# Using The Climate Alarmists' Logic To Prove God
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 7, 2017, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056 "2017-05-07T07:47:26Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 6
### Author:  [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/101 "2017-05-09T22:35:00Z")
> [@outlierrn](#):
>
> Can you support this claim?
Yes of course I can, and it would be a faith-based argument. But, you cannot argue logically for faith-based claims. You have to have faith to believe them, and then within that faith you scrutinize and analyze, as I do.
For anyone open to consider God and faith, I recommend seeing the movie, _The Case for Christ_.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/102 "2017-05-09T22:47:42Z")
For anyone open to consider the gods and faith, I recommend the Iliad and the Odyssey.
---
### Author:  [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/103 "2017-05-09T22:50:51Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> For anyone open to consider the gods and faith, I recommend the Iliad and the Odyssey.
_The Case for Christ_ mentioned this, IIRC, and said there are for more original copies of the Bible than there are of Homer’s works. Again, IIRC.
So again for anyone open to considering God and faith, I recommend seeing the movie, _The Case for Christ_.
---
### Author:  [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/104 "2017-05-09T23:01:12Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> _The Case for Christ_ mentioned this, IIRC, and said there are for more original copies of the Bible than there are of Homer’s works. Again, IIRC.
Which proves nothing but that the filmmakers are working their way back from a conclusion they’ve already decided on. You’re not really helping your case.
---
### Author:  [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/105 "2017-05-09T23:07:48Z")
> [@outlierrn](#):
>
> Which proves nothing but that the filmmakers are working their way back from a conclusion they’ve already decided on. You’re not really helping your case.
I wasn’t constructing a case, I was merely mentioning it. Faith and logic are not wholly consistent; there comes that final leap of faith.
Anyone open to considering God and faith, I recommend seeing the movie, _The Case for Christ_.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/106 "2017-05-09T23:32:17Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> I wasn’t constructing a case, I was merely mentioning it. Faith and logic are not wholly consistent; there comes that final leap of faith.
Looks like a leap of faith into Charybdis or Scylla.
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> Anyone open to considering God and faith, I recommend seeing the movie, _The Case for Christ_.
> **[Nonreligious Questions](https://www.patheos.com/nonreligious-questions/)**
>
> Whether you’ve been turned off by religion in the past or have a question about one of the world’s religions, check out what Patheos has to offer.
Not impressed, and others point at the reasons why that is the case.
> [@](#):
>
> If you’re a Christian who wants a pat on the head and you don’t need to think too hard about the arguments given, that might work. For everyone else, it’s an unsurprising journey from lack of God belief to Christian faith with a greatest hits collection of weak Christian arguments. It would’ve been a lot more engaging if they’d handed out Bingo cards of ridiculous Christian arguments.
> [@](#):
>
> He visits Gary Habermas, and we get the first of more than a dozen weak Christian apologetic arguments. I’ll summarize each argument that I noticed for completeness and for your amusement, but I won’t spend much time rebutting them. (I’ll put brief comments in italics after each one.)
>
> ☢ Atheist Gerd Lüdemann says that Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15 passage was written just three years after the event. _(That’s debatable, but even so, it doesn’t mean much. More here.)_ ☢ Paul claims that 500 eyewitnesses saw the risen Christ.\* (Is that compelling evidence? Then why didn’t the gospels include it, too? More here.)\* ☢ There are nine sources for the crucifixion, some of them outside the Bible. _(I haven’t studied this one. I hope to do so and write about it soon.)_ Lee gave people drinking poison Kool-Aid at Jonestown in 1978 as an example of people laying down their lives for stupid reasons. ☢ Habermas responds that those people didn’t drink poison for something they knew was a lie or hoax _(That’s true, but very few atheists argue that the resurrection was a lie or a hoax! More here.)_
> [@](#):
>
> ☢ Historians have 5800 copies of Greek New Testament manuscripts, three times more than second-place Homer. The priest shows an illuminated page from Homer that was written 800 years after the original.\* (I wonder why the priest doesn’t make clear that 800 years is better than 90 percent of those Greek New Testament manuscripts. More here.)\*
>
> ☢ He also has a facsimile of P52, a papyrus scrap of John, which may have been copied just 30 years after the original. \*(If you actually care about textual criticism, you’ll find that Mormonism has far better evidence than Christianity. More here.)
> \*
> ☢ Finally, there’s the photo negative of the Shroud of Turin hung on the wall of the church. _(You like old evidence? Then you’ll be interested to hear that the oldest well-documented reference to this shroud—which is just one of dozens from a time when relics were valuable properties—states that it is a forgery. More here.)_
BTW I’m not just involved in busting ignorance about climate science, besides dealing with other pseudoscience I also looked at religious history and controversies, That item about the Shroud of Turin is one I’m particularly aware of, that the makers of the book/movie reached for that “evidence” is reaching for the bottom of the barrel.
---
### Author:  [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2017, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/107 "2017-05-09T23:33:23Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> . . . Science told us that we should stop praying for the sick and instead to wash our hands. Proper sanitation never appears once in the Bible as any form of recommendation by Yahweh, and yet we can spot the instant it became the norm by plotting the average life expectancy over history.
