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.
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.
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.
Looks like a leap of faith into Charybdis or Scylla.
Not impressed, and others point at the reasons why that is the case.
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.
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. 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.
You’re not constructing a case with The Case for Christ? if you say so .
“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?
Which god?
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.
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.
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.
Any.
Starting at a conclusion and then working back is woefully dishonest. That’s not what I did. I have wondered, scrutinized, studied, asked, explored.
It’s probably the same but I’m not sure.
I’m not convinced the conclusions are incompatible. How are they incompatible?
Ahh, your poor logic is showing.
Go out and find it for yourself. It is largely out there.
Miracles and signs of God’s love happen all the time. You have to learn to look for them, and they are all around.
Never saw that one, but you cannot make that guarantee, can you.
I’ve given plenty in this thread to show that God does exist.
All due respect, but no, you haven’t.
That’s okay.
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.
Nothing has held up to even the slightest scrutiny.
Would you point to the one you consider the most well-documented and verified?
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.
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?
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.
The shroud in reality only tells people that are a bit skeptic to become even more so 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.