Why do you believe in God?

[McCulloch]

The arguments for believing that there is a God can be categorized as follows:

1. Four Classical Arguments
2. The Argument from First Cause
   1. Everything must have a cause
   2. Causal Chains cannot go on forever
   3. Therefore there must be a first cause, and that is God.
3. The Argument from Design
   1. Something in the universe or the universe itself seems to be designed
   2. Therefore a designer must exist and that is God
4. The Argument from the Anthropic Principle
   1. The universal constants are fine tuned for the existence of humans.
   2. Therefore there must have been a God to fine tune the universe for our existence
5. The Ontological Argument
   1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
   2. Assume that God does not exist.
   3. An existent God is a being greater than a non-existent one
   4. If God did not exist, then we could conceive of a being greater than God -- A God that exists.
   5. This is a contradiction, therefore (2) must be false and God exists
   Courtesy of Saint Anselm.

1. Four Subjective Arguments
2. The Argument from Coincidence
   1. There have been some remarkable coincidences.
   2. There must be a reason for those coincidences.
   3. That reason is God.
3. The Argument from Prophecy
   1. A holy book makes prophesies.
   2. A holy book or the adherents of it report that those prophesies have come true.
   3. Therefore whatever else is in the book, such as the claim that God exists must be true.
4. The Argument from Subjectivity and Faith
   1. People feel sure that God exists.
   2. Therefore God exists.
5. The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such
   1. A miracle occurs, perhaps as a response to prayer.
   2. God exists as evidenced by the divine intervention

1. Four Psycho-Mathematical Arguments
2. The Argument from Redefinition
   1. God is Love or Goodness or some other such thing.
   2. Love, goodness or whatever, clearly exists.
   3. Therefore God exists.
3. The Argument from Cognitive Tendency
   1. Some cognitive tendencies suggest the existence of an all-powerful agent.
   2. God must be that all-powerful agent
4. The Universality Argument and Morality
   1. Across cultures, the similarities in moral values are quite apparent.
   2. They must come from God
5. The Gambling Argument
   1. We can choose to believe or not in God.
   2. If we choose wrongly then negative consequences of choosing to disbelieve are greater than the negative consequences of choosing to believe.
   3. Therefore it is prudent to believe.

The classifications and much of the synopses are from John Allen Paulos, Professor of Mathematics at Temple University, in his book Irreligion, A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up As fallacious as these might seem, these seriously are the arguments put forth by philosophers, theologians, saints, apologists and preachers.

These are the arguments for God. There are numerous subtle variations on them, but essentially, as far as I can tell those who claim that God exists do so based on one or more of these arguments and nothing else.

Why should I believe that there is a God? What are your reasons? Are any of these reasons valid? If your reasons do not fall into any of the above groupings, please let us know why you believe. If you believe for a combination of these reasons, select the strongest one and explain why.

[Goose]

The arguments for believing that there is a God can be categorized as follows:

1. Four Classical Arguments
2. The Argument from First Cause
   1. Everything must have a cause
   2. Causal Chains cannot go on forever
   3. Therefore there must be a first cause, and that is God.
3. The Argument from Design
   1. Something in the universe or the universe itself seems to be designed
   2. Therefore a designer must exist and that is God
4. The Argument from the Anthropic Principle
   1. The universal constants are fine tuned for the existence of humans.
   2. Therefore there must have been a God to fine tune the universe for our existence
5. The Ontological Argument
   1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
   2. Assume that God does not exist.
   3. An existent God is a being greater than a non-existent one
   4. If God did not exist, then we could conceive of a being greater than God -- A God that exists.
   5. This is a contradiction, therefore (2) must be false and God exists
   Courtesy of Saint Anselm.

1. Four Subjective Arguments
2. The Argument from Coincidence
   1. There have been some remarkable coincidences.
   2. There must be a reason for those coincidences.
   3. That reason is God.
3. The Argument from Prophecy
   1. A holy book makes prophesies.
   2. A holy book or the adherents of it report that those prophesies have come true.
   3. Therefore whatever else is in the book, such as the claim that God exists must be true.
4. The Argument from Subjectivity and Faith
   1. People feel sure that God exists.
   2. Therefore God exists.
5. The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such
   1. A miracle occurs, perhaps as a response to prayer.
   2. God exists as evidenced by the divine intervention

1. Four Psycho-Mathematical Arguments
2. The Argument from Redefinition
   1. God is Love or Goodness or some other such thing.
   2. Love, goodness or whatever, clearly exists.
   3. Therefore God exists.
3. The Argument from Cognitive Tendency
   1. Some cognitive tendencies suggest the existence of an all-powerful agent.
   2. God must be that all-powerful agent
4. The Universality Argument and Morality
   1. Across cultures, the similarities in moral values are quite apparent.
   2. They must come from God
5. The Gambling Argument
   1. We can choose to believe or not in God.
   2. If we choose wrongly then negative consequences of choosing to disbelieve are greater than the negative consequences of choosing to believe.
   3. Therefore it is prudent to believe.

The classifications and much of the synopses are from John Allen Paulos, Professor of Mathematics at Temple University, in his book Irreligion, A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up As fallacious as these might seem, these seriously are the arguments put forth by philosophers, theologians, saints, apologists and preachers.

You forgot one, though it may fall under The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such. That is the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Christ. Though some of the arguments you've noted are weighty and some are not, I personally find the Rez the most compelling.

[Zzyzx]

.

You forgot one, though it may fall under The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such. That is the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Christ. Though some of the arguments you've noted are weighty and some are not, I personally find the Rez the most compelling.

As you demonstrated very convincingly some months ago, you have no evidence that a “bodily resurrection of Christ� occurred. You present only religious promotional literature, unverified by other sources, in which testimonials of involved people are taken as “proof�.

If I recall correctly, the position you presented was “King Tut cannot be shown to have existed and therefore Jesus did exist and he came back from the dead – because the bible says so – and the bible is true because it says it is�.

Have you discovered some non-biblical sources that indicate a “resurrected� Jesus actually, literally, really existed in the real world? If not, all you have is circular “reasoning� based upon “the bible is true because it says it is true� and “the bible is true because god says so� and “goddidit� and “because religious dogma says so�.

Can you present any evidence that is meaningful to those of us who do not regard the bible as literally true or do you insist that everyone accept the bible as being literal and historical?

[catholic crusader]

I don't believe in god.

I don't have faith in god.

What governs you faith in the existence of an external world?

[catholic crusader]

“the bible is true because god says so�

When did god say this?

He never appeared before me and told me this.

As far as I know the bible is saying that the bible is the word of god.

Not god.

Seriously if god said that the bible is the word of god. When did he tell you? Did he say anything else. Like the winning lotto ticket number?

[Zzyzx]

.

Science is FAR more than observation. That is only the first step in understanding the events, processes and products of nature. Have you studied science beyond introductory level?

What comes after the introductory level? Do they hold a séance? My impression was that they build bigger and better instruments to observe things to see if their theoretical models work out, but it is all based on observation of the natural world.

Introductory level science introduces vocabulary and some general concepts. Additional study expands upon the general concepts and introduces specialized studies. Advanced study includes research and contribution to understanding of the field (if possible).

Observation is, as I clearly stated, only the first step in understanding events, processes and products of nature. I do not expect those who have not studied science to understand its significance or its methods (even though many think they understand well enough to be critical). I ask again if you have studied science beyond introductor level. Can you answer the question honestly?

It seems as though it is supernaturalism that promotes séances, supposed contacts with or from invisible super beings, and fortune telling. Do the beliefs you champion exclude each of these things?

My personal position is, “I don’t know, there is no evidence; and therefore I refuse to make a decision without evidence or to commit to either side of the issue�.