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Actually, I’m pretty sure that the Bible does contain laws concerning the minimum distance the latrines must be from the camp, which would be reasonably good sanitation for a nomadic people. It’s not good enough for the needs of a city, but it’s not nothing.
I think it’s in Deuteronomy somewhere. Looks like Chapter 23.
> [@](#):
>
> 12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the Lord your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.
Sigh. I miss the KJV.
> [@](#):
>
> 12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: 13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: 14 For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.
Better. More obscure, but more poetic.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/108 "2017-05-10T00:04:18Z")
> [@Yllaria](#):
>
> I think it’s in Deuteronomy somewhere. Looks like Chapter 23.
>
> Sigh. I miss the KJV.
>
> Better. More obscure, but more poetic.
You got ahead of me, I did remember that passage, but I was going to add that I think that while other civilizations and cultures deified their rulers the Hebrews only [showed hints of that early, but managed to limit it later](http://www.jstor.org/stable/528685?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). Leaving their rules as Anointed ones or rulers by divine permission.
Still, when I was reading passages like the one you pointed at, I can not help but to see them as examples of _budget apotheosis_. That is, that early on a lot of the rules that were added were because the lord was the actual human king checking on his troops making an early unpleasant discovery in a camp. Appealing to a higher power did make that check less messy for all future rulers.
---
### Author:  [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/109 "2017-05-10T00:51:19Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> I wasn’t constructing a case, I was merely mentioning it. Faith and logic are not wholly consistent; there comes that final leap of faith.
>
> Anyone open to considering God and faith, I recommend seeing the movie, _The Case for Christ_.
You’re not constructing a case with The Case for Christ? if you say so .
---
### Author:  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/110 "2017-05-10T03:26:49Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> [Can you support the claim?] Yes of course I can, and it would be a faith-based argument. But, you cannot argue logically for faith-based claims. You have to have faith to believe them…
“Why, yes, I can make a case that homeopathy is effective, but it would be a faith-based argument. You can’t argue logically for something like homeopathy, you just have to have faith.”
If anyone presented this argument here seriously, he would be ridiculed mercilessly. Why should religious beliefs get a free pass that nothing else gets?
---
### Author:  [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/111 "2017-05-10T05:14:13Z")
> [@CurtC](#):
>
> “Why, yes, I can make a case that homeopathy is effective, but it would be a faith-based argument. You can’t argue logically for something like homeopathy, you just have to have faith.”
>
> If anyone presented this argument here seriously, he would be ridiculed mercilessly. Why should religious beliefs get a free pass that nothing else gets?
If the homeopathic treatments work for some, then by all means go for it. It works for them, and so they believe it. They need no more data and evidence than their own experience.
So it is with my faith. And for millions of other believers too. No argument I present here will ever be good enough for the staunch, never-yielding unbelievers. And I’m fine with that.
How about this one – can you prove God does _ **not** _ exist?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/112 "2017-05-10T05:17:15Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> How about this one – can you prove God does _ **not** _ exist?
Which god?
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/113 "2017-05-10T05:33:01Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> Yes of course I can, and it would be a faith-based argument. But, you cannot argue logically for faith-based claims. You have to have faith to believe them, and then within that faith you scrutinize and analyze, as I do.
How is this different from starting at your conclusion and building an argument from there? Isn’t that woefully dishonest?
How does your faith differ from the faith of a Muslim, or the faith of a Jew?
If faith can just as validly lead to multiple completely incompatible conclusions, isn’t that a sign that it’s not valid? It’s like if the method I used for maths delivered both 2+2=5 and 2+2= 10.
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> So it is with my faith. And for millions of other believers too. No argument I present here will ever be good enough for the staunch, never-yielding unbelievers.
Thank for assuming we’re all blinkered and set in our ways, but that’s _entirely_ unreasonable. We don’t take the proposition “there is no god” on faith. You know what it would take to prove the existence of a god to me? Solid, verifiable evidence.
Or hell, even a personal experience that I could not deny. Not some vague nothingburger easily explained through alternative causes, but an actual divine experience. The Damascus road experience was good enough for Saul; why can’t God do the same for me? If God truly wanted to have a relationship with me, he, as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being, would know _exactly_ how to reach me. The fact he hasn’t either points to him not wanting a relationship with me, or him not existing.
Do you remember that scene from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where the Vogons tell the earthlings that the plant is about to be demolished? If God did something like that, I guarantee that there wouldn’t be a non-believer on earth the next day.
> [@](#):
>
> How about this one – can you prove God does _ **not** _ exist?
You first. Prove that any one of the thousands of gods you _don’t_ hold on faith don’t exist. Show us how it’s done.
---
### Author:  [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/114 "2017-05-10T11:53:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Which god?
Any.
---
### Author:  [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/115 "2017-05-10T12:08:39Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> How is this different from starting at your conclusion and building an argument from there? Isn’t that woefully dishonest?
Starting at a conclusion and then working back is woefully dishonest. That’s not what I did. I have wondered, scrutinized, studied, asked, explored.
