1. People will argue that there's no proof for the existence of God, but as a thought experiment, what sort of proof would be acceptable to everyone?
I mean...since God is non-physical, then I would presume that any physical evidence is automatically invalid. Right?
And every single miracle gets denounced as a fake, even the well-documented ones like the miracle of the sun or Jesus' resurrection from the dead. We'll talk about miracles later, but is there any miracle so convincing that it would confound all skeptics?
Huh. I wonder what people say, when discussing the existence of other non-physical things, such as freedom, dreams, the soul, the subconscious and mathematical concepts like numbers.
2. In response to me saying that Jehovah's Witnesses think the Bible is a science textbook, someone said, "As a Jehovah's Witness I can confidently say that you are completely wrong about that statement you made. We do not believe that the bible is a scientific textbook AT ALL! Can I ask where you got that idea from?"
I got that information from the Jehovah's Witnesses who showed up at my house, with a pamphlet for me to read. I kept the pamphlet, read through it, then put it in recycling. They could have been feeding me false information.
3. "Although this is all very interesting, it’s just an idea, a hypothesis at best. None of Aristotle’s ideas here have concrete evidence supporting his assertions. I could just as easily use his arguments to claim there are multiple immobile movers, thus proving polytheism. It would be unfeasible to assume only one immobile mover caused multiple reactions across the span of trillions and trillions and trillions of miles (i.e. the Big Bang.)
Like I said, interesting ideas, but let’s keep in mind that nothing here is proven. After all, does it mean, if we don’t understand something, and an international community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God (or an immobile mover) did it? I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion. If it was, there’s a whole laundry list of things past physicists didn't understand at the time, that current physicists do."
Yep, Aristotle was a polytheist. He believed in multiple gods, one per planet. A modern polytheist would probably say one god per galaxy, or something. I'll discuss why this is not the case, later on. The short version of the argument is that you can either believe in one, unlimited god, or multiple, limited gods. You run into a logical error, if you have multiple unlimited gods or one, limited god.
I just want to re-emphasize that Aristotle does not say, "I don't know where movement comes from, therefore, it comes from God". He says, "I have proven it is logically impossible for movement to have a physical source. Therefore, it comes from a non-physical source, i.e. God." There are other places in his writings where Aristotle admits he doesn't know something, and he challenges future scholars to figure out the correct explanation. This is not one of those places.
4. Joanofarc77 quoted someone who said, "Most Christians don't read the bible. It's like a computer software agreement, people just scroll to the bottom and click 'I accept'"
That's rather accurate. In my experience, people just pick and choose the parts of a religion they like, rejecting those they don't like.
5. Someone mentioned intelligent design versus creationism. I must admit, I am wholly ignorant when it comes to this debate, so I can't contribute to a discussion on it.