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?

[Danmark]

I get it. You don't have any evidence that evolution is true.

I for one have no problem believing that evolution is true. It seems to me to be a rather reasonable theory. If there should be evidence in existence that shows that evolution is true, I have not seen it. ...

You appear to be making contradictory statements. You claim there is no evidence that evolution is true, yet you also say it is a reasonable theory.

Let's clarify.
Are you saying there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Are you saying there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution, but it fails to prove evolution is 'true' absolutely?

Actually, I have not stated that there is no evidence that evolution is true. What I have stated is that "no evidence no belief" has not provided any evidence that evolution is true. All he has provided is claims of evidence that evolution is true. Claims are not evidence. I have even gone out on a limb and stated that "no evidence no belief" has never seen evidence that evolution is true, and that he accepts such a notion as true by faith.

I suggest that evolution is a reasonable theory because I have accepted by faith that scientists who claim to have evidence that genetic mutations can occur that can be passed from generation to generation are telling the truth. I have not seen their evidence. I personally would not go so far as to say that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species however. I could however accept that a species could evolve over time. That is not to say that a species becomes a new species, but that a species over time changes. It is scientists of evolution and biology who have set limits on what a species is. I do not accept their limits. Every generation of one kind of species is the same species as it's predecessor. My concept is rather more thoughtful and more reasonable than the notion that one species can become another species over time. We do not change into a new species over time, but a species may indeed change over time.

I am saying that I have faith that scientists are making observations. I have faith that they are recording their observations with some degree of accuracy. And so I have faith in the idea that a species can change over time. And so, if evolution is a gradual change in a species over time, I believe, by faith, that species do indeed change over time. But I have not seen any of this evidence. I have no idea if the evidence that supports evolution is overwhelming evidence or not. It sounds reasonable to me. It may indeed be reasonable. But I accept the idea by faith.

You're equivocating. There certainly is evidence for the validity of evolution. You do not deny this, but you like to claim you 'have not seen it.' It's there for you to see, but you apparently would prefer to say you take it on faith that it's reasonable, rather than admit the abundance of evidence.

Your motive is transparent. You want to place the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the same 'faith' category you put your belief in god so you can argue they are equivalent. They are obviously not equivalent. In the first there is tremendous evidence that you can examine if you want to. The result of that evidence is the conclusion evolution is valid based on simple logic and reason after observation of evidence.

This is completely distinct from faith in a god for whom you can produce no evidence, zero. All you can do is what you've done, claim you have personal unidentified, unverified, unrepeatable personal subjective 'data' you claim is evidence. To claim this faith scenario is the same as the scientific basis for evolution is preposterous.

[Sonofason]

I get it. You don't have any evidence that evolution is true.

I for one have no problem believing that evolution is true. It seems to me to be a rather reasonable theory. If there should be evidence in existence that shows that evolution is true, I have not seen it. ...

You appear to be making contradictory statements. You claim there is no evidence that evolution is true, yet you also say it is a reasonable theory.

Let's clarify.
Are you saying there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Are you saying there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution, but it fails to prove evolution is 'true' absolutely?

Actually, I have not stated that there is no evidence that evolution is true. What I have stated is that "no evidence no belief" has not provided any evidence that evolution is true. All he has provided is claims of evidence that evolution is true. Claims are not evidence. I have even gone out on a limb and stated that "no evidence no belief" has never seen evidence that evolution is true, and that he accepts such a notion as true by faith.

I suggest that evolution is a reasonable theory because I have accepted by faith that scientists who claim to have evidence that genetic mutations can occur that can be passed from generation to generation are telling the truth. I have not seen their evidence. I personally would not go so far as to say that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species however. I could however accept that a species could evolve over time. That is not to say that a species becomes a new species, but that a species over time changes. It is scientists of evolution and biology who have set limits on what a species is. I do not accept their limits. Every generation of one kind of species is the same species as it's predecessor. My concept is rather more thoughtful and more reasonable than the notion that one species can become another species over time. We do not change into a new species over time, but a species may indeed change over time.

I am saying that I have faith that scientists are making observations. I have faith that they are recording their observations with some degree of accuracy. And so I have faith in the idea that a species can change over time. And so, if evolution is a gradual change in a species over time, I believe, by faith, that species do indeed change over time. But I have not seen any of this evidence. I have no idea if the evidence that supports evolution is overwhelming evidence or not. It sounds reasonable to me. It may indeed be reasonable. But I accept the idea by faith.

You're equivocating. There certainly is evidence for the validity of evolution. You do not deny this, but you like to claim you 'have not seen it.' It's there for you to see, but you apparently would prefer to say you take it on faith that it's reasonable, rather than admit the abundance of evidence.

Your motive is transparent. You want to place the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the same 'faith' category you put your belief in god so you can argue they are equivalent. They are obviously not equivalent. In the first there is tremendous evidence that you can examine if you want to. The result of that evidence is the conclusion evolution is valid based on simple logic and reason after observation of evidence.

This is completely distinct from faith in a god for whom you can produce no evidence, zero. All you can do is what you've done, claim you have personal unidentified, unverified, unrepeatable personal subjective 'data' you claim is evidence. To claim this faith scenario is the same as the scientific basis for evolution is preposterous.

And yet you, like "no evidence no belief", are incapable of providing any evidence that evolution is true. It seems you and I are in the same boat after-all.

[Nickman]

Okay, Go get yourself a copy of the New Testament of the Bible. Read it. Understand that what you are reading is true. Acknowledge the truth as you read it. Do what it says, as it is a prescription for knowing the Creator. Love God. Obey God. And you will have substantial evidence of the existence of God.

So basically, get a copy of the NT, read it with the presupposition that it is true, acknowledge that it is true, repeat, do what it says blindly, love an invisible entity, obey and invisible entity, and then confirm to yourself that what you are doing is true.
That makes perfect sense.

Yes, I thought so too.

That is the opposite of reasonable.

[Sonofason]

Okay, Go get yourself a copy of the New Testament of the Bible. Read it. Understand that what you are reading is true. Acknowledge the truth as you read it. Do what it says, as it is a prescription for knowing the Creator. Love God. Obey God. And you will have substantial evidence of the existence of God.

So basically, get a copy of the NT, read it with the presupposition that it is true, acknowledge that it is true, repeat, do what it says blindly, love an invisible entity, obey and invisible entity, and then confirm to yourself that what you are doing is true.
That makes perfect sense.

Yes, I thought so too.

That is the opposite of reasonable.

Then why did you say it makes perfect sense?

[Nickman]

Okay, Go get yourself a copy of the New Testament of the Bible. Read it. Understand that what you are reading is true. Acknowledge the truth as you read it. Do what it says, as it is a prescription for knowing the Creator. Love God. Obey God. And you will have substantial evidence of the existence of God.

So basically, get a copy of the NT, read it with the presupposition that it is true, acknowledge that it is true, repeat, do what it says blindly, love an invisible entity, obey and invisible entity, and then confirm to yourself that what you are doing is true.
That makes perfect sense.

Yes, I thought so too.

That is the opposite of reasonable.

Then why did you say it makes perfect sense?

I was using sarcasm as you already know. Your just playing cute.

[Goat]

But don't you think the evidence for the resurrection would need to be massively stronger than the evidence for the assassination of Caesar, on the grounds that the event is massively more extraordinary?

My argument is simply that for the Christian to justify his belief in the resurrection the historical evidence needs to be strong. How many more times do I need to repeat this?

This is an account of the tomb being found empty, an unknown person saying Jesus rose up and promising He will meet them in Galilee. It doesn't show Jesus actuaslly doing or saying anything at all. It shows Jesus just not being there.

Why does the ending of Mark need to show Jesus doing anything to be an affirmation of the resurrection? It doesn’t.

If Jesus walked around preaching after his resurrection, Mark doesn't seem to think anything the Risen Christ preached was sufficiently important to be included in his testimony.

Mark doesn’t include the virgin birth either so I don’t see why not including some details regarding a few appearances should be seen as an issue.

