miracles of yore and why there are none now? Bearing in mind that, inter alia, a single life "miraculously" spared after a catastrophe is NOT a miracle but a bit of bloody good luck.

Well, I'm trying to stick to one thing at a time. But we've probably reached stalemate on whether the Gospels and epistles have any evidential value at all.

Happy to do miracles next and why we don't appear to have validated miracles that match apostolic times. I'll try and get back later on that but it may be tomorrow or Tuesday, but I promise I will give you my thoughts on that next.

[Theophilus]

Roman documents are used as evidence to support/refute theories about events in Roman history, not the veracity of the documents themselves. Would you accept the existence of Roman gods based on those documents? Try again.

Bingo, the supernatural filter kicks in again. Evidence for natural history is accepted (not as proof, but as allowable evidence); evidence for supernatural history is automatically rejected. I have to say I think that is a "reasonable" position to take, but why dress it up as something else which can't be objectively consistent (as Gawdzilla's acceptance/rejection of sources of evidence for Jesus showed)?

Catch ya'll later.

Miracles next

[Tigger]

@Theophilus: it might be good if you address some of the points people have raised by way of argument to your stance, rather than ignoring their valid criticisms and continuing on your (predictable, I'm sorry to say) religious track.

@Theophilus again: As I said. You are sticking to the arguments that you think you can win - you can't actually, for you are presenting nothing new in terms of evidence, and your argument from the point of history is being blown out of the water as I write. Why not address the miracles of yore and why there are none now? Bearing in mind that, inter alia, a single life "miraculously" spared after a catastrophe is NOT a miracle but a bit of bloody good luck.

Well, I'm trying to stick to one thing at a time. But we've probably reached stalemate on whether the Gospels and epistles have any evidential value at all.

Happy to do miracles next and why we don't appear to have validated miracles that match apostolic times. I'll try and get back later on that but it may be tomorrow or Tuesday, but I promise I will give you my thoughts on that next.

Not thoughts, please: evidence. I can think what I want, but it doesn't make it a fact.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

@Theophilus: it might be good if you address some of the points people have raised by way of argument to your stance, rather than ignoring their valid criticisms and continuing on your (predictable, I'm sorry to say) religious track.

@Theophilus again: As I said. You are sticking to the arguments that you think you can win - you can't actually, for you are presenting nothing new in terms of evidence, and your argument from the point of history is being blown out of the water as I write. Why not address the miracles of yore and why there are none now? Bearing in mind that, inter alia, a single life "miraculously" spared after a catastrophe is NOT a miracle but a bit of bloody good luck.

Well, I'm trying to stick to one thing at a time. But we've probably reached stalemate on whether the Gospels and epistles have any evidential value at all.

You assume they do. I ask for the reasons behind your assumptions.

Happy to do miracles next and why we don't appear to have validated miracles that match apostolic times. I'll try and get back later on that but it may be tomorrow or Tuesday, but I promise I will give you my thoughts on that next.

You haven't finished this bit yet. Failing is okay, theists do it all the time. You'll fail many times here if you continue with this line.

As for the miracles, first prove the events happened before you talk about WHY they happened. G'Luck with that, too.

[FBM]

Roman documents are used as evidence to support/refute theories about events in Roman history, not the veracity of the documents themselves. Would you accept the existence of Roman gods based on those documents? Try again.

Bingo, the supernatural filter kicks in again. Evidence for natural history is accepted; evidence for supernatural history is automatically rejected. I have to say I think that is a "reasonable" position to take, but why dress it up as something else which can't be objectively consistent (as Gawdzilla's acceptance/rejection of sources of evidence for Jesus showed)?

So you would believe in the Roman gods based on the documents? That leave you in a rather precarious position, don't you think? Or, if you really think it's a reasonable position to take, then why would you swallow the myths of your preferred documents over equally-valid Roman myths? Cultural bias? Certainty bias? Or do you have some actual evidence that you're eventually going to spring on us? We're waiting...

Catch ya'll later.

Miracles next

Yes, please. It would take a miracle to make your 'arguments' coherent.

[Theophilus]

Just a quick question to clarify things on miracles. Could someone define "miracle" for me so we ensure we are talking about the same thing. I don't mind how you define it; let's just start with a shared understanding of terms.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Just a quick question to clarify things on miracles. Could someone define "miracle" for me so we ensure we are talking about the same thing. I don't mind how you define it; let's just start with a shared understanding of terms.

Okay, a miracle is a supernatural event that violates the know physical laws of the universe. You will need to provide Who, What, When, Where and Why for this.

[Animavore]

Just a quick question to clarify things on miracles. Could someone define "miracle" for me so we ensure we are talking about the same thing. I don't mind how you define it; let's just start with a shared understanding of terms.

Something which defies natural law. Graves opening and the dead walking amoung the living for instance (Matt. 27:52).

[FBM]

Just a quick question to clarify things on miracles. Could someone define "miracle" for me so we ensure we are talking about the same thing. I don't mind how you define it; let's just start with a shared understanding of terms.

