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?

[Goose]

I can get into why the historical evidence is very weak, but I don't have to. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the historical evidence is not weak. It is countered by MUCH MUCH MUCH stronger physical, chemical, biological, medical evidence. Thus it is moot, irrelevant, invalid.

You could have a mountain of circumstantial evidence that I committed a crime, but if there is empirical evidence that I was in a different country when the crime was committed, then the circumstantial evidence that I committed a crime becomes INVALID. .

You are wanting to invalidate the evidence for a position on the grounds that you believe the evidence against that position is stronger. Is this how evidence is treated in a trial? Let’s use your example of you allegedly committing a crime. What you are wanting is for the evidence you are guilty to be invalidated on the soul grounds you believe you have stronger evidence for your innocence. That’s not how a trial works. All evidence, for and against, which passes the criteria of admissibility is valid. In a trial, evidence is invalid only if it doesn’t pass the criteria of admissibility. The evidence for or against isn’t made invalid on the basis that the other side has stronger evidence – think about it. Even if you are cleared as innocent the evidence for your alleged guilt isn’t made invalid on that basis alone as evidence is only made invalid if it is inadmissible for some reason.

The situation is so simple.
A book written by iron age simpletons says that zombies and talking donkeys are real. The same science that allows us to perform heart transplant, create nuclear bombs and land on Mars, tells us zombies and talking donkeys are not real.

Either the iron simpletons who thought the earth was flat were wrong, or the entire body of scientific knowledge that allows us to perform heart transplants, build nuclear bombs and land on Mars is wrong.

I’ve made my case for why I believe the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough to justify the Christian’s belief. You seem reluctant to get into it which speaks volumes.

It is scientifically possible for people who were brain dead to come back to life. It isn't a supernatural event! It's just a very very rare event! It happens. Zack Dunpal was brain dead but he came back to life!

Thank you so much for clearing that up. When Jesus and Zack Dunlap returned to life after being brain dead it was NOT a miracle. It was just a very rare event. It does NOT constitute evidence for the supernatural.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, buddy. I will be sure to use the Zack Dunpal argument whenever anybody tries to make the absurd claim that Jesus's resurrection is evidence of the supernatural.

It is NOT, and you proved it! THANK YOU!

I’m glad to hear you concede it’s possible for a brain dead person to come back to life. In light of that, I think we’re all done here. Don’t forget to turn out the lights and lock the door when you leave.

Hey, by the way, where’s my $1,000? Tell you what, I’ll settle for 1,000 tokens.

[Clownboat]

The evidence.....

FACT: The iron age simpletons wrote a book which has persuaded billions of people over thousands of years in every corner of the world.

Argument ad populum. Your evidence is fallacious, but do you even care?

FACT: Posters in this thread have not been able to offer any evidence at all of having persuaded even a single person to their point of view.

Off topic. Why should we care about this whine of yours? You can't prove you have ever lead anyone to the Lord, and again I say, who cares? What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

At the very least this proves beyond all doubt that the iron age simpletons exceeded the writing ability and understanding of human nature of posters here (yours truly included) by an immeasurably wide margin.

I would prefer to not be lumped in with your company. You paint with too broad of a brush for me to appreciate. If only these ancient writers with their exceeding ability to write would have just included something profound. You know, like ending the book with, "by the way, the world is round". What we get is odd ways to cure leprosy, talking donkeys, snakes and ways to affect the color patterns of your cows.

Truly, truly, truly, most of the adamant atheist posters here and elsewhere are simply intellectual frauds, there's just no more accurate way to say it.

I submit, that such broad statements as this, can not be very accurate due to its broadness in nature.

They chant evidence, evidence, evidence all day long until the very first moment they encounter inconvenient evidence, upon which they completely lose interest in evidence.

You call it inconvenient evidence, why does it just come across as whining and complaining?

I'm not an atheist.
(I really feel like I should not have to add this qualifier to my posts when replying to you, but as they say, learn from your history).

[Goose]

No, that is not the topic for debate. The topic for debate is evidence for anyone's belief in the supernatural. [See post #1]

Right. And I gave my evidence and reasons for my belief in the supernatural.

Therefore the question Would you, Goose, be ready to switch your religion if you encountered historical testimonies of a bunch of miracles performed by someone else? is perfectly relevant.

No, it isn't. That question fundamentally asks why I'm a Christian instead of a Muslim which of course is an entirely different question. Why are you guys having such a hard time staying on topic?

Your 'evidence' for your belief in the supernatural is apparently based on what someone wrote about what someone else reported. Why is that hearsay report more credible than other hearsay evidence about miracles from other traditions?

In my first post to nenb I acknowledged the possibility that Muhammad may have had some type of supernatural experience. If I felt the evidence were strong enough it wouldn't be a problem for me to accept other supernatural events claimed outside of Christianity. In fact, if the historical evidence were as strong as for the resurrection it would only bolster the case for the supernatural in my opinion. If you'd like to argue for such a case be my guest.

