Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I do believe that miracles have and do occur.... I try to go where the evidence leads.

Could you please give an example of a miracle that you believe literally happened, and can you please outline what the evidence is that leads you to that belief?

[10CC]

It is pretty self evident that objective moral standards exist. Two prominent atheists who specialize in moral philosophy, Sam Harris and Shelly Kagan, affirm the existence of objective morality and so does a large part of the philosophical community. The best piece of evidence would be historical texts we have gathered from vastly different cultures. The golden rule, for example, is a universally accepted principle that is taught and adhered to by many people from many different cultures. This shows that objective moral truths exist regardless of a person's race, beliefs or culture.

Which shows very dramatically that these rules were created by men. If it was only the ancient Middle Eastern god who created them then the rest of humanity would not possess nor adhere to these rules.
Which by the way happens daily.

[no evidence no belief]

Well, you actually need to understand it in order to destroy it and you clearly don't understand it. The moral argument does not attempt to prove any specific miracle, the argument attempts to prove the existence of a transcendent moral law giver (God) by using the existence of objective (absolute) morality as evidence.

What is this thing called "objective morality"?

A moral declaration that is true regardless of what anybody thinks.

Right. There are some things that are so clearly measurably and objectively detrimental to societal health, that even if a few people think they are good, it doesn't affect the facts.

It goes something like this:
1) Animals have an instinctive evolutionary desire not to go extinct. Those who don't have this desire... tend to go extinct
2) Killing members of your species increases the odds of extinction
3) Murder is "objectively" bad, if you're trying to avoid extinction

It really is quite simple. "If all die, bad, so don't kill". A caveman figured it out several millennia before Moses. He probably figured it out on the same day he figured out this "If I bang head against rock, I get headache, so don't bang head against rock".

There indeed objectively are choices one can make that will increase personal and species chance of survival and wellbeing (don't bang head against the wall, don't murder the UPS man, don't amputate your legs, etc).

I mean, this is obvious. What's up with calling it "Absolute morality", though? You're right, it's absolutely true that jumping off of cliffs is bad for your health (except if you have a parachute). It's absolutely true that killing your neighbor is bad for your society (except if he is a serial killer that was about to murder you).

I didn't realize that by "objective morality" you meant "stuff that is so obvious that a caveman can figure it out". If that's what you mean, then of course I agree with you.

But in that case the question is this: Where do you get the notion that you need some "transcendent law giver" to figure out that stepping on the tail of a sleeping lion or cutting off the testicles of your neighbor is most probably gonna end up badly, and should be avoided?

If some idiot believes that stepping on lion's tail or cutting your neighbor's testicles is a good idea... he is wrong! Duh! (except if you are deliberately trying to wake up the lion so that it will attack the bear that was chasing you, and except if your neighbor has testicular cancer). How does such a simple fact require God to explain it? I don't get it.

[Goose]

1) The evidence for the resurrection is as strong as the evidence of the assassination

Thank you, I agree. And as such we have an objective way to determine the evidence for the resurrection is strong. Therefore, because it is strong the Christian is justified in his belief in the resurrection. There, that wasn't so hard was it?

[Goose]

Your evidence does not show what you claim. Let's take your example, the Gospel of Peter. It's true that Serapion eventually rejected it as a forgery, but his methodology is pivotal to the discussion. Initially he accepted it as authentic and allowed its use because he thought it was written by Peter himself as the text claims. Later, after reading it himself he rejected it, NOT because he discovered it was a forgery. Rather he CONCLUDED it must be a forgery because he thought it could be interpreted to support the heresy of docetism.

You have an uncanny ability to knock down strawmen, Danmark. How many has it been now? I’ve lost count.

I haven’t claimed anything regarding Serapion’s methodology (although I don’t see why the presence of heretical doctrine in a work would not be a legitimate criterion for inauthenticity). I was arguing against Tired of the Nonsense’s claim that pseudonymous works “were considered to be perfectly genuine and authentic by Christians at the time.� Regardless of your views concerning how Serapion may have arrived at his conclusions about the Gospel of Peter my salient point raised by the example of Serapion, and others, still stands which was that pseudonymity was not an acceptable practise in the early church. Measures were taken to reject those works thought to be forgeries.

See LOST CHRISTIANITIES, Ehrman, pp 15-16.

The problem is that this is one of several examples that the analysis of the early church focused on acceptable theology and dogma, not on direct evidence regarding whether a text was forged.

This is but one example.

"Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature," writes Bart Ehrman, "is the degree to which it was forged." The Homilies and Recognitions of Clement; Paul's letters to and from Seneca; Gospels by Peter, Thomas, and Philip; Jesus' correspondence with Abgar, letters by Peter and Paul in the New Testament--all forgeries. To cite just a few examples.
From a review of Ehrman's latest:
Forgery and Counterforgery:
The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics
http://www.bartdehrman.com/

I don’t disagree with Ehrman’s conclusions on those works. But Ehrman backs my earlier point anyway.

�Indeed, despite its common occurrence, forgery was almost universally condemned by ancient authors.� Erhman, The New Testament: An Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 1997, p. 323

But since we are quoting scholars regarding 1 Peter.

�The case against Petrine authorship is therefore not at all a strong one. We agree with I. Howard Marshall that “if there ever was a weak case for pseudonymity, surely it is in respect to this letter.�� – Carson and Moo, An Introduction To The New Testament, 2005, p. 645.

-----

This is not persuasive. The vast majority of scholars agree that Matthew is dependent on Mark. Why would an eyewitness like Matthew rely on another text instead of writing his own account? In addition you argue that Matthew could have translated his own aramaic gospel into perfect Greek with no trace of translation. Even supposing the latter dubious claim to be true, "could have" is hardly persuasive.

Here are three (of many) authors with their analyses which leads to the same conclusion:

Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):

It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.

Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):

But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

Whether you find it persuasive or not is irrelevant. I dealt with the objection of Markan priority already in this post.

[Goose]

Perhaps I can muster more of an argument if you really wish.

Don’t you mean more walls of cutting and pasting? Your extensive cut and paste jobs regarding Greek Matthew not having evidence of being a translation from Hebrew to Greek are knocking down a strawman as I’ve not argued there is such evidence to be found in Greek Matthew.

So, how do we know that the Koine Greek Matthew which appears in all modern copies of the NT was in fact written by the apostle Matthew?

Because the weight of the evidence suggests it. 1) There is no other tradition which has come down to us in either external writings or manuscript attributions of authorship. This is inconceivable if the Gospel of Matthew had circulated anonymously for decades before some unknown Christian decided to stamp “Matthew� on it. If the Gospel were truly anonymous and that was how authorship attributions occurred then we would expect to see conflicting traditions. We don’t see conflicting traditions therefore Matthew was never truly anonymous and that wasn't how authorship attributions occurred. Logic 101. 2) The early church was unanimous Matthew authored a gospel. It does not logically follow that the early church must have been mistaken about Matthew writing a Gospel because they may have been mistaken on the original being in Hebrew. 3) Assuming the early church wasn’t mistaken on the Hebrew original Matthew, being a tax collector he would have been able to either write a Hebrew and later a Greek version or translate a Hebrew version into a Greek one without leaving signs of translations as evidenced by others of that era who could do the same, such as Josephus. You haven’t countered any of these arguments.

"All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors." This is what is known as Christian tradition. In other words, it's true because Christians believe it and have declared it to be so. And what does the historical evidence have to say? Prior to the formation of the Catholic church in the 4th century, we have the statements from Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Eusebius which all indicated that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel. And that Gospel was written in the HEBREW LANGUAGE. But what evidence do we have which would serve to establish that the apostle Matthew wrote a Gospel in perfect Koine Greek? NONE! We have no evidence to indicate and therefore nothing to establish the identity of the author of the Koine Greek gospel TRADITIONALLY attributed to Matthew. Like so much of Christian tradition, it is so because Christians have declared it to BE so! So who REALLY wrote the Gospel of Matthew contained in all modern Bibles? “NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS!�

Despite your complaints and cries of “NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS!� this is partly how historians determine authorship. They look at the external attestation of later writers – i.e. tradition as you call it. Do I need to remind you again the first “tradition� that comes down to us for a clear cut attribution of authorship for Caesar’s Gallic Wars is from Suetonius 165 years later! And it was disputed by then. Yet, no scholar questions its authorship. We have just as strong if not stronger evidence for Matthew. In light of this your objections seem not to carry much weight.

A more complete description of THE BOOK OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST BY BARTHOLOMEW THE APOSTLE can be found here:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/gosbart.htm

From your link:
�A date is hard to suggest. The British Museum MS. is assigned to the twelfth century; the Paris fragments are older. That of the Coptic literature of this class is usually supposed to belong to the fifth and sixth centuries; and I think this, or at latest the seventh century, may be the period when the book was produced.�

What exactly is "the overwhelming external evidence for John’s authorship," by the way?

