Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord

[ddt]

Why would art need to be inspired by god? It looks like just another human act.

I meant "deity as inspiration for art" as in Botticelli's Birth of Venus, or Bach's Matthew Passion. Or name any of the countless works of art that have been inspired by stories involving god(s).

 

[ddt]

I specifically stated the presumed deity always existed or existed outside of time. Are you saying its easier to presume that something that has those qualities would more likely be unintelligent? I might buy that argument, but entropy, despite its tricky definition, suggests otherwise.

I don't see where you stated specifically that the deity existed outside time. It seemed you just conveniently stripped away the "nothing > god" part from tsig's post, which is a pertinent question that theists generally try to shove under the carpet.

 

[stanfr]

I don't see where you stated specifically that the deity existed outside time. It seemed you just conveniently stripped away the "nothing > god" part from tsig's post, which is a pertinent question that theists generally try to shove under the carpet.

Ok--sorry, i thought i had stated it specifically, but rereading my post, it's implicit.
It's definitely a pertinent question--but i don't think its all that relevant to the OP's question.

 

[stanfr]

Why would art need to be inspired by god? It looks like just another human act.

How else could it look to you? You don't see too many monkeys producing the works of Shakespeare, for obvious reasons.

 

[DOC]

The title says it all. Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord.

the Lord Jesus Christ was not invisible. Most biblical scholars believe he existed including Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book, "Did Jesus Exist" pg. 173

If you like, you can try to start with some objective evidence. Conclusive data of any kind.

See the first link on my profile page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=14512

 

[Aepervius]

The title says it all. Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord.

If you like, you can try to start with some objective evidence. Conclusive data of any kind.

Failing that, you may wish to use reasoned arguments to convince me that believing in this being is the right thing to do.

Good luck.

As an atheist let me tell you this : all religion are relying on feeling and blind faith. In fact it is touted as being a great thing in some verse in christianity.

You might as well fish to swim in pure air only. What you are asking is more or less contra-natural to the position of the person you are asking to.

BTW if theist (particularly christian) are trying to provide you evidence, then they probably are misunderstanding their own religion.

 

[stanfr]

As an atheist let me tell you this : all religion are relying on feeling and blind faith. In fact it is touted as being a great thing in some verse in christianity.

You might as well fish to swim in pure air only. What you are asking is more or less contra-natural to the position of the person you are asking to.

BTW if theist (particularly christian) are trying to provide you evidence, then they probably are misunderstanding their own religion.

Yes, but, surely you believe that all emotions and thoughts can be explained by evolutionary science, correct? If so, then isn't an emotional basis really a scientific (objective) one? So,the theist may be in fact drawing from an evolutionary/scientific perspective?
To use your analogy, fish may be in water, but they still breathe air. And some fish do better than others outside their usual living space.

 

[tsig]

I meant "deity as inspiration for art" as in Botticelli's Birth of Venus, or Bach's Matthew Passion. Or name any of the countless works of art that have been inspired by stories involving god(s).

Oh.

 

[tsig]

Yes, but, surely you believe that all emotions and thoughts can be explained by evolutionary science, correct? If so, then isn't an emotional basis really a scientific (objective) one? So,the theist may be in fact drawing from an evolutionary/scientific perspective?
To use your analogy, fish may be in water, but they still breathe air. And some fish do better than others outside their usual living space.

Are you telling us that emotions and thoughts originate from something outside our brains?

 

[Slowvehicle]

the Lord Jesus Christ was not invisible. Most biblical scholars believe he existed including Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book, "Did Jesus Exist" pg. 173

DOC, It has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that you really ought to read the rest of Did Jesus Exist?.

-You would see that Ehrman clearly states that the "Jesus" that, in his opinion, "certainly existed" was a fully-human, non-divine, itinerant apocalyptic preacher.

-You would see that Ehrman clearly states that the "Jesus" that, in his opinion, "certainly existed" could not have been the "messiah" retconned into what are said to be the "messianic predictions" of the OT.

-You would see that Ehrman clearly states that the "Jesus" he claims "certainly existed" bears no relationship to the "wonder counselor, 'god'-hero, king-forever" worshipped by modern, organized, xianist churches.

When you first latched onto your Ehrman-mantra, it could have been excused as a mistake; an error promulgated by the fact that you had not then (and have not yet) read the entirety of Did Jesus Exist?; however, as you continue to chant your mantra, particular;y as your error is pointes out to you, you demonstrate, more and more clearly that, instead of being wrong, you are being dishonest.

