2007-10-02 01:01:08 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
goinupru....coo coo for cocoa puffs comes to mind...
2007-10-02 01:09:27 · update #1
God would never hold up in court. Christ certainly didn't.
peace
2007-10-02 01:04:01 · answer #1 · answered by Linda B 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No religious argument would hold up in court, since they are based on faith and faith is having confidence in that which cannot be proved or disproved. Legal courts must have proveable evidence to support an argument in order to have any chance of winning the argument.
2007-10-02 09:01:37 · answer #2 · answered by BlueManticore 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fundies' arguments are based on a bunch of assumptions . The only way they could even appear to have any proof would be to use circular logic. There is absolutely no chance that it would hold up in court.
2007-10-02 08:06:13 · answer #3 · answered by qxzqxzqxz 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No they wouldn't and it takes the supreme court to squash them when they get too uppity.
I'm thinking of Michael Behe's case which I first read about in 'the god delusion'
If you read a list of logical fallacies you see all the types of arguments put forward by fundamentalists, circular logic, straw man, non-sequitur, law of small numbers and so on - they have to resort to such things because they're just wrong. If they didn't use those tricks they'd probably have to admit that creationism was stupid and god doesnt exist.
2007-10-02 08:05:09 · answer #4 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
"Belief" is a strange thing in that in order to have it, you must accept the unlikely or impossible and affirm that it is true. Once you've made that step you interpret everything through your "belief" and everything that seems to confirm your belief seems to be right.
Most, if not all, of the arguments and evidence that I've seen here and on apologetic web sites would not hold up.
2007-10-02 08:10:12 · answer #5 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course not -- which is why, in days long gone when the church was much more powerful, they would "win" any argument by torturing and/or killing anyone who disagreed with them...
2007-10-02 08:09:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. Courts require evidence, not hopes.
2007-10-02 08:09:19 · answer #7 · answered by Fred 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Only if George Bush appointed the judge
2007-10-02 08:04:03 · answer #8 · answered by 2 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Interesting question. Actually , most of Gods methods of dealing with us are based on a judicial system of sorts.
If the truth be known, if we got what we deserved we would be in a heap of trouble and a world of hurt. God exercises mercy in that we dont GET what we deserve. He exercises His GRACE in that we DO get what we are undeserving OF, on the basis of the perfect performance of ANOTHER on our behalf.
YOU may be of the opinion that Gods Word is circular and self serving, but HE says that what He is trying to tell us is actually the truth that will set us free from OUR self serving and circular arguments.
When push comes to shove, Gods Word will still stand as HE is God and you are NOT.
2007-10-02 08:06:23 · answer #9 · answered by goinupru 6 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Because their doctrines are difficult to defend and rely solely on Scripture. For example, sola scriptura (Bible alone) is unscriptural and so is sola fide (faith alone) as the only means of salvation is untenable.
2007-10-02 08:07:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