Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[McCulloch]

When there is no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell you that some awesome incredible miraculous event has happened that has been reported to have happened, you have determined that it is rational to believe that it is true?

You're catchin' on. Are you saying that a miraculous event must have some type of special evidence for it to have taken place? If so why?

If someone tells you that a coin has vanished into thin air, do you accept that assertion that a miraculous (magical, supernatural) event has taken place? I don't.

Yes, without irrefutable evidence, a rational person must believe that dead people stay dead. We have lots of evidence to support the idea that dead people stay dead and none to oppose it.

I have no reason to disagree with this. By "rational" you mean someone that is closed to the idea of the supernatural, right?

Or someone who will not believe that something way out of the ordinary has occurred without evidence. Yes.

But if evidence was provided for such a thing in our current day would you accept it?

I would question it. Just as I would question the claim that someone has developed cold fusion or invented a cloak of invisibility. I suspect that your standard of evidence is a bit weaker than mine.

[Goose]

And other than a few books written 40 or more years after the fact, what evidence do you have that it actually DID happen? What evidence do you have outside the New Testament?

Please list in detail what other evidence or documents you feel would be necessary outside of the NT to verify the claim and why it would be crucial to have these pieces of evidence.

What irrefultable evidence do you have that Mohammed didn't accend directly to heaven ? I am sure you reject that story.

Not necesarilly.

When there is no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell you that some awesome incredible miraculous event has happened that has been reported to have happened, you have determined that it is rational to believe that it is true?

You're catchin' on. Are you saying that a miraculous event must have some type of special evidence for it to have taken place? If so why?

Yes, without irrefutable evidence, a rational person must believe that dead people stay dead. We have lots of evidence to support the idea that dead people stay dead and none to oppose it.

I have no reason to disagree with this. By "rational" you mean someone that is closed to the idea of the supernatural, right? But if evidence was provided for such a thing in our current day (not saying I have this mind you) would you accept it? Or would your presupposition toward the supernatural preclude you from accepting it regardless of the evidence provided? Just curious?

And you would give them the same benefit of the doubt? So long as they have no irrefutable piece of evidence against them, their supernatural claims will be accepted as true?

As I've already stated my presupposition to the supernational does not cause me to doubt a claim necessarily. Regardless of the nature of the evidence.

Ho Ho Ho.

Jingle bells, Batman smells...

[Goose]

If someone tells you that a coin has vanished into thin air, do you accept that assertion that a miraculous (magical, supernatural) event has taken place? I don't.

This is because of your presupposition to the idea that such a thing could never "rationally" happen. But I'll play along for fun. So did this magician have any witnesses or evidence of any kind?

I suspect that your standard of evidence is a bit weaker than mine.

Possibly. But never-the-less, a weaker standard of evidence, as you have put it, does not automatically nullify the claim. Agreed?

[McCulloch]

If someone tells you that a coin has vanished into thin air, do you accept that assertion that a miraculous (magical, supernatural) event has taken place? I don't.

This is because of your presupposition to the idea that such a thing could never "rationally" happen. But I'll play along for fun. So did this magician have any witnesses or evidence of any kind?

Yes, he repeatedly performs this feat in front of live witnesses.

I suspect that your standard of evidence is a bit weaker than mine.

Possibly. But never-the-less, a weaker standard of evidence, as you have put it, does not automatically nullify the claim. Agreed?

Agreed. But in the case of the continuation of individual existence after death, we have no reason to believe it. Our understanding of nature and of life does not lead in that direction. There is no evidence that I have seen that would support the idea of life after death. So without actually dismissing the claim, we certainly cannot support the claim made by Christians and others that there is a "sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life". Agreed?

[Goat]

And other than a few books written 40 or more years after the fact, what evidence do you have that it actually DID happen? What evidence do you have outside the New Testament?

Please list in detail what other evidence or documents you feel would be necessary outside of the NT to verify the claim and why it would be crucial to have these pieces of evidence.

I don't know. I do know that I am not going to treat the stories in the New Testament any differently than any other claim.

In my experiance, people are Gods. In my experiance, the dead do not rise from the ground. In my experiance, ressurection does not happen.

Why should I give a different level of evidence to a set of books written 2000 years ago over anything else?

[Lotan]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

No way.
YEC's are, to me, the most obvious; highly skeptical and deeply gullible at the same time, according to the preconceived results their understanding of the Bible requires. They presumably have no problem with X-rays, or nuclear reactors, or atomic bombs, all products of nuclear physics, but view nuclear physicists as dishonest bumblers when it's time to date a few rocks!

Typical atheist generalization and antagonistic observation you've made. Seems like you're looking for a fight, not a debate.

Don't look at this thread then...

Are Christians "willfully ignorant"?

It seems the differing issues always boil down to naturalism's presuppositions toward the supernatural. And on the contrary Christians' presuppositions toward science. I don't think that will ever change.

But it already has! When you get the flu, you don't send for the exorcists (at least I hope not) but instead take an antibiotic, because germs have supplanted demons as the cause of illness. How many Christians today still believe that the sun revolves around the earth? The more that science progresses, the less that God has to do.

The naturalistic view doesn't automatically exclude the supernatural. There is no "presupposition". Naturalism is based on observation. Unless the supernatural can be observed, there is no reason for a naturalistic viewpoint to include it, even if a naturalistic answer to a given problem is not readily apparent. Supernatural explanations remain a possibility, but their probability is low because they haven't been observed. To apply this to the resurrection, for example, a naturalistic explanation would be that it is more likely a product of human invention (something that has been observed) than an instance of a dead person returning to life (something that has not been observed - yes, we have accounts, but we also have accounts of many other 'miracles' from a wide variety of sources. Shall we also believe that Artemis turned Actaeon into a stag?).

