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?

[Nickman]

Goose wrote:
"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."

Yes it is. It's called an ALIBI.

oooh er... an alibi is a plea that you weren't at the scene of a crime. From the Latin for 'elsewhere'.

Correct.

If you can successfully demonstrate that you were not at the scene of a crime, then any circumstantial evidence that you may have committed the crime is no longer relevant.

If alibis are rock solid.

Similarly, if you can successfully demonstrate donkeys can't talk and zombies can't raise from the dead, then any circumstantial evidence that donkeys can talk and zombies can raise from the dead is no longer relevant.

How do we demonstrate that? We cannot do so, hence Christians use this as their unfalsifiable argument. If a donkey stubs his foot in the woods, does he say f**k? Who knows? We cannot prove that they cannot talk. Although highly improbably, speaking absolutely is the downfall of evey argument. This applies to Atheists and Christians alike.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1332 by Clownboat]

I agree with instanc here. Philbert is not even a Christian, so why would he claim that it is evidence for the supernatural?

I don't know, but we have only heard from Instantc until now. Philbert, would need to clear this up, I fear that yourself and instantc are unqualified to answer for Philbert if he really meant "evidence" when he claimed to have "evidence".

4th time?:

The evidence.....

FACT: The iron age simpletons wrote....

What do you guys think he meant when he typed "evidence"? Apparently something other than evidence?

[Clownboat]

re Philbert, I think his challenge to atheists is to face up to the fact that billions of people have been persuaded to believe the bible is true but we atheists on DCR have very few if any conversions to our viewpoint to boast about.

Can you explain to me how that would be relevant to this discussion about evidence if that is really what he was saying?

Am I right about that much, Philly? I don't want to go on if I'm on the wrong tack.

If that was his point when he typed "evidence". I am sorry I wasted my time even responding to such a worthless and irrelevant statement.

OP: - Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?
Philbert, Instantc and Keith: Oh ya, well atheists cannot show that they convert anyone on the DCR forum.

My mind is boggled.

[instantc]

OP: - Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?
Philbert, Instantc and Keith: Oh ya, well atheists cannot show that they convert anyone on the DCR forum.

My mind is boggled.

I'm by no means endorsing that argument, I don't even understand why anyone would bring it up in any context.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 1340 by Clownboat]

Evidence for what? In post 1304 he said that he is not claiming that it is evidence that the Bible is true. I am not sure what he is arguing for honestly.

[Clownboat]

OP: - Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?
Philbert, Instantc and Keith: Oh ya, well atheists cannot show that they convert anyone on the DCR forum.

My mind is boggled.

I'm by no means endorsing that argument, I don't even understand why anyone would bring it up in any context.

Great! Finally we can be off the "atheist conversion" horse I hope.

What do you think he meant when he typed:

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.

Please be mindful of the part I put in bold.

[scourge99]

The very notion that testimony can EVER outweigh a worldview based on a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary is ABSURD.

It's not absurd if the evidence is strong enough. In the case of the resurrection I believe the historical evidence is strong enough and I've provided a framework to establish the strength of that evidence.

You keep deceitfully saying there is strong "evidence" when in fact all you mean is that there is testimony.

There is no historical evidence for the resurrection or miracles of Jesus except for written testimony.

Your "evidence" is nothing more than testimony about things that conflict with a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary.

But you offer no argument for why the historical evidence itself is not strong enough to justify my belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

Yes i have. The historical "evidence" is nothing more than unverifiable testimony.

Unverifiable testimony isn't heavy enough outweigh a lifetime of experiences and observations to the contrary. If you accept it, you are gullible or irrational.

You are merely pooh-poohing the evidence because it is testimony which conflicts with your personal world view.

When the testimony makes unverifiable claims about things which conflict with a lifetime of experiences and observations about how the world works, yes, i and any other rational person will "pooh-pooh" the testimony. And so should you, unless people flying into the sky or magically rising from the dead are things that are compatible with your observations and experiences in this world.

I don't understand how anyone could believe something that contradicts their personal experiences about the world because of testimony unless they are gullible or irrational.

At least I’ve provided an argument to establish why I believe the evidence is strong to justify my belief Jesus rose from the dead. An argument you haven’t even touched, I’ll add. On the other hand you merely present your personal incredulity as evidence the Christian belief in the resurrection is irrational.

What argument? All you've done is repeat yourself that you think testimony about supernatural and magical claims are really convincing to you if they were written down in an ancient text. That's not an argument.

Then you try to argue that Caesars assassination is believable because of ancient texts therefore jesus magic is also believable. Yet you seem incapable of even acknowledging that there is nothing supernatural about Caesars assassination and there is with Jesus magic. And that makes the comparison between the two very problematic.

That you cannot even acknowledge that difference tells me you are likely incapable of honest debate.

No, you haven't. Danmark has questioned your consistency on this matter and you've shown that you are a hypocrite.

Yes I have given my case for why I believe the evidence is strong enough to justify my belief. I gave you a link to the post where I did and you ignored it. Danmark’s question is irrelevant and I’ve explained why it is. I suspect you guys are harping on this Red Herring of essentially asking why I'm not a Muslim to avoid my argument for why I believe the evidence for the resurrection is strong. I certainly seems that way with Danmark anyway.