Not to mention, Did Jesus Exist? has not been Ehrman's "latest book" since November of 2012, no matter what it says on the dust jacket you read. You really ought to read (for instance) Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics or the book that is, in fact, his "latest". Whether you do that or not, you really, really ought to stop calling a book published two years ago as Ehrman's "latest", when there have been four others published since.

See the first link on my profile page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=14512

Your list of "evidence" has been extensively dealt with before, DOC. Instead of responding you simply repeat the same errors.

 

[Resume]

As an agnostic, I don't pretend to have the answers.

No answers, as in none?

But I keep an open mind about it. As a scientist, i find no objective evidence of a deity.

This is sort of an answer. Provisionally.

As an artist, I find it hard to wrap my mind around aestheticism without a deity. Evolutionary programming is unsatisfactory. But we humans are frail creatures...

Sounds like an argument from incredulity

 

[turingtest]

Yes, but, surely you believe that all emotions and thoughts can be explained by evolutionary science, correct? If so, then isn't an emotional basis really a scientific (objective) one? So,the theist may be in fact drawing from an evolutionary/scientific perspective?
To use your analogy, fish may be in water, but they still breathe air. And some fish do better than others outside their usual living space.

No, not really. The idea behind science is to discard, as much as possible, any emotional basis of reasoning, to not take things on faith- to coldly demand only what's empirically demonstrable as evidence for what's accepted. To play with the analogy a little more- science is a fish with enough brains to build a device that would let him breathe the air in either environment.

Emotions being natural doesn't make it suitable, or a necessary basis, for science. Thought certainly is both; but there's no reason to assume it must always be coupled with emotion.

 

[turingtest]

the Lord Jesus Christ was not invisible. Most biblical scholars believe he existed including Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book, "Did Jesus Exist" pg. 173

See the first link on my profile page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=14512

Still firmly grasping that stick by the wrong end, eh, DOC? Accepting that Jesus existed as a real person doesn't prove that he was god, and even less so that there is one. I know your faith makes an open-and-shut case of it; but for anyone without it, it's still just begging the question.

 

[Donn]

I didn't say that. Reread if you missed the nuances.

I did. It didn't help.

 

[ddt]

Ok--sorry, i thought i had stated it specifically, but rereading my post, it's implicit.
It's definitely a pertinent question--but i don't think its all that relevant to the OP's question.

Why not? It shows that introducing "god" into the equation doesn't solve anything - it only shifts away the problem. And well, if you apply Ockham...

You don't see too many monkeys producing the works of Shakespeare.

I think you got that the wrong way round. You actually need many, many monkeys to produce the works of Shakespeare.

 

[ddt]

the Lord Jesus Christ was not invisible. Most biblical scholars believe he existed including Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book, "Did Jesus Exist" pg. 173

One of these things is not like the other, and you've been pointed that out umpteen times. Your arguments are not just stale or worn out, they're so utterly bankrupt that they make baby Mohammed weep. How many people are you planning on converting from Xianity to atheism in this thread?

 

[Resume]

the Lord Jesus Christ was not invisible. Most biblical scholars believe he existed including Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book, "Did Jesus Exist" pg. 173

Have you read this book yet, or just this page?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Why not? It shows that introducing "god" into the equation doesn't solve anything - it only shifts away the problem. And well, if you apply Ockham...


I think you got that the wrong way round. You actually need many, many monkeys to produce the works of Shakespeare.

...or one Viscount of St Albans, or one person claiming to be the reincarnation of Good Queen Bess...

 

[Aepervius]

Yes, but, surely you believe that all emotions and thoughts can be explained by evolutionary science, correct? If so, then isn't an emotional basis really a scientific (objective) one? So,the theist may be in fact drawing from an evolutionary/scientific perspective?
To use your analogy, fish may be in water, but they still breathe air. And some fish do better than others outside their usual living space.

Sure feeling have an origin in the brain. They may even be simply something which was not selected *against*. If it is not selected against, then why should it disappear (or it may even have been selected for).

So what now ? You are still with "religion have to be taken on faith" or "it is all in the brain" and will not advance further. Nobody has advanced further in all history of religion. Each time they tried to attribute something to their god as proof, it turned out later it was not.

So, again, what now ?

 

[ddt]

...or one Viscount of St Albans, or one person claiming to be the reincarnation of Good Queen Bess...

Or an Earl of Oxford... but they all lack a certain simian quality.