Christians (and others) do begin with "presuppositions" though, just look at the 'Statement of Faith' for your local church. Belief is governed by the Bible, even when it conflicts with observation.

Blessed are those, who find a functional and/or reasonable balances or delineations between what they know, think they know or believe. Some people are SO INTOLERANT, that they will not even allow others the right DIFFER or deviate from the set beliefs they themselves hold.

You like vanilla, I like chocolate. That's cool. Some differences are more serious and people get hurt because of them.

Seriously, I've questioned many of the Christian supernatural claims. The obvious one is Christ's resurrection. Based on the arguments for and against that I've read. I have seen no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell me it did not happen. So I choose to believe it to be true.

That's the sort of logic that I believe Cmass was referring to in the OP. No one can disprove a negative claim, ANY negative claim, EVER. Example...

"I have seen no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell me..."

...that leprechauns aren't real.

And you never will. No matter what, you will never prove that leprechauns don't exist sometime, somewhere, somehow. By the same token, this line of 'reasoning doesn't prove that they do exist either.

[Goose]

If someone tells you that a coin has vanished into thin air, do you accept that assertion that a miraculous (magical, supernatural) event has taken place? I don't.

This is because of your presupposition to the idea that such a thing could never "rationally" happen. But I'll play along for fun. So did this magician have any witnesses or evidence of any kind?

Yes, he repeatedly performs this feat in front of live witnesses.

C'mon, McCulloh fess up. It's you isn't it? You're a magician in your spare-time outside of debating Christianity.

I suspect that your standard of evidence is a bit weaker than mine.

Possibly. But never-the-less, a weaker standard of evidence, as you have put it, does not automatically nullify the claim. Agreed?

Agreed. But in the case of the continuation of individual existence after death, we have no reason to believe it. Our understanding of nature and of life does not lead in that direction. There is no evidence that I have seen that would support the idea of life after death. So without actually dismissing the claim, we certainly cannot support the claim made by Christians and others that there is a "sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life". Agreed?

I would agree that nothing is "sure and certain." I would not agree however, that the resurrection "cannot be supported" if by this you mean there to be no evidence whatsoever. So'll assume that is not what you meant, unless of course this is what you meant. And that puts us back at the beggining

Understanding your statement from the perspective of naturalism, yes I agree.

[Goose]

And other than a few books written 40 or more years after the fact, what evidence do you have that it actually DID happen? What evidence do you have outside the New Testament?

Please list in detail what other evidence or documents you feel would be necessary outside of the NT to verify the claim and why it would be crucial to have these pieces of evidence.

I don't know. I do know that I am not going to treat the stories in the New Testament any differently than any other claim.

Fair enough. This your purogative.

In my experiance, the dead do not rise from the ground. In my experiance, ressurection does not happen.

But do your experiences or anyone elses mean absolutely that the resurrection couldn't have happened?

Why should I give a different level of evidence to a set of books written 2000 years ago over anything else?

Do you lend any credibility to anything written 2000 years ago? If not, then fine. But if you do, why should the NT be any different? Only because it has supernatural claims? Is that why it should be treated different?

[Goose]

That's the sort of logic that I believe Cmass was referring to in the OP. No one can disprove a negative claim, ANY negative claim, EVER. Example...

"I have seen no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell me..."

...that leprechauns aren't real.

And you never will. No matter what, you will never prove that leprechauns don't exist sometime, somewhere, somehow. By the same token, this line of 'reasoning doesn't prove that they do exist either.

I hear you loud and clear. Here's the difference. Weren't not talking about leprechauns or little green men. Were talking about a person that some historians believed (we'll save the historicity of Jesus for another thread) actually existed. So you're left with believing the evidence in NT. If you don't, fine. I have no problem with that. But don't insult me with the leprachaun thing. You can do better than that can't you?

[Goat]

And other than a few books written 40 or more years after the fact, what evidence do you have that it actually DID happen? What evidence do you have outside the New Testament?

Please list in detail what other evidence or documents you feel would be necessary outside of the NT to verify the claim and why it would be crucial to have these pieces of evidence.

I don't know. I do know that I am not going to treat the stories in the New Testament any differently than any other claim.

Fair enough. This your purogative.

In my experiance, the dead do not rise from the ground. In my experiance, ressurection does not happen.

But do your experiences or anyone elses mean absolutely that the resurrection couldn't have happened?

Why should I give a different level of evidence to a set of books written 2000 years ago over anything else?

Do you lend any credibility to anything written 2000 years ago? If not, then fine. But if you do, why should the NT be any different? Only because it has supernatural claims? Is that why it should be treated different?

Well, it depends what that thign says. If it says something that I know is physcially feasible, then I give it more weight to something that I know is impossible.

For example, suetonius, in his 'The Twelve Ceasers', relates how two angels came down to ignite Julius Ceasars funeral pyre when there was an arguement about when/how to do it. I don't give that account credulence as 'angels', because I have never seen any evidence of any angels at all.

I take Josphus's account of what happened in Masada with a grain of salt, because, although archelogists found shards with letters on them (as described in his account), the graves and bodies of those who are supposed to have commited suicide rather than surrender are not to be found (yet).

When it comes to the epic writing of the Illiad, I will acknowledge that there was a city probably called Troy, and there was a battle for it. I do not accept that Zues is a God because of it.