This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty 496 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  If not scientific evidence so what kind of evidence do you mean?

  Just some sensible, rational observations that would help a reasonable person understand why the world does not coincide with the claims that christians make. I'm not asking for statistics or formal arguments. I've told you that many times already

  My rule of thumb is as follows - If you can't explain your argument to your aged grandmother you don't really have anything to say.

  All of your answers in the last 21 pages have been pretentious piffle.

  There are some subjective observations in your OP

  So explain why they are mistaken then.
• 

  cofty

  All of your answers in the last 21 pages have been pretentious piffle - Cofty

  Sorry that was unnecessarily harsh.

  What I mean is you are hiding behind esoteric theology in order to avoid very simple questions.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  Just for clarity here are the nine simple challenges from the OP. Nine ways in which the claims of christianity just seem unlikely.

  1 - The brutal competition for survival

  2 - Mass extinctions

  3 - "Nature red in tooth and claw"

  4 - Lack of clear bible prophecy

  5 - The complete ordinariness of the bible

  6 - The moral failings of scripture

  7 - The credulity that is required to believe in miracles

  8 - An earth perfectly designed to randomly kill millions of its inhabitants

  9 - The confirmation bias that is required to believe in answered prayer

  I wonder what else we could add to this list.
• 

  John_Mann

  Just some sensible, rational observations

  I'm using the most simple and logically sound argument to God that I know.

  You must accept the simplicity and logical soundness of the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  Don't you?

  that would help a reasonable person

  Like a person who believes in the metaphysical Atheism and Scientism (logically flawed as a carpet)?

  understand why the world does not coincide with the claims that christians make.

  Where's this "why". You haven't shown nothing than Atheism and Scientism.

  I'm not asking for statistics or formal arguments.

  Wow!

  I've told you that many times already

  When? All you do is always demand for scientific evidences to anything.

  My rule of thumb is as follows -

  Rule of thumb is the popular name to the heuristic method. It's the first time you're mentioning a method beyond the scientific method (which is metaphysical because is built upon several axioms).

  BTW the heuristic method is metaphysical too. Just saying...

  If you can't explain your argument to your aged grandmother you don't really have anything to say.

  The St. Anselm's ontological argument is understandable to any grandmother.

  BTW almost every grandmother I know is a theist. Because people tend to be more wise in the old age.
• 

  cofty

  It is clear that you prefer throwing around silly labels than holding a rational conversation John. Pity.
• 

  John_Mann

  HiIt is clear that you prefer throwing around silly labels than holding a rational conversation John. Pity.

  Labels are definitions and definitions are necessary in a rational conversation.

  The labels or definitions in our rational conversation:

  # God: as defined in the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  # Axiom: metaphysical statement taken to be true through pure faith.

  # John_Mann: Catholic.

  # Cofty: Atheist and follower of Scientism.

  # Cofty and JM: both accept the scientific method. Both accept the heuristic method.

  Do you accept these definitions/labels?
  
  
• 

  Perry

  Cofty,

  The credulity that is required to believe in miracles

  And a self appearing universe from nothing is distinguishable from a miracle how?

  This is another example of the inconsistency of atheism.

  The moral failings of scripture

  How could you possibly know what is moral if your morals are based on your own subjectivity? Even if you got a moral "right" you would not be able to know it because everything is constantly evolving, including morals, right?
• 

  John_Mann

  Nine ways in which the claims of Christianity just seem unlikely:

  1 - The brutal competition for survival
  2 - Mass extinctions
  3 - "Nature red in tooth and claw"

  Non sequitur statements. These statements doesn't lead to the initial conclusion (Christianity is unlikely).

  Christianity says the physical world is ruled by impersonal natural laws.

  Christianity says only the immortal soul is directly and metaphysically created by God in His image (Original Justice). The nature of this immortal soul is temporarily broken (Original Sin).

  4 - Lack of clear bible prophecy

  5 - The complete ordinariness of the bible

  6 - The moral failings of scripture

  Axiomatic statements. Acceptance its not necessary.

  7 - The credulity that is required to believe in miracles

  You must stop to talk in a pejorative way about faith because you use faith too (every time when you accept an axiom).

  8 - An earth perfectly designed to randomly kill millions of its inhabitants

  Non sequitur.

  9 - The confirmation bias that is required to believe in answered prayer

  Axiomatic statement.
• 

  cofty

  How could you possibly know what is moral if your morals are based on your own subjectivity? - Perry

  My morals are based on objective facts about reality.

  Even if you got a moral "right" you would not be able to know it because everything is constantly evolving, including morals, right?

  Wrong. Slavery and infanticide have always been wrong. Objectively wrong. Even when your god was advocating slavery, rape and infanticide it was still objectively wrong. If god existed and if he had inspired the bible these things would not be so.

  You would happily murder babies and take sex slaves just as Joshua's army did if god commanded you to do so wouldn't you? Your morality is based on divine fiat.
  
  
• 

  cofty

  John_Mann your arrogant dismissals of my comments are unworthy of a response.