How about "a bullshit story fed to the gullible to distract them from the fact that they're taking it up the poop-chute from their woo-masters"? No, I have a feeling that you won't go for that one. How about a dictionary, then? (Sorry, it's very late here and my sarcasm control timer has switched off. I promise to be more civil tomorrow. Sorry again. )

[Tigger]

Just a quick question to clarify things on miracles. Could someone define "miracle" for me so we ensure we are talking about the same thing. I don't mind how you define it; let's just start with a shared understanding of terms.

Something which defies natural law. Graves opening and the dead walking amoung the living for instance (Matt. 27:52).

Nothing like this though: this is a potato crisp, nothing more.

[Theophilus]

Okay, a miracle is a supernatural event that violates the know physical laws of the universe.

Thankyou Gawdzilla, I'm happy to use that as a starting point.

Off out now, catch y'all later.

Now, now FBM. Behave or it will be the naughty step for you.

(BTW - I can thoroughly recommend Alice in Wonderland. I saw it today; the CGI is just fantastic.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, a miracle is a supernatural event that violates the know physical laws of the universe.

Thankyou Gawdzilla, I'm happy to use that as a starting point.

Good.

Off out now, catch y'all later.

Now, now FBM. Behave or it will be the naughty step for you.

"behave"? FBM, look that one up.

(BTW - I can thoroughly recommend Alice in Wonderland. I saw it today; the CGI is just fantastic.)

Ayaan and I enjoyed it.

[macdoc]

Evidence for natural history is accepted; evidence for supernatural history is automatically rejected.

invalid parallel....natural history docs abide by the laws of physics....
the docs may be in error but they do not require any alteration of the universe as they are within known parameters

miracles do not...

[Theophilus]

A miracle is a supernatural event that violates the known physical laws of the universe.

O.K. just a couple of thoughts on this to kick us off.....

1) I think the adverb "known" is important. If we keep that adverb there (and as I say I'm happy to go by any definition you wish to pick) then miracles definitely exist. One key example I would pick is the creation of the universe, which would appear on face value to violate what we know about thermodynamics. There are no known physical laws of the universe that describe ex nihilo creation (assuming we accept the scientific "big bang" hypothesis). We can't say in what circumstances ex nihilo creation occurs, we can't say how it occurs and we can't predict when it will next occur or even if it will occur again. According to our current set of laws "something out of nothing" should not happen. Our knowledge of physical laws simply does not extend to how creation began, or what caused the big bang if you prefer. Some things happen which we just don't understand and appear to violate our existing laws, though that simply drives scientists to explore what is missing in our current laws which could explain these unexplained events. If they are miracles (and one may call ex nihilo creation a miracle I think) then miracles exist and I have hopefully given you an acceptable example. Maybe though what appears miraculous today will later be explained.

2) The verb "violates" is also important. If one were to say that a miracle is something that must violate natural/physical laws (now assuming we have a complete set of natural/physical laws) then I think this could be a short discussion, as I will agree with you and say "I don't think they happen". If God is creator of the universe, then that includes creator of how the universe works and I can't see it as an acceptable position to say that God would violate his own natural/physical laws of the universe. For me anything that appears as a miracle must essentially work in harmony with creation and not against it. We may not understand "how" (e.g. how Christ was resurrected) but I would not want to say Christ was resurrected and it violated the physical laws of the universe.

Essentially I believe that ultimately natural (events) and "supernatural" (miracles) are all part of the same creation and the distinction is largely based on the state of our knowledge. The miraculous may become mundane once explained; though ultimately I believe we will see it all as one beautiful harmony and recognise the miraculous in things we today consider mundane.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A miracle is a supernatural event that violates the known physical laws of the universe.

O.K. just a couple of thoughts on this to kick us off.....

1) I think the adverb "known" is important. If we keep that adverb there (and as I say I'm happy to go by any definition you wish to pick) then miracles definitely exist. One key example I would pick is the creation of the universe, which would appear on face value to violate what we know about thermodynamics. There are no known physical laws of the universe that describe ex nihilo creation - we can't say in what circumstances ex nihilo creation occurs, we can't say how it occurs and we can't predict when it will next occur or even if it will occur again. Our knowledge of physical laws simply does not extend to how creation began, or what caused the big bang if you prefer. Some things happen which we just don't understand and appear to violate our existing laws, though that simply drives scientists to explore what is missing in our current laws which could explain these unexplained events. If they are miracles (and one may call ex nihilo creation a miracle I think) then miracles exist and I have hopefully given you an acceptable example. Maybe though what appears miraculous today will later be explained.

2) The verb "violates" is also important. If one were to say that a miracle is something that must violate natural/physical laws (now assuming we have a complete set of natural/physical laws) then I think this could be a short discussion, as I will agree with you and say "I don't think they happen". If God is creator of the universe, then that includes creator of how the universe works and I can't see it as an acceptable position to say that God would violate his own natural/physical laws of the universe. For me anything that appears as a miracle must essentially work in harmony with creation and not against it. We may not understand "how" (e.g. how Christ was resurrected) but I would not want to say Christ was resurrected and it violated the physical laws of the universe.

Essentially I believe that ultimately natural (events) and "supernatural" (miracles) are all part of the same creation and the distinction is largely based on the state of our knowledge. The miraculous may become mundane once explained; though ultimately I believe we will see it all as one beautiful harmony and recognise the miraculous in things we today consider mundane.

Like I said earlier, no special pleading.