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> How does your faith differ from the faith of a Muslim, or the faith of a Jew?
It’s probably the same but I’m not sure.
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> If faith can just as validly lead to multiple completely incompatible conclusions, isn’t that a sign that it’s not valid? It’s like if the method I used for maths delivered both 2+2=5 and 2+2= 10.
I’m not convinced the conclusions are incompatible. How are they incompatible?
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> Thank for assuming we’re all blinkered and set in our ways, but that’s _entirely_ unreasonable.
Ahh, your poor logic is showing.
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> We don’t take the proposition “there is no god” on faith. You know what it would take to prove the existence of a god to me? Solid, verifiable evidence.
Go out and find it for yourself. It is largely out there.
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> Or hell, even a personal experience that I could not deny. Not some vague nothingburger easily explained through alternative causes, but an actual divine experience. The Damascus road experience was good enough for Saul; why can’t God do the same for me? If God truly wanted to have a relationship with me, he, as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being, would know _exactly_ how to reach me. The fact he hasn’t either points to him not wanting a relationship with me, or him not existing.
Miracles and signs of God’s love happen all the time. You have to learn to look for them, and they are all around.
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> Do you remember that scene from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where the Vogons tell the earthlings that the plant is about to be demolished? If God did something like that, I guarantee that there wouldn’t be a non-believer on earth the next day.
Never saw that one, but you cannot make that guarantee, can you.
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> You first. Prove that any one of the thousands of gods you _don’t_ hold on faith don’t exist. Show us how it’s done.
I’ve given plenty in this thread to show that God does exist.
---
### Author:  [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/116 "2017-05-10T12:40:45Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> \
> I’ve given plenty in this thread to show that God does exist.\
All due respect, but no, you haven’t.
---
### Author:  [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/117 "2017-05-10T12:43:31Z")
> [@Superdude](#):
>
> All due respect, but no, you haven’t.
That’s okay.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/118 "2017-05-10T13:13:23Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> It’s probably the same but I’m not sure.
> I’m not convinced the conclusions are incompatible. How are they incompatible?
If I hold on faith “there is no god” and you hold on faith “there is a god”, whose faith is “right”?
If you hold on faith “there is a god, and that god is the god of the Bible”, and Mo holds on faith “there is a god, and that god is the god of the Qur’an”, whose faith is “right”? There is clearly incompatibility here - anyone who would claim that faith in Allah and faith in Yahweh are compatible positions to hold has not read either the Qur’an or the Bible.
> [@](#):
>
> Go out and find it for yourself. It is largely out there.
Nothing has held up to even the slightest scrutiny.
> [@](#):
>
> Miracles and signs of God’s love happen all the time. You have to learn to look for them, and they are all around.
Would you point to the one you consider the most well-documented and verified?
> [@](#):
>
> Never saw that one, but you cannot make that guarantee, can you.
Their ships are clearly visible to every person on the planet, and their voices can be heard in one coherent message to every person on earth. Not a single rational person could deny their existence or their message. This is the kind of thing god could do if he cared about us knowing that he existed.
---
### Author:  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/119 "2017-05-10T13:33:04Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> If the homeopathic treatments work for some, then by all means go for it. It works for them, and so they believe it. They need no more data and evidence than their own experience.
Well, I think we found the exact point of disconnect in our views. To be clear, it’s NOT valid for someone to take on faith that homeopathy works, you need data, and there is nothing that’s reliable.
Others have asked about the incompatible religious positions that faith could be used to justify, but it’s deeper than just that:
Since you’re using faith as its own justification, is there any belief, anywhere, that could not be accepted on faith? And if there’s not, is it a reliable method for finding out the truth?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 10, 2017, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056/120 "2017-05-10T14:27:05Z")
> [@Bullitt](#):
>
> I’ve given plenty in this thread to show that God does exist.
As others point, no. And here I have to point out that I started as a Christian from a Christian private school in the old country, turned atheist for awhile but the vastness of the universe and its possible dimensions made me more nowadays an Agnostic with a bit of deism.
Again, if you can not see that relying on a movie/book that relies on “evidence” like the Shroud of Turin, that is actually a caricature of what evidence should be, I have to tell you that checking it was one factor on why I dismissed organized old time religion.
Using evidence like that actually \*\*does \*\*discourage believers that want to have at least a good base to continue with a belief, _and I know for personal experience_. it is no wonder why [even the Catholic church that popularized the item has looked at the evidence and nowadays does see the **icon** as a nice bit of art that reminds the faithful about Jesus, but do not take it as real evidence indeed.](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm)
[The shroud in reality only tells people that are a bit skeptic to become even more so](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin) when they notice others falling for it and pushing it as valid evidence.
As for the issue of the thread that you conspicuously has avoided, do you agree with several religious conservatives that human induced climate change is not happening? And why, religiously speaking, is that the scientific evidence should be ignored?
Mind you, many religious leaders do think that the issue should not be dismissed, and that science should be listened at in this case.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/using-the-climate-alarmists-logic-to-prove-god/786056.md?page=7)