Arguments for God You're Unlikely to Hear

[Learner]

I'm not sure why that would be a problem for a theist in that situation. If he honestly can't answer with a yes or no to a question, then I'd think his answer could be that he doesn't know the answer or that he isn't sure what the answer is. Can you post an example of a question an atheist might ask a theist that can't be answered with a simple yes or no?

Interesting..

Being a debater as you indicated in your posts, that your are, or were. You seem (for some reason) to have been 'unaware' of a particular yes and no' type of tactitical questioning - sometimes used in arguments, in scenarios like court-cases, apologetics or what ever other debating arguments. are. I merely mention this ('Yes or No's,' in context to extremely limiting the answer, stifling the extra details) to illustrate the disingenuous use - i.e. being tactical, just for the sake of debating.

Again, can you clarify with an example of a yes/no question a lawyer might ask a witness in court that would get his client off on a technicality? Attorneys, of course, want to defend their clients so they're not found guilty. In a debate over religious issues, on the other hand, I think it's best to determine the truth. What good is it to win a debate yet be

I don't suggest at all, that some crooks get off on just ONE simple yes and no answer (it can be anyone, doesn't have to be a crook btw), although it could make the difference. Besides, the whole court ordeal scenario, would have a series of likewise questions, combined, building a particular illustrated portrayal in their favour. The underlining point is: facts don't necessarily matter, as long as its technically (or legally) sound - meaning the aim is to win!

(It looks like you're askking the above, tactically. ... just jesting )

I think most believers have the same answer to that question: Not yet. Believers who do specify a time for God's power to manifest itself have so far been wrong in every instance.
Many Christians look forward with glee to the death and destruction of Armageddon.

Most believers who take to the ' not yet' idea, must be the believers in Revelation, e.g. having 'not yet' happened, won't happen until a sequence of events happens in a particular order. Like the Gospels must be preached throughout the world - the nations marching under one rulership (as written, ALL nations fighting the return of Jesus etc..) and so on.

In light that you were a former believer, I would curiously ask, Where you a 'not yet' believer, or did you go along with the 'failed' prophecy dates?

Oh sure--maybe God has performed some miracles for some people. So far, though, it hasn't happened to anybody under circumstances in which everybody else can check to see if it really happened. It appears that if God does exist, then he only performs miracles for those eager to believe in them. Skeptics are not offered any such proof. It results in a snow-balling effect in which the skeptics become more skeptical when not only are they denied proof for the miracles but are called "an evil and adulterous generation."

Understandable . Seeing is believing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Interesting..

Being a debater as you indicated in your posts, that your are, or were. You seem (for some reason) to have been 'unaware' of a particular yes and no' type of tactitical questioning - sometimes used in arguments, in scenarios like court-cases, apologetics or what ever other debating arguments. are. I merely mention this ('Yes or No's,' in context to extremely limiting the answer, stifling the extra details) to illustrate the disingenuous use - i.e. being tactical, just for the sake of debating.

I've never seen that tactic much if at all. The other side of the coin, though, is when a debater can easily answer with a simple yes or no yet opts to go off on a long tangent never really answering the question. That tactic is a popular way to dodge questions which if answered honestly will expose a flaw in one's own position.

Most believers who take to the ' not yet' idea, must be the believers in Revelation, e.g. having 'not yet' happened, won't happen until a sequence of events happens in a particular order. Like the Gospels must be preached throughout the world - the nations marching under one rulership (as written, ALL nations fighting the return of Jesus etc..) and so on.

Jesus is always coming but never arriving.

In light that you were a former believer, I would curiously ask, Where you a 'not yet' believer, or did you go along with the 'failed' prophecy dates?

I suppose I was the not-yet style of Christian prophet believing that Jesus' return was "soon." Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years.

 

[none]

Now that the posturing is over.....

 

[Learner]

I've never seen that tactic much if at all. The other side of the coin, though, is when a debater can easily answer with a simple yes or no yet opts to go off on a long tangent never really answering the question. That tactic is a popular way to dodge questions which if answered honestly will expose a flaw in one's own position.

There's that too, dodging the question, not answering.

Jesus is always coming but never arriving.

I suppose I was the not-yet style of Christian prophet believing that Jesus' return was "soon." Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years.

Ok, fair enough pov, that's how you viewed it.

