Josh Nunn's Geekorium: Please don't take this the wrong way. » nunnone.com
Colin Nunn
· 1 year ago
Josh, his arguments are a little silly. I don't know anyone that would use these arguments to prove the existence of God to an atheist. For starters it can't be done. But statements such as ``Millions have found purpose in life through Jesus. Their lives have been enriched beyond measure by the Bible.'' are not offered as proof, but simply as a worthwhile outcome of belief, when an atheist attacks the 'futility' and what he sees as the harm done by Christianity. That other religions offer such enrichment is beside the point. This statement is not offered as proof for Christianity.
Surely few would argue that ``The Bible is thousands of years old. There must be something to it, for it to have survived that long!'' This would be offered as an argument only by someone that has not thought about it at all, and would not be used in the area of Christian apologetics.
Pascal's wager is also nothing to do with proof of the existence of God, but like all of this bloke's assumptions, is a poor example, and would not be used as such by any thinking Christian. There are truths contained in much of what is said in these statements, but they surely would never be used as any kind of proof of God's existence.
His last argument about prayer is just silly
joshnunn
· 1 year ago
It might be that they aren't useful arguments, or even that you never use them. But they certainly get used. Particularly in on-line discussions. There are people like yourself who are certain of God's existence, and that certainty stems from something that can't really be shared, let alone proven. But for other people, arguments like these are common when they try and convince those around them (maybe even themselves) that Christianity is different from those "other" religions.
I'm not saying that there can never be proof, or that people shouldn't try arguing that God exists, but just to avoid these simple arguments. They really do get used as "proofs".
Colin Nunn
· 1 year ago
Josh, his arguments are a little silly. I don't know anyone that would use these arguments to prove the existence of God to an atheist. For starters it can't be done. But statements such as ``Millions have found purpose in life through Jesus. Their lives have been enriched beyond measure by the Bible.'' are not offered as proof, but simply as a worthwhile outcome of belief, when an atheist attacks the 'futility' and what he sees as the harm done by Christianity. That other religions offer such enrichment is beside the point. This statement is not offered as proof for Christianity.
Surely few would argue that ``The Bible is thousands of years old. There must be something to it, for it to have survived that long!'' This would be offered as an argument only by someone that has not thought about it at all, and would not be used in the area of Christian apologetics.
Pascal's wager is also nothing to do with proof of the existence of God, but like all of this bloke's assumptions, is a poor example, and would not be used as such by any thinking Christian. There are truths contained in much of what is said in these statements, but they surely would never be used as any kind of proof of God's existence.
His last argument about prayer is just silly
Colin Nunn
· 1 year ago
Josh, his arguments are a little silly. I don't know anyone that would use these arguments to prove the existence of God to an atheist. For starters it can't be done. But statements such as ``Millions have found purpose in life through Jesus. Their lives have been enriched beyond measure by the Bible.'' are not offered as proof, but simply as a worthwhile outcome of belief, when an atheist attacks the 'futility' and what he sees as the harm done by Christianity. That other religions offer such enrichment is beside the point. This statement is not offered as proof for Christianity.
Surely few would argue that ``The Bible is thousands of years old. There must be something to it, for it to have survived that long!'' This would be offered as an argument only by someone that has not thought about it at all, and would not be used in the area of Christian apologetics.
Pascal's wager is also nothing to do with proof of the existence of God, but like all of this bloke's assumptions, is a poor example, and would not be used as such by any thinking Christian. There are truths contained in much of what is said in these statements, but they surely would never be used as any kind of proof of God's existence.
His last argument about prayer is just silly
joshnunn
· 1 year ago
It might be that they aren't useful arguments, or even that you never use them. But they certainly get used. Particularly in on-line discussions. There are people like yourself who are certain of God's existence, and that certainty stems from something that can't really be shared, let alone proven. But for other people, arguments like these are common when they try and convince those around them (maybe even themselves) that Christianity is different from those "other" religions.
I'm not saying that there can never be proof, or that people shouldn't try arguing that God exists, but just to avoid these simple arguments. They really do get used as "proofs".
All Comments
Surely few would argue that ``The Bible is thousands of years old. There must be something to it, for it to have survived that long!'' This would be offered as an argument only by someone that has not thought about it at all, and would not be used in the area of Christian apologetics.
Pascal's wager is also nothing to do with proof of the existence of God, but like all of this bloke's assumptions, is a poor example, and would not be used as such by any thinking Christian. There are truths contained in much of what is said in these statements, but they surely would never be used as any kind of proof of God's existence.
His last argument about prayer is just silly
I'm not saying that there can never be proof, or that people shouldn't try arguing that God exists, but just to avoid these simple arguments. They really do get used as "proofs".
Surely few would argue that ``The Bible is thousands of years old. There must be something to it, for it to have survived that long!'' This would be offered as an argument only by someone that has not thought about it at all, and would not be used in the area of Christian apologetics.
Pascal's wager is also nothing to do with proof of the existence of God, but like all of this bloke's assumptions, is a poor example, and would not be used as such by any thinking Christian. There are truths contained in much of what is said in these statements, but they surely would never be used as any kind of proof of God's existence.
His last argument about prayer is just silly
Surely few would argue that ``The Bible is thousands of years old. There must be something to it, for it to have survived that long!'' This would be offered as an argument only by someone that has not thought about it at all, and would not be used in the area of Christian apologetics.
Pascal's wager is also nothing to do with proof of the existence of God, but like all of this bloke's assumptions, is a poor example, and would not be used as such by any thinking Christian. There are truths contained in much of what is said in these statements, but they surely would never be used as any kind of proof of God's existence.
His last argument about prayer is just silly
I'm not saying that there can never be proof, or that people shouldn't try arguing that God exists, but just to avoid these simple arguments. They really do get used as "proofs".