I gave you some of it here. In comparison to say the external evidence for Caesar’s authorship of the Gallic Wars, which is not disputed by historians, it is very strong if not stronger.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

http://www.nabion.org/html/gospel_of_john.html

You realize nabion.org is a Messianic-Jewish cite bent on returning Christianity to its Jewish roots don’t you? You were probably better cutting and pasting your walls of text from Wikipedia. At any rate, this is mostly a rehash of the Papias and two John’s argument which I’ve already addressed.

I don't think that it is to much of a stretch to point out that events which never occurred routinely fail to get reported on at the time. Clearly you consider such an objection to be meaningless.

I consider it to be an illogical objection because it obliterates other known historical events as well. But never mind the bad logic, carry on.

You made a reference to the word "canard." What I then pointed out to you is that a "canard" actually refers to something which is silly or baseless. A canard is also a duck, "a kind of a small goose" (my exact words). Being members of the same family, the Anatidae, they are very closely related.

More of your faulty logic. Being members of the same family doesn’t make a duck a goose. But please continue to defend your position that a duck is a goose. It serves to highlight just how illogical your reasoning can be.

I believe I just did make such a counter argument.

Hardly. You cut and pasted walls of arguments from others for the most part. Arguments that are either strawmen or covering old ground I’ve already dealt with. Not to mention you are still not addressing the arguments regarding 1 Peter. But hey, you are proficient at the cut and paste feature, I’ll give you that.

[Danmark]

Your evidence does not show what you claim. Let's take your example, the Gospel of Peter. It's true that Serapion eventually rejected it as a forgery, but his methodology is pivotal to the discussion. Initially he accepted it as authentic and allowed its use because he thought it was written by Peter himself as the text claims. Later, after reading it himself he rejected it, NOT because he discovered it was a forgery. Rather he CONCLUDED it must be a forgery because he thought it could be interpreted to support the heresy of docetism.

You have an uncanny ability to knock down strawmen, Danmark. How many has it been now? I’ve lost count.

I haven’t claimed anything regarding Serapion’s methodology (although I don’t see why the presence of heretical doctrine in a work would not be a legitimate criterion for inauthenticity). I was arguing against Tired of the Nonsense’s claim that pseudonymous works “were considered to be perfectly genuine and authentic by Christians at the time.� Regardless of your views concerning how Serapion may have arrived at his conclusions about the Gospel of Peter my salient point raised by the example of Serapion, and others, still stands which was that pseudonymity was not an acceptable practise in the early church. Measures were taken to reject those works thought to be forgeries.

Fleeing to the 'strawman' refuge is a frequent dodge to avoid dealing with arguments.
Instead of actually presenting a good argument, the debater declares "Strawman!" and the argument is supposedly over.

HOW Serapion and others determine a text is a forgery is critical to an honest and scholarly approach to a text. By the method exposed, Serapion or his intellectual kinsman would dispose of an authentic text because they disagreed with its theology instead of because it was a forgery. I thought that point was obvious.

The methodology for determining forgeries is critical regardless of what point YOU think is salient. Following your analysis and Serapion's if a text was discovered that was written by Jesus himself it would be rejected if it's theology differed from the orthodox. That is the whole point of Ehrman's study.

You and long before you, church leaders selected the cannon not because a work was genuine vs. forged, but because it fit their proto-orthodoxy. If it didn't fit, they said it was forged. This is a self serving methodology and classic confirmation bias.

You've made the same mistake unknowingly when you argue that Matthew was written by Matthew because tradition says so or because the text so claims. This is exactly the case with the Gospel of Peter, which was internally confirmed to be written by Peter because 'Peter' said so. Serapion accepted the text for this reason, until he realized he didn't like what the text implied.

You accept Matthew because of church tradition and church tradition accepts it because it agrees with their doctrine. This is circular. Neither you nor the early church has dealt with the specific arguments raised about why the gospel of Matthew in relying on Mark, is likely not a first hand account by a disciple, since a disciple in the inner circle like Matthew would hardly have relied on Mark.

[no evidence no belief]

1) The evidence for the resurrection is as strong as the evidence of the assassination

Thank you, I agree. And as such we have an objective way to determine the evidence for the resurrection is strong. Therefore, because it is strong the Christian is justified in his belief in the resurrection. There, that wasn't so hard was it?

Not at all. It was very easy.