So how long are you going to sit on the fence?

I am not upon a fence of any kind. As far as I am concerned, there is no decision for me to make because there is no evidence one way or the other. I refuse to make ANY decision on a topic for which there is no evidence.

“Deciding� in the absence of evidence is guessing. I am not interested in guessing – but leave that to others. However, when they declare their guesses to be facts or “universal truth� I challenge their assertions.

There is NO compelling reason for me to decide for or against ANY of the thousands of proposed “gods�. Proponents of various religions attempt to induce others to decide in favor of their favorite “god�; however, their “reasoning� or lack thereof is NOT binding upon anyone other than themselves and those they can convince (without evidence) to worship a favored invisible, undetectable super being.

Now is the time for religionists to insert Pascal’s Wager – “Worship my favorite god just in case� (ignoring the thousands of other gods who MUST also be worshiped if one really believes the “just in case� scenario).

Jesus said...

I am not at all impressed or convinced by what you claim “Jesus said�. That may be YOUR belief system, but it is NOT binding upon me or others. Tell me things that actually occur in and can be shown to apply to the real world if you wish to have any effect.

22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

I have never met anyone who gave all their possessions to the poor who did not discover the truth of God, so don't take my word for it discover for yourself if it works or not.

Can you honestly say that you have met people who HAVE given ALL their possessions to the poor? If not, your statement is meaningless and fraudulent if it implies that you know people who DO give all their possessions to the poor.

so don't take my word for it discover for yourself if it works or not.

I have investigated religions to an extent that satisfies me that they have nothing to offer that I value and cannot find elsewhere without “spiritual baggage�. Others may find satisfaction in “faith� or in belief that they have a “father in heaven� and that they “will not die, but have everlasting life�.

This is definitely not the rational thing to do (perhaps that explains why so many Christians are not all that rational) but it will most likely settle the question for yourself once and forever.

What irrational action, exactly, is it that you are attempting to convince me to try?

You CANNOT provide that validation yet you claim to speak truth. One is not entitled to tell others, “I speak truth but you have to take my word because I can’t show you any proof�. Saying that a person must “believe before you can see proof� is dishonest and dishonorable.

Remember that many (me included) do NOT maintain the position that gods don’t exist – only that there is no evidence either way and that it is NOT rational to make a decision on a matter for which there is no evidence.

I can't provide it for you anymore than I can eat a hamburger for you, you just have to do it on your own. All I can tell you is that I have put all my trust in God and he has never let me down.

On my own I have seen NO validation of ANY supernatural claims.

I realize that you cannot prove that you speak truth. Therefore, I call attention to your unsupported statements with questions and comments that indicate that they are personal opinion that cannot be shown to be general truth and cannot be applied to anyone other than yourself.

Do you attempt to recruit others to your belief system?

No, I am not trying to recruit anyone, I am just one beggar telling someone where I found bread.

What is your purpose in advertising where you “found bread� if not to influence others or to encourage them to go to where you “found bread�? That IS recruitment whether or not you recognize or acknowledge it as such.

In the process I may gain the cantankerous Zzyzx as a friend who I can know and love for an eternity.

Yes, indeed, Zzyzx is cantankerous (meaning “difficult or irritating to deal with�). Thank you for openly saying that. It is my intent to be VERY difficult (and perhaps irritating to some, at least occasionally) to deal with when debating subjects that I deem important for some reason.

Religious debate is important enough for me to devote considerable time and effort in an attempt to demonstrate that the claims and statements of theism CANNOT be shown to be true or accurate or applicable to others.

I am more than willing to consider you as a friend – provided that you recognize my position as just as valid as yours, recognize my right to challenge public statements, and if you communicate honestly and openly. I am NOT willing to regard anything as “for eternity� though you are certainly free to believe that if you choose.