Its not a red-herring. You claim that testimony is compelling evidence. Yet when presented with testimony for non-Christian supernatural claims, you make all sorts of excuses and complaints to exclude them. So you are actually committing the fallacy of special pleading when it comes to Christian testimony.

Or you make some vague and sweeping statement that no other testimony is as strong as Christians, but completely fail to EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT makes Christian testimony about supernatural claims more believable and all others not believable.

Danmark asked whether you would trust the testimony of other holy books, belief systems, or religions and you refused to answer directly.

False. In my first post to nenb I acknowledged the possibility that Muhammad may have had a supernatural experience. Now, if you’d like to make an argument that the historical evidence for that event is as strong as the resurrection, I’ll listen.

So you ADMIT that testimony alone is NOT strong enough to believe supernatural/magical claims. Great. What about a testimony regarding supernatural/magical makes it weak or strong enough to believe it or reject it and WHY?

Its clear to me and everyone else reading your responses that you are irrationally biased towards Christian testimony of supernatural claims and not any other. Yet you claim that testimony is strong evidence regardless of the religion or holy book. That inconsistency makes you a hypocrite, or perhaps worse, a liar.

Since I’ve given my argument for why I believe the resurrection is supported by strong historical evidence (an argument you haven’t even touched), I’ve granted the possibility of supernatural claims outside Christianity and since you’ve merely asserted I’m a hypocrite or perhaps a liar without sufficient justification I’ll kindly ask you to withdraw your accusation.

I've explained exactly why you are a hypocrite or are inconsistent. Here it is again:

You claim that testimony is strong evidence regardless of the religion or holy book. But you only accept Christian testimony of supernatural claims and not any other testimony of supernatural claims.

Your response is that you've somewhere at sometime given an argument about why you believe Christian testimony is believable and others aren't. But that's not an explanation or argument. That's merely an assertion that you have an argument.


So i will only retract my accusation when you actually present a rational argument that clearly explains why only Christian testimony should be accepted for supernatural claims and why all others should be rejected. But i will not retract simply because you claim to have an argument that you claim to have presented somewhere, sometime ago.

Incorrect and inaccurate . I am biased. I am biased against testimony that contradicts my lifetime of experiences and observations of the real world.

Now who’s being irrational? To reject testimony (or any form of evidence for that matter)

Nowhere did i say i reject any form of evidence that contradicts my lifetime of experiences and observations about the world.

I only said i reject TESTIMONY when it comes in conflict with my experiences.

Do you understand the difference or are you intentionally misrepresenting my position? Do you think your god will appreciate such dishonest debate tactics? Or is all fair when arguing for Jesus?

a priori on the soul grounds it conflicts with your experiences and observations is irrational since our experiences and observations are finite and do not represent the entirety of all possible experiences and observations. How can such an approach claim to be open minded?

Because testimony is weak evidence. That's why. Testimony can never overcome a lifetime of experiences and observations to the contrary.

Perhaps you are so gullible and credulous to believe pigs fly because your mother, brother, wife , pastor, or ancient book tells you they saw one. But i won't. I will believe it when there is something more than TESTIMONY to support it.

I’d rather take the approach of evaluating the strength of the evidence (regardless of the form of that evidence) for a claim on its own merits rather than simply discarding it a priori because I don’t like what it may be suggesting.

Once again you dishonestly accuse me of rejecting all forms of evidence when i have only rejected TESTIMONY that conflicts with a lifetime of personal experiences and observations to the contrary.

That's twice now you've ignorantly, perhaps intentionally misrepresented what I've said. Will you acknowledge your misrepresentation or is such misrepresentations an acceptable debate strategy when its in defense of Christianity?

But unlike you, i am not a hypocrite who selectively accepts testimony from their preferred religion but rejects testimony from other sources. Instead, I reject all testimony, across the board, when it conflicts with my experiences and understanding of the world.

And as such your approach is irrational.

How so?

In the case of the resurrection I believe the historical evidence is strong enough. Would you like to examine my argument for why I believe that is the case or are you going to continue to dance around it like everyone else seems to be doing?

What evidence is there for the resurrection besides testimony? Do you have the bones of jesus? A video? Can we reproduce resurrections? Can people fly into the sky unassisted?

All you have is testimony. And you won't concede that point. That's why you constantly relabel testimony as "evidence" and "historical evidence" and "strong evidence". Its to cover up the fact that you've got NOTHING except unverifiable testimony about extraordinary events.

And that constant relabeling you do DEMONSTRATES just how weak your argument is and the deceitful debate tactics you are willing to engage in to support those beliefs.

[instantc]

What do you think he meant when he typed:

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.

Please be mindful of the part I put in bold.

I thought he meant that the evidence shows that the iron age simpletons have persuaded a lot of people.

[Goose]

[help3434]

[Replying to post 1347 by Goose]

People who come back from the dead in real life were only mostly dead. Jesus in the Bible was all dead.