Autonemesis

In other words, ignore reason, and blindly submit. But most importantly and before and above all else, submit. SUBMIT.

Or more formally, the argument succeeds only when you assume the consequent.

Weak.

Johnny Skeptic

That is not a valid argument. In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

The three references do not make any mention of prayer, but rather refer to tangible evidence of God's power and compassion. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeabley tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

Amaleq13

As painful as it might be to some, the word is recognized in many modern dictionaries. IIRC, it was officially declared a legitimate word a few years ago. Besides, it is generally considered poor form to attack the spelling or grammar of one's opponent unless one is wearing a Grammar Police sock puppet.

Johnny Skeptic

Why thank you. Such a concession is rare among fundamentalist Christians. Aside from what the Bible provides, what you personally believe to be the case today regarding God being "tangibly" involved in peoples' lives?

jemand

I don't think people are supposed to answer for God. I come to that conclusion after reading the story of Job. His friends make up all sorts of excuses why Job's suffering isn't God's fault. However, when God finally does show up, he says what these friends said misrepresented him. It is only Job, with his repeated questions, who was accepted.

I think it is a sin to put God's name to one's personal political or military agenda. This is, I believe, the thrust of the third commandment which says not to take the name of the Lord in vain. God will not hold guiltless those who commit attrocities in his name.

Johnny Skeptic

But that is exactly what the Bible writers did. God has never made any public statements to everyone in the world, or to even 0.0000001% of the people in the world.
If people are not supposed to speak for God, then let him show up and speak for himself IN PERSON, not through human proxies. Hearsay testimony testimony has little credibility in court trials. How much more so should we not trust human proxies who presume to speak for God?

The followers of other religions could use your same argument against you. They could tell you that people are not supposed to answer for their gods.

That's what the writer of the book of Job said, but why do you believe him?

If you opposed laws against same sex marriage and against physician assisted suicide, then I agree with you. The chief opponents of same sex marriage and physician assisted suicide are fundamentalist Christians.

Thomas II

Also,wasn't Jesus saying here that HE IS NOT GOD?
I think it's pretty clear that he was saying "Hey,don't go around saying that I am good because only God is completely good, and I am not god,so don't go around saying that..." Basically that was his point,wasn't it?

Johnny Skeptic

Jesus aside, what evidence is there that God is good?

jemand

I think there is a difference between recording a personal experience, and presuming to speak/answer for God. A lot of the Bible is written by people who are basically just writing down their life's story. I think most everyone goes through life trying to do the best possible job of living they can do, and by reading about someone else's mistakes you might learn how to do better yourself.

You'll probably ask me then why pick the Bible. I think the Bible writers did have a genuine experience with God that moved them to write, but I also believe that that experience was clouded by their personal culture and biases, and the fact that they had to explain themselves using human language, which may not be able to convey much of the truth about God.

I think that personal conscience, in those who have one, is perhaps how God choses to talk to people most of the time.

I oppose legislating morality, precisely because I think the reason God doesn't show up and speak publically is because God wants to give people the freedom to believe, OR disbelieve. It sure would be possible for God to come to America and run the country, and pass laws against same sex marriage or physician assisted suicide or whatever else. However, I think I probably would be considered a fundamentalist Christain because I believe the Bible is true. I believe that by faith though, and can't prove it.

Johnny Skeptic

There is no external what their life story was regarding claims of the supernatural.

Fine, but that doesn't enable us to reliably determine what happened thousands of years ago, and it doesn't help us to reliably determine whether or not God is active in tangible ways in peoples' lives today. What evidence do you have that God was good 2,000 years ago, and that he is still good today?

Why is that?

That assessment actually helps my arguments.

Does that apply to Muslims and Hindus as well who are aware of the Gospel message and have rejected it?