As long as we agree that the resurrection and the assassination were both events that did NOT violate the laws of physics, I am ok with the assertion that the historical evidence for the natural two events is comparably strong, and that therefore the two events (both NOT supernatural) are equally likely to be true.

Of course that means that Jesus's resurrection was not a supernatural event, it means that Jesus is not the Son of God, and it means Christianity falls like a castle of cards, but hey, at least nobody can accuse you of believing in decomposing brain-dead and heart-dead maggot ridden rotting corpses coming back to life and flying into the clouds like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

[Sonofason]

Son, it seems to me you're taking all your supernatural claims, plopping them into the natural category, just to give them credibility.

Surely, you can understand a difference between an intelligence which allegedly breaks the laws of physics, and non-intelligent nature which doesn't, especially when there's no evidence for the former, and all evidence for the latter.

The line between reality and fantasy isn't a fine one.

I'm sorry, but when reality is in conflict with linguistics, then linguistics must be changed.

No problem at all.

Please provide evidence for the natural (I repeat, natural) events described in the Bible (talking donkey, zombie invasions, earth stopping its orbit, great flood, talking burning bush, Nile turned into blood, walking on water, etc)

Again, I completely accept that going forward in our debate, the word to describe these events will be natural, NOT supernatural.

In fact, any linguistic definition, modification, reframing that you wish to propose, I preemptively accept.

Just provide evidence that these things happened, and address the overwhelmingly strong evidence that they did not happen.

Thank you.

When you provide me evidence that you brushed your teeth last Thursday, I will provide evidence of a talking donkey.

Ah ah. The abbreviation "lol" is overused. But your post actually made me laugh out loud. Like, I was sitting in front of the screen, I read your post, laughed, my daughter sitting nearby asked me what was funny, I read her what you wrote, and she laughed too. It was a really cute moment with my daughter, and I thank you for it.

Ok, how does one answer the single most nonsensical statement ever? It's hard. Your position is so absurd that I never even conceived of having to respond to it. Let's see...

Well, as it happens, my bathroom is being renovated, so for this whole week I've been brushing my teeth in the kitchen sink. On thursday evening I went out with my wife and hired a babysitter. Because my wife is very protective, we have a nannycam in the living room, it was already turned on when I brushed my teeth, and it was placed in the living room at an angle that gives a clear shot of the kitchen. We haven't erased the nannycam footage yet. In short, I have digital high fidelity recording of myself brushing my teeth on Thursday. This video has embedded dating on it, showing that it was shot on thursday. So, I can send you by certified mail a video of me brushing my teeth, and attach my photo ID so you know it was me. If you like, I can take a DNA sample (at my expense) and submit my toothbrush for analysis at a lab of your choice, so you can verify that my DNA is on the toothbrush, a non conclusive but empirical piece of evidence that corroborates the notion that I brushed my teeth on thursday. Also, I have a receipt for the purchase of a toothbrush with my credit card made earlier that very same day. A dentist of your choice (I will foot the bill) can inspect my teeth and provide an expert opinion as to whether it looks like I've been brushing my teeth for the last week or so, and can inspect the toothbrush to assess whether the wear and tear is consistent with at least a few days of use - two non-conclusive but corroborative facts. Furthermore, I will fly to a lab of your choice (at my expense) and in front of a team of impartial observers picked by you and paid by me, I will repeat the brushing of the teeth, so that you and your team of experts can directly observe that me brushing my teeth is not physically impossible, another non-conclusive but corroborative fact. I also can submit (still at my expense) myself, my wife, my daughter and her babysitter to a polygraph test (a lie detector) and while plugged in, all 4 of us will swear that on thursday night we were all witnesses to me brushing my teeth. I can accompany that with a complete phycological analysis by a psychologist of your choice (I will foot the bill) who will be able to certify that we are all 4 of sound mind, don't use drugs, and have no propensity for hallucinations. Moreover, I can (at my own expense) hire one million people to brush their teeth in front of your very eyes, further corroborating the tangential fact that people brushing teeth is not uncommon at all. Lastly, I will give you $1,000,000 in cash for every empirical piece of evidence you can obtain that I DIDN'T brush my teeth on thursday, and $500,000 for every empirical piece of evidence that shows it's mechanically impossible for me to brush my teeth (lack of teeth, lack of hands, lack o toohbrushes or toothpaste in the area where I live, etc)

In short, I can provide the following:
- Digital video of me brushing my teeth on Thursday
- DNA evidence of me having brushed my teeth with my toothbrush
- Evidence that I purchased a toothbrush on thursday
- Medical inspection of my teeth and my toothbrush showing I brush my teeth regularly
- Direct evidence of me brushing my teeth
- Sworn testimony of four eyewitnesses, certified by polygraph and by psychoanalysis to be truthful and trustworthy, that I brushed my teeth on thursday
- Direct evidence of a million people brushing their teeth
- Complete lack of evidence AGAINST the notion that I brushed my teeth on thursday, or that I couldn't have brushed my teeth on thursday in principle.