[Doulos]

[Replying to post 1 by no evidence no belief]

This question is based on raw positivism. The assumption is essentially wrong. Not only that which can be proven – by science or any other way – is necessarily true.

Anyway, science has ‘proven’ itself ‘wrong’ several times in history.

Even science is based on belief, its that simple.

[instantc]

I'm not sure whether the book has ever convinced anyone. People convince people into believing that the book is correct, often by threats of violence, hell and so forth. Don't give the book too much credit.

This is what I mean about blatantly ignoring inconvenient evidence. Thank you for sharing an example to illustrate my point.

Did you have evidence? All I saw was an assertion.

[Philbert]

Argument ad populum.

No it's NOT argument ad populum, as I've already explained in detail. It would be ad populum if I had argued that the number of people who believe the Bible is evidence the Bible is true.

But I didn't make that case. I made an entirely different case, which is stated clearly in my post above. But it doesn't really matter what my case is, because you're going to argue with it no matter what it is.

Off topic. Why should we care about this whine of yours? You can't prove you have ever lead anyone to the Lord, and again I say, who cares? What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

I've never tried to lead anybody to the Lord, which you would know already if you were paying any attention to the threads you and I have both participated in.

This thread is about evidence. My point is that the people who keep hollering evidence don't actually care about evidence, the hollering is just a pose, a fantasy, the very thing they are whining about in others.

If only these ancient writers with their exceeding ability to write would have just included something profound.

It's been profound enough for billions of people over thousands of years in every corner of the world. Please show us the books or posts that you've written which have received the same reception.

[Philbert]

Did you have evidence? All I saw was an assertion.

You don't care about evidence. You really don't. All you care about is reaching the conclusion that has been your chosen destination from the start.

That is NOT reason.

It's ideology.

How old are you?

[instantc]

Did you have evidence? All I saw was an assertion.

You don't care about evidence. You really don't. All you care about is reaching the conclusion that has been your chosen destination from the start.

That is NOT reason.

It's ideology.

How old are you?

What's this conclusion of mine that has been my chosen destination from the start? And how is my age relevant here?

[Clownboat]

Argument ad populum.

No it's NOT argument ad populum, as I've already explained in detail. It would be ad populum if I had argued that the number of people who believe the Bible is evidence the Bible is true.

But I didn't make that case. I made an entirely different case, which is stated clearly in my post above. But it doesn't really matter what my case is, because you're going to argue with it no matter what it is.

It is not evidence if it is a fallacious argument like an argument ad populum is.

FACT: The iron age simpletons wrote a book which has persuaded billions of people over thousands of years in every corner of the world.

I bolded the important part for you. Something you have referred to as being evidence.

Off topic. Why should we care about this whine of yours? You can't prove you have ever lead anyone to the Lord, and again I say, who cares? What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

I've never tried to lead anybody to the Lord, which you would know already if you were paying any attention to the threads you and I have both participated in.

This thread is about evidence. My point is that the people who keep hollering evidence don't actually care about evidence, the hollering is just a pose, a fantasy, the very thing they are whining about in others.

So you agree it is off topic and will stop with this whine? I also don't see how it proves that people that holler for evidence don't care about evidence, but then again connecting the dots on many of your posts does seem difficult at times.

If only these ancient writers with their exceeding ability to write would have just included something profound.

It's been profound enough for billions of people over thousands of years in every corner of the world. Please show us the books or posts that you've written which have received the same reception.

I have written no books that would rebuke this fallacious ad populum argument. Fallacious arguments don't need to be defeated, they can be rejected because they are fallacious.

So I must still reject both claims that you have called evidence. One is fallacious and the other is off topic (and in know way evidence of anything anyway even if it wasn't off topic).

[Danmark]

No, that is not the topic for debate. The topic for debate is evidence for anyone's belief in the supernatural. [See post #1]

Right. And I gave my evidence and reasons for my belief in the supernatural.

Therefore the question Would you, Goose, be ready to switch your religion if you encountered historical testimonies of a bunch of miracles performed by someone else? is perfectly relevant.

No, it isn't. That question fundamentally asks why I'm a Christian instead of a Muslim which of course is an entirely different question. Why are you guys having such a hard time staying on topic?

Your 'evidence' for your belief in the supernatural is apparently based on what someone wrote about what someone else reported. Why is that hearsay report more credible than other hearsay evidence about miracles from other traditions?

In my first post to nenb I acknowledged the possibility that Muhammad may have had some type of supernatural experience. If I felt the evidence were strong enough it wouldn't be a problem for me to accept other supernatural events claimed outside of Christianity. In fact, if the historical evidence were as strong as for the resurrection it would only bolster the case for the supernatural in my opinion. If you'd like to argue for such a case be my guest.

David Hume disposed of your argument rather neatly over 250 years ago, in his essay "Of Miracles:"

In matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and ... it is impossible [that] the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should all of them, be established on any solid foundation. Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other.
_ An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

The Wikipedia article on this work of Hume's puts it more succinctly than I can:
Since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous—that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle—any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating.