Prof

No: what you've just provided is the typical theistic excuse for God's apparent absence.

Not a reasonable inference from the facts.

It's like if you were my neighbour and I claimed there was a wish-granting unicorn who lives in my backyard, and who grants my any wish. Yet you note that there is no evidence at all of any such thing in my backyard: you never see it, no defecation, no hoof-prints, never see me interacting with it, and you never see any evidence I've been granted any wishes - I just seem to be no better off than anyone else. In fact, you notice I've got some eviction notices.

The reasonable inference from the lack of evidence, and counter-evidence to my claim is that no such wish-granting-unicorn lives in my backyard. I'm making it up.

However, I could say "Well, that's your interpretation. Or it could be evidence that I've rejected the wish-granting unicorn!. (Or that "It could be evidence YOU haven't enough faith or reject the wish-making unicorn.").

This would be a rather see-through response wouldn't it? Why? Because my reply isn't actually an inference from the evidence that such a unicorn exists. It's just another excuse as to why there IS NO EVIDENCE. And in creating excuses all you need to do is make the excuse compatible with the evidence (pull reasons out of the air for why the unicorn isn't showing itself)...ad infinitum. Exactly as theists do for God.

But it doesn't change the fact you are providing an EXCUSE for why there IS NO EVIDENCE for God rather than providing a reasonabie INFERENCE from the evidence - actually making a POSITIVE case that the facts of the world indicated the existence of a Caring God. Because, of course, you can't - you can only reflexively offer the typical theist list of excuses.

But...these are the cognitive strategies theists use all day long to keep believing. So it's hard to get you folks to drop them once in a while.

Prof.

rhutchin

It is a reasonable inference given what we read in the Bible.

However, we need to test it. So, let's get everyone to do as they did in Ninevah and repent of their sin and give honor to God. Would Ninevah have been destroyed as Jonah claimed? We don't know because it wasn't. You could claim that Jonah was a fraud and the city would not have been destroyed no matter what. If we could go back in history and prevent Jonah from preaching, then we could see what would have happened and then we would know. We can't.

So, let's tell the world to repent of their sins and submit to God and see if things would be different.

Prof

Which is no better than my adding to my unicorn excuse "It's a reasonable inference - that it exists but won't show up because he's being rejected - given other portions of my beliefs about the unicorn." Easy stuff. I can keep making sh*t up all day expanding my unicorn story to be compatible with there being no evidence for the unicorn. But you'd see through it every step of the way because you know I'm going through the process of excusing why there IS NO EVIDENCE rather than making a positive case as to why the evidence points toward the existence of the unicorn.

Just like I said, you can keep pulling from the closet of excuses (or in your case, the book of excuses). But that's all you are left with: EXCUSES for the lack of evidence. Not a positive case that it is reasonable to infer the existence of a Caring God.

And I could also say "Let's tell the world to pray to the Unicorn to see if it shows up and answers prayers"...as if THAT is what is needed to settle the matter. Of course not: there is no reason to pray to something for which there is NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE or reason to even think it exists!

Prof.

George S

If we indeed take the Bible as factual it is a reasonable inference.

However, there is no particular evidence that the Bible is factual. In fact, the Bible is in error in a number of places; details on request.

If we indeed take the Koran as factual there is another reasonable inference.

If we take the Egyptian Book of the Dead as factual there is another reasonable inference.

Before we can trust the Bible, shouldn't we check it for reasonableness? If it is explainable as the myth of a small tribe in the middle east, the explanation is easy.

rhutchin

You admit that the unicorn is something you made up. The Bible is not. It contains the writings of different people over several thousand years that deal with one primary subject, the working of God through the nation of Israel. So, if you can get different people to carry on your story line about the unicorn who grants wishes for the next few thousand years, then people in the future can give the unicorn its due. For now, we have the Bible (i.e., the writings of men over several thousand years) who tell one consistent story. Regardless of the supposed contradictions, they do not affect the story line or any major point made about God. We may draw reasonable references from the Bible as no one has shown that it contains erroneous information (despite the limited attempts to do so).

Johnny Skeptic

Skeptics are not obligated to reasonably prove that the Bible contains errors. Rather, it is up to inerrantists to reasonably prove that the Bible does not contain errors.

What evidence do you have that deism contain erroneous information? If you say that your answer is the Bible, some deists will respond by saying that their answer is deism, in which case you would need to provide specific evidence regarding why you believe that the Bible is a realiable historical source.

Prof

Oh Rutchin...c'mon...how can you have so many posts here and come up with a reply like that?

Are you purposely avoiding the point made by my analogy?
My analogy asks you to imagine I'm NOT saying I made the unicorn up.
It says that I MAKE THE CLAIM that the unicorn exists. And the analogy makes the point that you would not accept the same reasoning you are trying to offer to me: you would recognize an "excuse for lack of evidence" vs a "good case for existence drawn from the facts" in a blink of an eye.
In just the way I instantly recognize it when you try to pull the same stunt.

It seems even you can not deny that an inference from the facts of the world does not point toward the conclusion that there is a God who cares for us. Which is my point. Rather, you can only offer excuses for the lack of evidence.

Sheesh...it's so darned hard to even get into standard thought experiments or analogies with believers...it's like it's drilled into you not to challenge your assumptions.

Then you move on to a different argument: that The Bible is evidence for God. The bible, which is a simply another set of claims about God and hardly evidence for God.


Jaw dropping. Believers never cease to amaze.

Even if the ridiculous assertions in that paragraph were granted it still does not budge even an inch further toward addressing my argument.

rhutchin

Inerrantists accept the Biblical accounts as the personal or professional accounts of various men over a period of several thousand years. They accept the accounts as trustworthy and factual with no intent to deceive. If a person thinks that the Biblical writers conspired to deceive people regarding the truth of the events they recorded, then he can make that case.

rhutchin

OK. You admit that the existence of a unicorn is a something (a claim) you made up. I see no difference. Regardless, the point here is that you are the sole source of this claim and, so far, offer no reason for the claim (other than, perhaps, your eviction notices which you offer for what purpose we do not know). Contrast this to what we find in the Bible. The gospel writers write of a man named Jesus who lived in the first century and they say that he did many miracles among the people. As a consequence, many people believed that His claim to be God was valid and began to follow Him. Consequently, many other people began to follow Him based on their testimony and such has continued to this day. There seems to be enormous differences between what we find in the Bible and your attempted analogy.

What "facts of the world"? Your basic position is that you have not done any research other than perhaps scanning a few newspapers before drawing your conclusion. Given that religious organizations establish and operate a great many schools and hospitals, I think a valid argument can be made that God does care about us as these religious organizations would say that they did these things because of Christ.

Maybe more realistic analogies would help.

Personal testimonies are accepted in courts as evidence. Why shouldn't the personal testimonies found in the Bible also be accepted as evidence?

Deus Ex

Because we don't know who actually wrote the gospel accounts. We don't know if they were eye-witnesses or not.

Do you think anonymous testimony would stand up in court?

I don't.