Providing you with this will take a tremendous amount of time, energy and money, but I absolutely will do it. All I ask is that before I begin this potentially multimillion dollar operation, you just take a few moments to describe in a few words WHAT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE TALKING DONKEY IS. I'm not asking you to provide the evidence. I will do that first. I'm just asking you to briefly describe the evidence, like I did above.

Don't provide evidence, just describe it.

I'll tell you what. I know you are a busy man, so I will make even just the describing of the evidence worth your time. I estimate it will take a learned man such as yourself no more than 3 minutes to describe this evidence. I will pay you $1000 per second, for a total of $180,000. Ok?

Sorry, I am editing my answer here because I am quite compelled to be honest at this point in this discussion. Assuredly, it is if I was playing a game of cards. It is apparent that I was bluffing. It seems my bluff is being called, and I must lay out my hand on the table. And I am left without.

I don't know if you have evidence that you brushed your teeth. Perhaps you are bluffing. But I can see quite clearly that it is altogether possible that you do. It doesn't matter if you do. You could. It is possible. It is not however possible for me to show evidence of a talking donkey. And you know this, of course.

I cannot show evidence of a talking snake.
I cannot show evidence of a talking donkey.
I cannot show evidence of a God.
I cannot show evidence of my personal experiences of God.
I cannot show evidence that Jesus existed.
I cannot show evidence that Jesus died on a cross.
I cannot show evidence of miracles.
I cannot show evidence of a great flood.
I cannot show evidence of heaven or hell.
I cannot show evidence of angels or demons.
I have no evidence at all.

If there is no evidence of God and Christ, what exactly is the point of this debate site?

There is no objective evidence of God. So what is the point of a Christian having this debate? What is the point of an atheist engaging in this debate? Well, it's becoming my opinion, that there isn't a point in having a debate. It's a waste of my time. And it's a waste of your time. And it does neither party any good.

I'm not going to quit or anything like that. But I do believe that I will chose my arguments more wisely. Well, we'll see what happens.

Nice Job. I concede. You win.

Dear Son, I truly appreciate greatly your concession. My hat is off to you for the balls it takes to do that. You just earned my respect, man.

To answer your question, I think there most definitely is a point to this debate. The point, at least for me, is to try to attain a better grasp of reality through discussions with others, helping others see their errors, and having others help me see mine.

Let me ask you this: When we started this debate, were you as aware of the fundamental flaw in your argument as you are now? Or did the debate help you rethink and improve your position a little bit?

If you realized from the very beginning that the argument you presented was rubbish, but you presented it anyway, then indeed this was a waste of time.

But if before the debate, maybe because you had never really thought it through, you kinda believed that you had a point, and your opinion changed by talking it through with us, then I think there definitely was a point to all this. If this debate helped you improve your understanding of reality (and realizing there is no evidence for miracles, zombies, talking donkeys, etc), then this was a very very productive experience for you! You now believe one less untrue thing than you did a couple days ago.

Another way of looking at why this was productive is this:
If you are at heart a dishonest person (which I don't think you are) the next time you debate someone you will try to say there is evidence for those Bible claims, even though you now realize you were wrong. You will deliberately spread falsehoods. You will deliberately bear false witness.

If on the other hand you are an honest person (as you finally proved with your last post) then for the rest of your life, you will never ever again make arguments that you now admit are bogus, or to use your own words "bluffs". If you ever hear somebody else make that same argument, you will realize they are full of it. If you have or will have children, you will not tell them there is evidence for miracles, you will not try to draw false equivalency between evidence for evolution, the earth being a globe, me brushing my teeth, etc and stuff like talking donkeys.

This to me seems a wonderful thing. It resulted from our debate, which makes it totally worthwhile.

The last way to answer your question is this: You ask "If there is no evidence of God and Christ, what exactly is the point of this debate site?"

The point of this debate is to ask you this question: If, as you finally realize, there is no good evidence for zombies, talking donkeys and the great flood, then why the heck do you believe in them, buddy?

I believe the stories of the Bible are all true. I believe the authors of the Bible were all telling the truth. As a result, I believe that the events told in the Bible are historical and true. I believe that Balaam's donkey fell down at the sight of an angel standing in the way. I believe that Balaam became angry and smote his donkey. And I believe that "the LORD opened the mouth of the (donkey), and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"
(Numbers 22:28)

I personally do not believe that donkeys can speak, unless of course someone were capable of causing them to speak. I believe God can cause such things to happen. I believe the stories of the Bible are all true. I believe the authors of the Bible were all telling the truth. And as a result, I believe that the events told in the Bible are historical and true.

I learned a great deal about God from the authors of the Bible. I believed the authors were telling the truth about Him. It all seemed quite reasonable to me. As a result of my believing them, I experience God. Let me repeat that, so you understand; I experience God. It is my belief that I experience God because I believe that God exists. You see, my belief and my faith in God has caused me to put into practice particular disciplines as prescribed by the authors and subjects of the Bible that are actually intended to illicit a response from God. And what I have discovered is that they were right. If you make it a habit of calling upon God, if you love Him, if you obey Him, if you trust in His Son, if you repent from your sins, etc. etc., you will experience God.

I could not ask for greater evidence of God than God has given me. His presence in me is perfect evidence for me. I know that my personal experiences of God might not be very convincing for you, but then, my experiences of God weren't meant for you. They were meant for me. They are directed toward me. My experiences of God are my experiences. It is my evidence. It is not your evidence.

But I'm not the only one who claims to experiences God. All followers of Christ experience God. Just to show I'm not making this up, let me give an example. Apparently, there's a girl on Yahoo, named Brenda, who claims to experience God. This is what she said. She said, "Once a person becomes born again through faith of Jesus Christ, this then means that the Holy Spirit has indwelt the new believer and that the person has become "sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption." (Ephesians 4:30). As a Born again Christian, I now experience the presence of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 317AAqUHsB

I'm quite sure I could find hundreds of people who make this claim. I bet there are thousands, maybe even millions of people who make this claim. Now, I know that millions of people claiming to experience God is not perfect evidence that a God exists. But it is evidence nonetheless. It may not be significant evidence for you, but it is a most reassuring evidence for me.

Why do I believe that a donkey talked?
Because I believe that the Bible is true.

Why do I believe the Bible?
Because it is reasonable to believe.

Why do I believe in God?
Because I know Him. We've met.

[10CC]

Son, it seems to me you're taking all your supernatural claims, plopping them into the natural category, just to give them credibility.

Surely, you can understand a difference between an intelligence which allegedly breaks the laws of physics, and non-intelligent nature which doesn't, especially when there's no evidence for the former, and all evidence for the latter.

The line between reality and fantasy isn't a fine one.

I'm sorry, but when reality is in conflict with linguistics, then linguistics must be changed.

No problem at all.

Please provide evidence for the natural (I repeat, natural) events described in the Bible (talking donkey, zombie invasions, earth stopping its orbit, great flood, talking burning bush, Nile turned into blood, walking on water, etc)

Again, I completely accept that going forward in our debate, the word to describe these events will be natural, NOT supernatural.

In fact, any linguistic definition, modification, reframing that you wish to propose, I preemptively accept.

Just provide evidence that these things happened, and address the overwhelmingly strong evidence that they did not happen.

Thank you.

When you provide me evidence that you brushed your teeth last Thursday, I will provide evidence of a talking donkey.

Ah ah. The abbreviation "lol" is overused. But your post actually made me laugh out loud. Like, I was sitting in front of the screen, I read your post, laughed, my daughter sitting nearby asked me what was funny, I read her what you wrote, and she laughed too. It was a really cute moment with my daughter, and I thank you for it.

Ok, how does one answer the single most nonsensical statement ever? It's hard. Your position is so absurd that I never even conceived of having to respond to it. Let's see...

Well, as it happens, my bathroom is being renovated, so for this whole week I've been brushing my teeth in the kitchen sink. On thursday evening I went out with my wife and hired a babysitter. Because my wife is very protective, we have a nannycam in the living room, it was already turned on when I brushed my teeth, and it was placed in the living room at an angle that gives a clear shot of the kitchen. We haven't erased the nannycam footage yet. In short, I have digital high fidelity recording of myself brushing my teeth on Thursday. This video has embedded dating on it, showing that it was shot on thursday. So, I can send you by certified mail a video of me brushing my teeth, and attach my photo ID so you know it was me. If you like, I can take a DNA sample (at my expense) and submit my toothbrush for analysis at a lab of your choice, so you can verify that my DNA is on the toothbrush, a non conclusive but empirical piece of evidence that corroborates the notion that I brushed my teeth on thursday. Also, I have a receipt for the purchase of a toothbrush with my credit card made earlier that very same day. A dentist of your choice (I will foot the bill) can inspect my teeth and provide an expert opinion as to whether it looks like I've been brushing my teeth for the last week or so, and can inspect the toothbrush to assess whether the wear and tear is consistent with at least a few days of use - two non-conclusive but corroborative facts. Furthermore, I will fly to a lab of your choice (at my expense) and in front of a team of impartial observers picked by you and paid by me, I will repeat the brushing of the teeth, so that you and your team of experts can directly observe that me brushing my teeth is not physically impossible, another non-conclusive but corroborative fact. I also can submit (still at my expense) myself, my wife, my daughter and her babysitter to a polygraph test (a lie detector) and while plugged in, all 4 of us will swear that on thursday night we were all witnesses to me brushing my teeth. I can accompany that with a complete phycological analysis by a psychologist of your choice (I will foot the bill) who will be able to certify that we are all 4 of sound mind, don't use drugs, and have no propensity for hallucinations. Moreover, I can (at my own expense) hire one million people to brush their teeth in front of your very eyes, further corroborating the tangential fact that people brushing teeth is not uncommon at all. Lastly, I will give you $1,000,000 in cash for every empirical piece of evidence you can obtain that I DIDN'T brush my teeth on thursday, and $500,000 for every empirical piece of evidence that shows it's mechanically impossible for me to brush my teeth (lack of teeth, lack of hands, lack o toohbrushes or toothpaste in the area where I live, etc)

In short, I can provide the following:
- Digital video of me brushing my teeth on Thursday
- DNA evidence of me having brushed my teeth with my toothbrush
- Evidence that I purchased a toothbrush on thursday
- Medical inspection of my teeth and my toothbrush showing I brush my teeth regularly
- Direct evidence of me brushing my teeth
- Sworn testimony of four eyewitnesses, certified by polygraph and by psychoanalysis to be truthful and trustworthy, that I brushed my teeth on thursday
- Direct evidence of a million people brushing their teeth
- Complete lack of evidence AGAINST the notion that I brushed my teeth on thursday, or that I couldn't have brushed my teeth on thursday in principle.

Providing you with this will take a tremendous amount of time, energy and money, but I absolutely will do it. All I ask is that before I begin this potentially multimillion dollar operation, you just take a few moments to describe in a few words WHAT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE TALKING DONKEY IS. I'm not asking you to provide the evidence. I will do that first. I'm just asking you to briefly describe the evidence, like I did above.

Don't provide evidence, just describe it.

I'll tell you what. I know you are a busy man, so I will make even just the describing of the evidence worth your time. I estimate it will take a learned man such as yourself no more than 3 minutes to describe this evidence. I will pay you $1000 per second, for a total of $180,000. Ok?

Sorry, I am editing my answer here because I am quite compelled to be honest at this point in this discussion. Assuredly, it is if I was playing a game of cards. It is apparent that I was bluffing. It seems my bluff is being called, and I must lay out my hand on the table. And I am left without.

I don't know if you have evidence that you brushed your teeth. Perhaps you are bluffing. But I can see quite clearly that it is altogether possible that you do. It doesn't matter if you do. You could. It is possible. It is not however possible for me to show evidence of a talking donkey. And you know this, of course.

I cannot show evidence of a talking snake.
I cannot show evidence of a talking donkey.
I cannot show evidence of a God.
I cannot show evidence of my personal experiences of God.
I cannot show evidence that Jesus existed.
I cannot show evidence that Jesus died on a cross.
I cannot show evidence of miracles.
I cannot show evidence of a great flood.
I cannot show evidence of heaven or hell.
I cannot show evidence of angels or demons.
I have no evidence at all.

If there is no evidence of God and Christ, what exactly is the point of this debate site?

There is no objective evidence of God. So what is the point of a Christian having this debate? What is the point of an atheist engaging in this debate? Well, it's becoming my opinion, that there isn't a point in having a debate. It's a waste of my time. And it's a waste of your time. And it does neither party any good.

I'm not going to quit or anything like that. But I do believe that I will chose my arguments more wisely. Well, we'll see what happens.