You can earn my respect by debating honorably without tricks, subterfuge, or evasion (as exemplified by Tselem, Cnorman, MagusYanam, Micatala and rare others).

Many earn my disrespect by attempting to preach rather than debate, by attempting to convince skeptics by quoting scripture, by proselytizing using threats and promises that cannot be verified as valid, by ducking or evading questions, or by using dishonorable debate tactics (as exemplified by most theist members and crusaders -- in my opinion, of course).

[Goose]

.

You forgot one, though it may fall under The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such. That is the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Christ. Though some of the arguments you've noted are weighty and some are not, I personally find the Rez the most compelling.

As you demonstrated very convincingly some months ago, you have no evidence that a “bodily resurrection of Christ� occurred. You present only religious promotional literature, unverified by other sources, in which testimonials of involved people are taken as “proof�.

Oh yes, you mean your "there is no evidence." That was the best you had. Actually, that was all you had. A.K.A denial.

If I recall correctly, the position you presented was “King Tut cannot be shown to have existed and therefore Jesus did exist and he came back from the dead – because the bible says so – and the bible is true because it says it is�.

Actually, the King Tut fiasco was your blunder.

Have you discovered some non-biblical sources that indicate a “resurrected� Jesus actually, literally, really existed in the real world? If not, all you have is circular “reasoning� based upon “the bible is true because it says it is true� and “the bible is true because god says so� and “goddidit� and “because religious dogma says so�.

Oh boy...

Can you present any evidence that is meaningful to those of us who do not regard the bible as literally true or do you insist that everyone accept the bible as being literal and historical?

Meaningful to you? No. I don't think there is any evidence in support of Christianity that would be meaniningful to you Zzyzx. Still waiting for you to give us your method for determining whether or not a claimed historical event is true or not. You've had plenty of time. Still waiting...

[Zzyzx]

.

You forgot one, though it may fall under The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such. That is the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Christ. Though some of the arguments you've noted are weighty and some are not, I personally find the Rez the most compelling.

As you demonstrated very convincingly some months ago, you have no evidence that a “bodily resurrection of Christ� occurred. You present only religious promotional literature, unverified by other sources, in which testimonials of involved people are taken as “proof�.

Oh yes, you mean your "there is no evidence." That was the best you had. Actually, that was all you had. A.K.A denial.

Correction: You made a claim that a dead body came back to life – contrary to what we know to expect in the real world of nature. I ask for evidence other than religious promotional material and testimonials of involved people.

You have demonstrated conclusively that you are unable provide evidence. Your entire position is based upon making excuses for why you can’t provide evidence.

A claim that “I cannot be expected to provide evidence of something that happened thousands of years ago� does NOT absolve you from the burden of demonstrating that you speak truth if you make that claim.

Statements that others have not disproved your favored theories does not absolve you from the burden.

If I recall correctly, the position you presented was “King Tut cannot be shown to have existed and therefore Jesus did exist and he came back from the dead – because the bible says so – and the bible is true because it says it is�.

Actually, the King Tut fiasco was your blunder.

I gladly allow readers to decide whether the “King Tut fiasco� was a blunder on my part – and whether you established proof that a favored godman “came back to life� after being dead.

Is my summation of your position correct? ““King Tut cannot be shown to have existed and therefore Jesus did exist and he came back from the dead – because the bible says so – and the bible is true because it says it is� (and goddidit).

The “King Tut fiasco� was YOUR attempt to provide excuses for your inability to provide evidence to support your contention that the claimed “resurrection� was an event that occurred in the real world. Such claims have not been shown to be anything more than opinion based on dogma and literature that cannot be shown to be free of error and contradiction.

You say a dead body came back to life. SHOW that to be true with something other than religious conjecture and stories or testimonials from involved people.

You are entitled to say that you THINK it occurred or that in your opinion it occurred. However, you are not entitled to claim that it is a fact that such a thing occurred because you cannot substantiate the claim.

No matter what excuses you offer for your inability to verify your claim, what remains is that you cannot verify your claim.

Have you discovered some non-biblical sources that indicate a “resurrected� Jesus actually, literally, really existed in the real world? If not, all you have is circular “reasoning� based upon “the bible is true because it says it is true� and “the bible is true because god says so� and “goddidit� and “because religious dogma says so�.

Oh boy.

Agreed, oh boy, you have been asked again for something other than religious dogma to verify your claims – something that you cannot provide. May the excuses begin.

Can you present any evidence that is meaningful to those of us who do not regard the bible as literally true or do you insist that everyone accept the bible as being literal and historical?

Meaningful to you?

Meaningful to analytical thinkers in general, skeptics, those who are not already committed to believe.

No. I don't think there is any evidence in support of Christianity that would be meaniningful to you Zzyzx.

Correct – because you can present no evidence – only conjecture and excuses.

I may find meaningful something other than opinion, conjecture, hearsay, rumor, fable, and writings reflecting knowledge and beliefs of people living thousands of years ago. Do you have something real to offer?

I am interested in considering anything real and/or present that is assurance that invisible super beings exist or that they perform magical tricks.

Still waiting for you to give us your method for determining whether or not a claimed historical event is true or not. You've had plenty of time. Still waiting...

As stated previously, I do not claim special knowledge of history or its methods and do not claim to have any method for determining with certainty that an event happened as described by others.

My training is in science. I rely upon that training to evaluate the merits of CLAIMS made regarding supernaturalism. For instance, dead bodies are not known to come back to life after days. No credible evidence of such an event has been presented. Scientific researchers have studied the deterioration process that occurs in dead bodies and conclude that many of the changes are irreversible.

Those who claim that “once upon a time a dead body came back to life� because “goddidit� have the burden of proving that such deviation from nature actually occurred as they claim and was caused by the “god� that they favor. NO such evidence is presented – ONLY stories and excuses.

Here again, in this thread, you are touting the claimed “resurrection� as “proof� that some favored “god� exists – WITHOUT being able to demonstrate that the claimed “resurrection� occurred except perhaps in legend.

[Zzyzx]

.

You forgot one, though it may fall under The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such. That is the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Christ. Though some of the arguments you've noted are weighty and some are not, I personally find the Rez the most compelling.

As you demonstrated very convincingly some months ago, you have no evidence that a “bodily resurrection of Christ� occurred. You present only religious promotional literature, unverified by other sources, in which testimonials of involved people are taken as “proof�.

Oh yes, you mean your "there is no evidence." That was the best you had. Actually, that was all you had. A.K.A denial.

Correction: You made a claim that a dead body came back to life – contrary to what we know to expect in the real world of nature. I ask for evidence other than religious promotional material and testimonials of involved people.

You have demonstrated conclusively that you are unable provide evidence. Your entire position is based upon making excuses for why you can’t provide evidence.

A claim that “I cannot be expected to provide evidence of something that happened thousands of years ago� does NOT absolve you from the burden of demonstrating that you speak truth if you make that claim.

Statements that others have not disproved your favored theories does not absolve you from the burden.

If I recall correctly, the position you presented was “King Tut cannot be shown to have existed and therefore Jesus did exist and he came back from the dead – because the bible says so – and the bible is true because it says it is�.

Actually, the King Tut fiasco was your blunder.

I gladly allow readers to decide whether the “King Tut fiasco� was a blunder on my part – and whether you established proof that a favored godman “came back to life� after being dead.

Is my summation of your position correct? ““King Tut cannot be shown to have existed and therefore Jesus did exist and he came back from the dead – because the bible says so – and the bible is true because it says it is� (and goddidit).

The “King Tut fiasco� was YOUR attempt to provide excuses for your inability to provide evidence to support your contention that the claimed “resurrection� was an event that occurred in the real world. Such claims have not been shown to be anything more than opinion based on dogma and literature that cannot be shown to be free of error and contradiction.

You say a dead body came back to life. SHOW that to be true with something other than religious conjecture and stories or testimonials from involved people.

You are entitled to say that you THINK it occurred or that in your opinion it occurred. However, you are not entitled to claim that it is a fact that such a thing occurred because you cannot substantiate the claim.

No matter what excuses you offer for your inability to verify your claim, what remains is that you cannot verify your claim.

Have you discovered some non-biblical sources that indicate a “resurrected� Jesus actually, literally, really existed in the real world? If not, all you have is circular “reasoning� based upon “the bible is true because it says it is true� and “the bible is true because god says so� and “goddidit� and “because religious dogma says so�.

Oh boy.

Agreed, oh boy, you have been asked again for something other than religious dogma to verify your claims – something that you cannot provide. May the excuses begin.

Can you present any evidence that is meaningful to those of us who do not regard the bible as literally true or do you insist that everyone accept the bible as being literal and historical?

Meaningful to you?

Meaningful to analytical thinkers in general, skeptics, those who are not already committed to believe.

No. I don't think there is any evidence in support of Christianity that would be meaniningful to you Zzyzx.

Correct – because you can present no evidence – only conjecture and excuses.

I may find meaningful something other than opinion, conjecture, hearsay, rumor, fable, and writings reflecting knowledge and beliefs of people living thousands of years ago. Do you have something real to offer?

I am interested in considering anything real and/or present that is assurance that invisible super beings exist or that they perform magical tricks.

Still waiting for you to give us your method for determining whether or not a claimed historical event is true or not. You've had plenty of time. Still waiting...

As stated previously, I do not claim special knowledge of history or its methods and do not claim to have any method for determining with certainty that an event happened as described by others.

My training is in science. I rely upon that training to evaluate the merits of CLAIMS made regarding supernaturalism. For instance, dead bodies are not known to come back to life after days. No credible evidence of such an event has been presented. Scientific researchers have studied the deterioration process that occurs in dead bodies and conclude that many of the changes are irreversible.

Those who claim that “once upon a time a dead body came back to life� because “goddidit� have the burden of proving that such deviation from nature actually occurred as they claim and was caused by the “god� that they favor. NO such evidence is presented – ONLY stories and excuses.

Here again, in this thread, you are touting the claimed “resurrection� as “proof� that some favored “god� exists – WITHOUT being able to demonstrate that the claimed “resurrection� occurred except perhaps in legend.

[Goose]

Oh yes, you mean your "there is no evidence." That was the best you had. Actually, that was all you had. A.K.A denial.

Correction: You made a claim that a dead body came back to life – contrary to what we know to expect in the real world of nature. I ask for evidence other than religious promotional material and testimonials of involved people.

Like I said. Denial. Oh ya, I almost forgot the other part of your argument - "other than."

Is my summation of your position correct? ““King Tut cannot be shown to have existed and therefore Jesus did exist and he came back from the dead – because the bible says so – and the bible is true because it says it is� (and goddidit).

Nope. Go back and read the threads.

The “King Tut fiasco� was YOUR attempt to provide excuses for your inability to provide evidence to support your contention that the claimed “resurrection� was an event that occurred in the real world...

Funny. You were the one that suggested King Tut and believed he existed with "no doubt." Forgotten have we? I still get a good chuckle out of that one.

You say a dead body came back to life. SHOW that to be true with something other than religious conjecture and stories or testimonials from involved people.

Hey Zzyzx, show that Caesar crossed the Rubicon with something other than stories or testimonials from involved people.

You are entitled to say that you THINK it occurred or that in your opinion it occurred. However, you are not entitled to claim that it is a fact that such a thing occurred because you cannot substantiate the claim.

I claim it is a fact with the same method and degree of certainty that Caesar crossed the Rubicon is a fact.

Agreed, oh boy, you have been asked again for something other than religious dogma to verify your claims – something that you cannot provide. May the excuses begin.

Yes, you're talented at asking for more evidence. It's a tacit admission that you recognize there is evidence in existence. If there truely were no evidence you would need not ask for more. You could fail the Rez by the standard tools of historical enquiry.

I may find meaningful something other than opinion, conjecture, hearsay, rumor, fable, and writings reflecting knowledge and beliefs of people living thousands of years ago.

Except that you accept these things for other historical events and people such the evidence for the existence of King Tut.

Do you have something real to offer?

Do you? Other than your personal subjective reasons for not liking Christianity?

I am interested in considering anything real and/or present that is assurance that invisible super beings exist or that they perform magical tricks.

Real/present? Like what? Maybe you could provide an example by giving some real/present evidence that naturalistic abiogenesis is responsible for the emergence of life on earth.

Still waiting for you to give us your method for determining whether or not a claimed historical event is true or not. You've had plenty of time. Still waiting...

As stated previously, I do not claim special knowledge of history or its methods and do not claim to have any method for determining with certainty that an event happened as described by others.

Hence you lack any credibility in such discussions.

[Goat]

Oh yes, you mean your "there is no evidence." That was the best you had. Actually, that was all you had. A.K.A denial.

Correction: You made a claim that a dead body came back to life – contrary to what we know to expect in the real world of nature. I ask for evidence other than religious promotional material and testimonials of involved people.

Like I said. Denial. Oh ya, I almost forgot the other part of your argument - "other than."

Is my summation of your position correct? ““King Tut cannot be shown to have existed and therefore Jesus did exist and he came back from the dead – because the bible says so – and the bible is true because it says it is� (and goddidit).

Nope. Go back and read the threads.

The “King Tut fiasco� was YOUR attempt to provide excuses for your inability to provide evidence to support your contention that the claimed “resurrection� was an event that occurred in the real world...

Funny. You were the one that suggested King Tut and believed he existed with "no doubt." Forgotten have we? I still get a good chuckle out of that one.

You say a dead body came back to life. SHOW that to be true with something other than religious conjecture and stories or testimonials from involved people.

Hey Zzyzx, show that Caesar crossed the Rubicon with something other than stories or testimonials from involved people.

You are entitled to say that you THINK it occurred or that in your opinion it occurred. However, you are not entitled to claim that it is a fact that such a thing occurred because you cannot substantiate the claim.

I claim it is a fact with the same method and degree of certainty that Caesar crossed the Rubicon is a fact.

Agreed, oh boy, you have been asked again for something other than religious dogma to verify your claims – something that you cannot provide. May the excuses begin.

Yes, you're talented at asking for more evidence. It's a tacit admission that you recognize there is evidence in existence. If there truely were no evidence you would need not ask for more. You could fail the Rez by the standard tools of historical enquiry.

I may find meaningful something other than opinion, conjecture, hearsay, rumor, fable, and writings reflecting knowledge and beliefs of people living thousands of years ago.

Except that you accept these things for other historical events and people such the evidence for the existence of King Tut.

Do you have something real to offer?

Do you? Other than your personal subjective reasons for not liking Christianity?

I am interested in considering anything real and/or present that is assurance that invisible super beings exist or that they perform magical tricks.

Real/present? Like what? Maybe you could provide an example by giving some real/present evidence that naturalistic abiogenesis is responsible for the emergence of life on earth.

Still waiting for you to give us your method for determining whether or not a claimed historical event is true or not. You've had plenty of time. Still waiting...

As stated previously, I do not claim special knowledge of history or its methods and do not claim to have any method for determining with certainty that an event happened as described by others.

Hence you lack any credibility in such discussions.

Tell me exactly why contradictory accounts written decades after an alleged supernatural event whose authors had a biased agenda could be considered
evidence that the supernatural event actually occurred? It might be evidence of belief, but I don't see how it can be evidence of it actually occurring.