The argument is based on two things: The quantity (consensus) and quality (experts) of the believers. It’s argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad auctoritatem, rolled into one.
In a nutshell:
*“The overwhelming majority of the people who best understand A, believe A to be true. Therefor, A is almost certain to be true. You may disagree, but your non-expertise opinion is invalid.”
*
The problem with this, as I’ve brilliantly displayed in the opening post, is that A can be filled by many things.
Theologians are the experts on God, and they overwhelmingly believe in God. Using climate change alarmists’ “reasoning,” this makes God’s existence almost certain. Those who disagree are deniers.
You can talk about evidence all you want. You’re not an expert, and so you’re incapable of properly evaluating evidence, at least not to the level of the experts, who, might I remind you, find the evidence compelling enough to overwhelmingly believe in God.
The difference with science is that they don’t go off and study behind closed doors, then appear to proclaim that something is true. Science looks at data, the data they use is available for everyone, and their methods are available for everyone. You can go examine the data yourself, and if you come to a different conclusion that’s based on facts, publish that.
Theologians have no data, no way for anyone to check their results. It appears to anyone from the outside that they’re just making shit up. Theology - it’s the subject without an object!
I don’t know what argument you’ve been participating in, but: no, it isn’t - it’s additionally based on the qualities of the evidence being argued.
Fine, then your assertions mean nothing outside of your walled garden where the evidence can be understood - in that case, it’s still a different scenario to the one you are trying to lay it alongside.
No, they’re not. They’re experts on the historicity of their church, it’s books and it’s notable figures; and, as noted, there’s precious little concensus among them.
As has been noted, theologians are not experts on god, they are scholars of theology. That means that they know all about claims made about (usually one specific) god.
By contrast, scientists produce real, practical, useful results. We see it all around us. Right here. No deity created this here internet thingy, no faithful prayed it into existence, and most clerical types find it a bit problematic. Science does stuff, religion, more often than not, tries to prevent stuff.
So, we tend to be much more likely to heed the word of scientists because they have a proven track record and their work tends toward convergence. Theologians tend to be more divergent, so their ideas are given less credence. And their track record is nowhere near as good as that of scientists.
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein, theology is unique amongst the “sciences” because it is a study with no definable subject matter. We can all define life (biology, zoology, botany) at least to a certain extent, ditto the Earth (geology, meteorology, chemistry), stars and planets (astronomy), etc. These are all things that can be seen, even if indirectly, can be measured and recorded, the results of which can be duplicated (or refuted).
Define God? Measure God? Good luck with that. :rolleyes:
A slice of lightly buttered bread, with cheese grated on top, singed under the oven broiler until the cheese is bubbly. That is the only proper grilled cheese sandwich. It also solves the other problem, as the cheese protects the bread from getting soggy when you put a tomato slice on top. Or anything else. Cucumber slices would be good.
I’d put it a little differently. Theologians are experts on the evidence that God has left for us. Written evidence, archaeological evidence, historical evidence.
There is no archeological evidence. Historical evidence would be the same as written evidence, although few today would claim that the written evidence is actualy historical.
And which of all that is evidence that your god left for us, as opposed to evidence that some places and peoples mentioned in the Bible have historical counterparts?
Well, the problem with that is that while that is evidence for the people and cities from the times of the heroes and legends, we do not think nowadays that when Schliemann found Troy that therefore we got then evidence for the Gods of Olympus.
Evidence that it is claimed that it left for us. From what I understand, jehovallah is ominmax. Which means it is omnipotent. From a strict logical perspective, omnipotence is exactly the same as impotence, so any claims about what some omnipotent deity has done are the epitome of questionable.