I take the differing view from: It took several hundred years just for the Romans to accept and adopt Chrisitianity before spreading to the rest of the world.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I've never seen that tactic much if at all. The other side of the coin, though, is when a debater can easily answer with a simple yes or no yet opts to go off on a long tangent never really answering the question. That tactic is a popular way to dodge questions which if answered honestly will expose a flaw in one's own position.

There's that too, dodging the question, not answering.

In courts of law, dodging questions while under oath can result in a witness being charged with contempt of court. Our system of jurisprudence knows well how question-dodging can hinder the truth being revealed, and many debaters know the same thing.

Jesus is always coming but never arriving.

I suppose I was the not-yet style of Christian prophet believing that Jesus' return was "soon." Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years.

Ok, fair enough pov, that's how you viewed it.

I take the differing view from: It took several hundred years just for the Romans to accept and adopt Chrisitianity before spreading to the rest of the world.

I'm not sure what your point is here. If it was possible that I lived from the first century to the reign of Constantine knowing that in the first century a Christian told me that the Romans would soon accept Christianity, then I would have thought I was lied to. About the only context I know of in which soon is understood as centuries or even thousands of years is Christianity. And even then, the vast majority of Christians otherwise never think of soon as being such a ridiculously long period of time. Obviously the meaning of soon is being altered to smooth over the fact that Christ is awfully darn tardy.

 

[Learner]

I've never seen that tactic much if at all. The other side of the coin, though, is when a debater can easily answer with a simple yes or no yet opts to go off on a long tangent never really answering the question. That tactic is a popular way to dodge questions which if answered honestly will expose a flaw in one's own position.

There's that too, dodging the question, not answering.

In courts of law, dodging questions while under oath can result in a witness being charged with contempt of court. Our system of jurisprudence knows well how question-dodging can hinder the truth being revealed, and many debaters know the same thing.

Well yes, in a court scenario, dodging questions doesn't make good for a reliable witness - he or she will be thrown out. However, in a debate scenario, the debater can still debate whilst thinking he/she can still continuously dodge some questions. Both looked upon with low credibilty..

Jesus is always coming but never arriving.

I suppose I was the not-yet style of Christian prophet believing that Jesus' return was "soon." Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years.

Ok, fair enough pov, that's how you viewed it.

I take the differing view from: It took several hundred years just for the Romans to accept and adopt Chrisitianity before spreading to the rest of the world.

I'm not sure what your point is here. If it was possible that I lived from the first century to the reign of Constantine knowing that in the first century a Christian told me that the Romans would soon accept Christianity, then I would have thought I was lied to. About the only context I know of in which soon is understood as centuries or even thousands of years is Christianity. And even then, the vast majority of Christians otherwise never think of soon as being such a ridiculously long period of time. Obviously the meaning of soon is being altered to smooth over the fact that Christ is awfully darn tardy.

The point is ... Christianity could not sensibly be expected to reach around the world, moving against a variety of opposing obstacles, 'so soon' a time as one would naturally think of - like 'so soon' a time to mean just on the horizon etc..

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why would he need to return? It isn't like he actually accomplished anything the first time. He didn't exactly impart any useful wisdom, forget about knowledge, for mankind. Just read from a few fortune cookies, then got arrested for allegedly stealing enough fish to feed a large group of people, then died on the cross, then "disappeared". Much of which isn't foretold in prophecy.

For the savior will then accomplish so very very little. He might upset a bit of the establishment, but not much will come of it, and then he'll steel (sp) lots of fish and get arrested and crucified, but then he'll disappear from the cave that his body was placed in and guarded or not... and had a boulder in front of the opening... or not. And like during his lifetime, more nothing would happen for over 2000 years.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

...in a court scenario, dodging questions doesn't make good for a reliable witness...

Dodging questions makes perfect sense for any dishonest person who doesn't wish to divulge facts that if exposed will be very inconvenient and possibly incriminating for that person. Courts of law are aware of this fact, and that's why they require witnesses to answer questions telling "the whole truth."

- he or she will be thrown out.

Actually, contempt of court is punishable by a fine and possibly jail time. No such punishment is imposed on Christian apologists for dodging questions posed to them by skeptics, and they know they can get away with it.

However, in a debate scenario, the debater can still debate whilst thinking he/she can still continuously dodge some questions. Both looked upon with low credibilty..

I have seen some formal debates in which the debaters agree prior to the debate to not to dodge questions. Even then I've seen at least one apologist slip out of a sticky situation by "answering" a question he was never asked.

The point is ... Christianity could not sensibly be expected to reach around the world, moving against a variety of opposing obstacles, 'so soon' a time as one would naturally think of - like 'so soon' a time to mean just on the horizon etc..

If I understand what you're saying here, since it would take a long time for Christian missionaries to reach remote parts of the world, we should keep that context in mind when we judge what the early Christians meant by "soon." That's an interesting apologetic, but I don't see it in the New Testament anywhere. Even if the early Christians meant that it would take at least two thousand years for their predictions to be fulfilled, then it's simply misleading to tell people: "The time is at hand."

 

[Keith&Co.]

The point is ... Christianity could not sensibly be expected to reach around the world, moving against a variety of opposing obstacles, 'so soon' a time as one would naturally think of - like 'so soon' a time to mean just on the horizon etc..

Show your work. What's the 'sensible' rate of movement for a movement?
How does the rate of Xianity's spread compare to the world-wide popularity of, say, the Beatles? Or the US Dollar? Or British Tea? Or abolition?

 

[Learner]

The point is ... Christianity could not sensibly be expected to reach around the world, moving against a variety of opposing obstacles, 'so soon' a time as one would naturally think of - like 'so soon' a time to mean just on the horizon etc..

Show your work. What's the 'sensible' rate of movement for a movement?
How does the rate of Xianity's spread compare to the world-wide popularity of, say, the Beatles? Or the US Dollar? Or British Tea? Or abolition?

As I said previously in post #64, it took the Romans a few hundred years to accept Christianity, before other nations were introduced to the Christian faith - and for some nations, hundreds of years later... after the Romans.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The point is ... Christianity could not sensibly be expected to reach around the world, moving against a variety of opposing obstacles, 'so soon' a time as one would naturally think of - like 'so soon' a time to mean just on the horizon etc..

Show your work. What's the 'sensible' rate of movement for a movement?
How does the rate of Xianity's spread compare to the world-wide popularity of, say, the Beatles? Or the US Dollar? Or British Tea? Or abolition?

As I said previously in post #64, it took the Romans a few hundred years to accept Christianity, before other nations were introduced to the Christian faith - and for some nations, hundreds of years later... after the Romans.

Yes. now, how do you know if that was quick or not? What's the standard you're using for your claim about 'sensible expectations?'

 

[Learner]

The point is ... Christianity could not sensibly be expected to reach around the world, moving against a variety of opposing obstacles, 'so soon' a time as one would naturally think of - like 'so soon' a time to mean just on the horizon etc..

Show your work. What's the 'sensible' rate of movement for a movement?
How does the rate of Xianity's spread compare to the world-wide popularity of, say, the Beatles? Or the US Dollar? Or British Tea? Or abolition?

As I said previously in post #64, it took the Romans a few hundred years to accept Christianity, before other nations were introduced to the Christian faith - and for some nations, hundreds of years later... after the Romans.

Yes. now, how do you know if that was quick or not? What's the standard you're using for your claim about 'sensible expectations?'

Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6, "Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years."

Mathew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”

In the context of Mat 24: 14, sensible expectations in just thirty five years is hard to grasp.

(Having said that... there's another way of seeing the word soon. I'll post that in the other responses.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,

And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?

"Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years."

Mathew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”

In the context of Mat 24: 14, sensible expectations in just thirty five years is hard to grasp.

(Having said that... there's another way of seeing the word soon. I'll post that in the other responses.)

the authors of this are among the people who think there's a place on Earth where you can stand and see all the kingdoms of the world. So i don't think it makes much sense to depend on their 'sensibility' in comparison to someone with modern knowledge of just how freaking big the actual world actually was, and is.

 

[Learner]

Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,

And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?

I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, would match as the right response to your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer...

"Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years."

Mathew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”

In the context of Mat 24: 14, sensible expectations in just thirty five years is hard to grasp.

(Having said that... there's another way of seeing the word soon. I'll post that in the other responses.)

the authors of this are among the people who think there's a place on Earth where you can stand and see all the kingdoms of the world. So i don't think it makes much sense to depend on their 'sensibility' in comparison to someone with modern knowledge of just how freaking big the actual world actually was, and is.

How small then, did they think the world was? Makes no difference regarding modern knowledge - in their eyes the world seemed pretty big. Rome expanding its empire over vast lands, which would seem big to them. Israelites and their historic journeys. People going out into the world from Babel with different languages becoming new nations and so on

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,

And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?

I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, certainly matches your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer...

You're the one making a claim. Now you can't show any support for it. As usual

"Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years."

Mathew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”

In the context of Mat 24: 14, sensible expectations in just thirty five years is hard to grasp.

(Having said that... there's another way of seeing the word soon. I'll post that in the other responses.)

the authors of this are among the people who think there's a place on Earth where you can stand and see all the kingdoms of the world. So i don't think it makes much sense to depend on their 'sensibility' in comparison to someone with modern knowledge of just how freaking big the actual world actually was, and is.

How small then, did they think the world was? Makes no difference regarding modern knowledge - in their eyes the world seemed pretty big. Rome expanding its empire would seem big to them. Israelites and their historic journeys and so on.

Learner, there's not even a place you can stand to see all of the Roman Empire that existed, then. The details in the stories cast doubt upon their veracity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,

And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?

I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, certainly matches your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer...

You're the one making a claim. Now you can't show any support for it. As usual

Well yeah. Is this a surprise?

 

[Learner]

Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,

And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?

I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, certainly matches your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer...

You're the one making a claim. Now you can't show any support for it. As usual

Well yeah. Is this a surprise?

Is it surprising, when you (plural) contradict yourselves - the simple logic (thats what I use as a simple man), when you (atheists) often make the arguments about the bible, being written 60 to a 100 + years AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus!?

After such a time, would thirty five years be "sensible" expectations to write down what Jesus said as being 'soon'... decades later?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,

And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?

I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, certainly matches your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer...

You're the one making a claim. Now you can't show any support for it. As usual

Well yeah. Is this a surprise?

Is it surprising, when you (plural) contradict yourselves - the simple logic (thats what I use as a simple man), when you (atheists) often make the arguments about the bible, being written 60 to a 100 + years AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus!?

After such a time, would thirty five years be "sensible" expectations to write down what Jesus said as being 'soon'... decades later?

Who now? The guy who has a story about his birth and almost nothing else (see my above post) until he goes on his Conventions speaking tour. Then dies shortly there after with umm... well... nothing. Guy's life is virtually undocumented and we wonder why it took so long to come up with something. A Holy Book with only four chapters dedicated to the main character... and that is just repeated content.

Kind of like those Special Deluxe Box sets with the same album in four different formats, original stereo, remastered stereo, 5.1 Lossless, and instrumental.

But of course... born of a virgin (no details after) and died and disappeared like magic. Instead of the New Testament, should have went with Occasional Miracles.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Argument from Watch Me Move This Great Big Mountain We're here in Olympia, Washington, and I am about to show you the reality of MT 17:20, where our Lord says that with the smallest amount of true faith -- which I have -- I will be able to say to a mountain, go hence from this place, and it will go, because, as Jesus says, NOTHING will be impossible. So, okay, watch closely. Hey, Mount Rainier! I command you in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, move yourself to Secaucus, New Jersey!!! Stand back, everyone.

That's a good example of The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration. Jesus was obviously wrong about faith moving mountains, so apologists will avoid that claim. If somebody does cite it, the apologist will no doubt argue that the passage is not meant to be taken literally. Any problematical Bible passage that is obviously false if taken literally must be interpreted figuratively to save the Bible from being seen as full of errors.

The usual from theists is that the age of such miracles ended with the apostles. I have seen this one several times now over the years.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Argument from Watch Me Move This Great Big Mountain We're here in Olympia, Washington, and I am about to show you the reality of MT 17:20, where our Lord says that with the smallest amount of true faith -- which I have -- I will be able to say to a mountain, go hence from this place, and it will go, because, as Jesus says, NOTHING will be impossible. So, okay, watch closely. Hey, Mount Rainier! I command you in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, move yourself to Secaucus, New Jersey!!! Stand back, everyone.

That's a good example of The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration. Jesus was obviously wrong about faith moving mountains, so apologists will avoid that claim. If somebody does cite it, the apologist will no doubt argue that the passage is not meant to be taken literally. Any problematical Bible passage that is obviously false if taken literally must be interpreted figuratively to save the Bible from being seen as full of errors.

The usual from theists is that the age of such miracles ended with the apostles. I have seen this one several times now over the years.

Well, there was that miracle in some small town in New York in 1980.