Nice Job. I concede. You win.

Dear Son, I truly appreciate greatly your concession. My hat is off to you for the balls it takes to do that. You just earned my respect, man.

To answer your question, I think there most definitely is a point to this debate. The point, at least for me, is to try to attain a better grasp of reality through discussions with others, helping others see their errors, and having others help me see mine.

Let me ask you this: When we started this debate, were you as aware of the fundamental flaw in your argument as you are now? Or did the debate help you rethink and improve your position a little bit?

If you realized from the very beginning that the argument you presented was rubbish, but you presented it anyway, then indeed this was a waste of time.

But if before the debate, maybe because you had never really thought it through, you kinda believed that you had a point, and your opinion changed by talking it through with us, then I think there definitely was a point to all this. If this debate helped you improve your understanding of reality (and realizing there is no evidence for miracles, zombies, talking donkeys, etc), then this was a very very productive experience for you! You now believe one less untrue thing than you did a couple days ago.

Another way of looking at why this was productive is this:
If you are at heart a dishonest person (which I don't think you are) the next time you debate someone you will try to say there is evidence for those Bible claims, even though you now realize you were wrong. You will deliberately spread falsehoods. You will deliberately bear false witness.

If on the other hand you are an honest person (as you finally proved with your last post) then for the rest of your life, you will never ever again make arguments that you now admit are bogus, or to use your own words "bluffs". If you ever hear somebody else make that same argument, you will realize they are full of it. If you have or will have children, you will not tell them there is evidence for miracles, you will not try to draw false equivalency between evidence for evolution, the earth being a globe, me brushing my teeth, etc and stuff like talking donkeys.

This to me seems a wonderful thing. It resulted from our debate, which makes it totally worthwhile.

The last way to answer your question is this: You ask "If there is no evidence of God and Christ, what exactly is the point of this debate site?"

The point of this debate is to ask you this question: If, as you finally realize, there is no good evidence for zombies, talking donkeys and the great flood, then why the heck do you believe in them, buddy?

I believe the stories of the Bible are all true. I believe the authors of the Bible were all telling the truth. As a result, I believe that the events told in the Bible are historical and true. I believe that Balaam's donkey fell down at the sight of an angel standing in the way. I believe that Balaam became angry and smote his donkey. And I believe that "the LORD opened the mouth of the (donkey), and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"
(Numbers 22:28)

I personally do not believe that donkeys can speak, unless of course someone were capable of causing them to speak. I believe God can cause such things to happen. I believe the stories of the Bible are all true. I believe the authors of the Bible were all telling the truth. And as a result, I believe that the events told in the Bible are historical and true.

I learned a great deal about God from the authors of the Bible. I believed the authors were telling the truth about Him. It all seemed quite reasonable to me. As a result of my believing them, I experience God. Let me repeat that, so you understand; I experience God. It is my belief that I experience God because I believe that God exists. You see, my belief and my faith in God has caused me to put into practice particular disciplines as prescribed by the authors and subjects of the Bible that are actually intended to illicit a response from God. And what I have discovered is that they were right. If you make it a habit of calling upon God, if you love Him, if you obey Him, if you trust in His Son, if you repent from your sins, etc. etc., you will experience God.

I could not ask for greater evidence of God than God has given me. His presence in me is perfect evidence for me. I know that my personal experiences of God might not be very convincing for you, but then, my experiences of God weren't meant for you. They were meant for me. They are directed toward me. My experiences of God are my experiences. It is my evidence. It is not your evidence.

But I'm not the only one who claims to experiences God. All followers of Christ experience God. Just to show I'm not making this up, let me give an example. Apparently, there's a girl on Yahoo, named Brenda, who claims to experience God. This is what she said. She said, "Once a person becomes born again through faith of Jesus Christ, this then means that the Holy Spirit has indwelt the new believer and that the person has become "sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption." (Ephesians 4:30). As a Born again Christian, I now experience the presence of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 317AAqUHsB

I'm quite sure I could find hundreds of people who make this claim. I bet there are thousands, maybe even millions of people who make this claim. Now, I know that millions of people claiming to experience God is not perfect evidence that a God exists. But it is evidence nonetheless. It may not be significant evidence for you, but it is a most reassuring evidence for me.

Why do I believe that a donkey talked?
Because I believe that the Bible is true.

Why do I believe the Bible?
Because it is reasonable to believe.

Why do I believe in God?
Because I know Him. We've met.

Do snakes eat dust?