The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Zymologist]

Whoah, I'm clumsy at incorporating links. But it's #20 on page 2.

The easiest way to link to a specific post, short of "Reply with Quote," is probably to right-click the post number in the upper-right and select "Copy Link Address." Then you use the Link function in the Quick Reply box. Like this.

[One Bad Pig]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2...ners-miracles/

Comprehensive? Hallquist? He finds a few nits to pick, par for the course with him AFAICT. Keener doesn't have the space to do in-depth investigations, even considering he had two volumes to work with; that's what the footnoted sources (and there are many) are for.

[One Bad Pig]

I also have read the book, and do not 'dismiss all the claims in the book out of hand,' but unfortunately the evidence(?) presented in the book does not present sufficient objective predictable evidence for the belief in miraculous causes.

Perhaps, but we are familiar here with your notoriously poor reading ability. You're not lending any credibility here.

[One Bad Pig]

If I were to witness someone regrowing a severed limb, I would believe that that person had regrown a severed limb. Then we could discuss whether it could have happened naturally or must have had a supernatural cause.

While there are certainly still mysteries of the mammalian body to be plumbed, I'm fairly certain that we'd know by now if regrowing a severed limb could happen naturally. I appreciate Charles' naturalism of the gaps.

[Jedidiah]

Whoah, I'm clumsy at incorporating links. But it's #20 on page 2.

Not all that much help. How many posts do you have per page?

Is this it?

I think the best argument for atheism is a metaphysical one: a necessary entity alone cannot wilfully cause a contingent thing.

(Necessary: must exist in all possible worlds. Contingent: at least one world is possible (not just imaginable) in which it exists, and at least one world possible in which it doesn't exist)

[shunyadragon]

While there are certainly still mysteries of the mammalian body to be plumbed, I'm fairly certain that we'd know by now if regrowing a severed limb could happen naturally. I appreciate Charles' naturalism of the gaps.

There is no medically nor scientifically verified re-growth of a human limb.

[Doug Shaver]

While there are certainly still mysteries of the mammalian body to be plumbed, I'm fairly certain that we'd know by now if regrowing a severed limb could happen naturally.

I'm old enough to remember when many people believed there was no natural way for human beings to go to the moon.

One thing we do know about the mammalian body is that the DNA coding necessary for regeneration of a severed limb is present in every cell.

[crepuscule]

Not all that much help. How many posts do you have per page?

Is this it?

I think the best argument for atheism is a metaphysical one: a necessary entity alone cannot wilfully cause a contingent thing.

(Necessary: must exist in all possible worlds. Contingent: at least one world is possible (not just imaginable) in which it exists, and at least one world possible in which it doesn't exist)

Yes. Isn't that -when you view the page- marked #20 on the far right of the blue bar that begins with date & time?

[Tassman]

Comprehensive? Hallquist? He finds a few nits to pick, par for the course with him AFAICT. Keener doesn't have the space to do in-depth investigations, even considering he had two volumes to work with; that's what the footnoted sources (and there are many) are for.

Hallquist's review is just one of several reviews of Keener's two volumes on 'miracles' that I've read. But, your criticism of others still does not address that fact that there's no incontrovertible evidence of limbs miraculously regrowing. AFAIK there isn't any, other than hearsay evidence.

[Jedidiah]

Yes. Isn't that -when you view the page- marked #20 on the far right of the blue bar that begins with date & time?

On mine it is #20 on the first page. No matter we now have it. I will see what I make of it tomorrow (or later) it is time for me to go to bed.

[Tassman]

Perhaps, but we are familiar here with your notoriously poor reading ability. You're not lending any credibility here.

You provide no substantive evidence to support your claim of the miraculous regrowth of limbs, merely cast doubt on the credibility of others when they argue that such a claim is unsupported as if, magically, you then become right.

[Adrift]

I'm old enough to remember when many people believed there was no natural way for human beings to go to the moon.

One thing we do know about the mammalian body is that the DNA coding necessary for regeneration of a severed limb is present in every cell.

The stretches that some of you would go to in order to maintain your skepticism is fascinating. "Definitely can't be divine intervention. Must be lizard people."

[Jedidiah]

I think the best argument for atheism is a metaphysical one: a necessary entity alone cannot wilfully cause a contingent thing.

(Necessary: must exist in all possible worlds. Contingent: at least one world is possible (not just imaginable) in which it exists, and at least one world possible in which it doesn't exist)

Okay, since I do not understand what you are saying here I am not able to respond. Can you state this in another way?

[Sparko]

Okay, since I do not understand what you are saying here I am not able to respond. Can you state this in another way?

me either. and it sounds like a mere assertion. Why can't a necessary entity alone willfully cause a contingent thing?

[Tassman]

The stretches that some of you would go to in order to maintain your skepticism is fascinating. "Definitely can't be divine intervention. Must be lizard people."

Oh spare me.

You forget that there's no substance evidence of limbs ever regrowing. So whether or not such an event would be natural or the result of divine intervention is purely academic.