What 'folks like me' 'generally argue' is not relevant. What I challenge is the improbability of Matthew's account. Specifically, the claim that there were eye-witnesses to the actual resurrection event itself, and the odd reaction of the chief priest to the soldiers' account of the resurrection
Either the chief priest believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, or he didn't.
A. If he didn't believe the soldiers' description of the resurrection, what else could he possibly have thought? That the soldiers fell asleep or turned a blind eye while the body was being 'resurrected' by the disciples? But if that's what the chief priest believed, why would he need to bribe the men to say the body had been stolen?
B. If he did believe the soldiers' account, AND IF he saw, as by Matthew's account he must have seen, all the 'saints' rising up out of their graves and walking around the streets of Jerusalem, how would it make any sense at all for him to bribe the soldiers to tell a lie about the resurrection of Jesus?
Can you deal with this?

So you’re perplexed with the odd reaction of the chief priest? So what?

You’re changing the subject off my counter argument regarding dependency anyway. Here I’ll give it to you again.

If the argument runs the synoptic Gospels are dependent traditions where there is strong evidence of copying then it follows they are independent traditions at the points in the overall narrative where they differ enough that we might say they even conflict with one another. It’s generally argued by folks like you the resurrection accounts conflict is it not? Sorry, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm sure you understand what I am saying here.
John's work is full of fantastical prophetic imagery and apocalytic symbols. In other words, he is a teller of fantastical tales, and a very good one. If the other versions of the story were reasonably consistent and coherent, it would be sensible to read John's recounting as a shift into chronicling; and perfectly believable on that basis. But they are not.
The first gospeller doesn't report anyone seeing the risen Christ, and makes no effort to relay anything the risen Christ supposedly wanted to say to humanity;
The second gospeller tells a tale full of such extraordinary inconsistency that it is difficult to find the characters at all credible;
That knocks out a good proportion of the evidence. In this context, the fact that the visionary poet John wrote a version df the tale doesn't suggest to me that he is trying to chronicle actual events. So I think it is it most reasonable to read John's resurrection account as a piece of fiction

So basically your argument is because you think John’s writing style has some flare, he must have written fiction. That’s a big fat non-sequitur. Your second part of that argument which is something along the lines of discrepancies between accounts are indicative of fiction is blown away by the fact that other historical events, like the assassination, also have numerous discrepancies and problems. Would you like the short list or long one?

[/quote]

Yet, when asked to show that the historical evidence for the resurrection is 'strong', you go and start attacking the evidence for King Tut, for Julius Ceasar, and for Alexander the great.. as if any of that has to do with the evidence for the resurrection. To me, that shows the technique known as 'deflection', so that you do not have to address the strength and validity of your own evidence.

Why can't you address your own evidence, rather than trying to deflect the matter to the evidence for other people , some of which we actually have the physical body?? It is not logical, rational or reasonable.

[Danmark]

And yet you, like "no evidence no belief", are incapable of providing any evidence that evolution is true. It seems you and I are in the same boat after-all.

You keep repeating this unsubstantiated claim, that there is no evidence evolution is true. This is a repeated unsubstantiated claim. You even acknowledge there is evidence supporting the theory. What you are really saying is that evolution has not been proved beyond even an unreasonable doubt.

You have refused to answer my point blank challenge to admit there is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution, and fall back on this 'true' phrase. To this you add the personalizing "you are incapable" despite the fact that even in this thread you have been shown that the great apes and homo sapiens had a common ancestor, thus refuting a prior creationist claim.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Sonofason]

Okay, Go get yourself a copy of the New Testament of the Bible. Read it. Understand that what you are reading is true. Acknowledge the truth as you read it. Do what it says, as it is a prescription for knowing the Creator. Love God. Obey God. And you will have substantial evidence of the existence of God.

Okay, Go get yourself a copy of the Qu'ran, the literal Word of God. Read it. Understand that what you are reading is true. Acknowledge the truth as you read it. Now, notice that Su 4:157 very plainly and very specifically says that Jesus was never crucified. The Word of God very plainly and specifically contradicts the Word of God. Now, sit for awhile, scratch your head and ponder this logical incongruity that exists in the evidence for the existence of God. Someone seems to have been tall tail'n someone about the things that God is supposed to have said. Fortunately however, we can all count on the Word of Sonofson to be accurate and inerrant. And we know it's so because he says so!

[Sonofason]

Okay, Go get yourself a copy of the New Testament of the Bible. Read it. Understand that what you are reading is true. Acknowledge the truth as you read it. Do what it says, as it is a prescription for knowing the Creator. Love God. Obey God. And you will have substantial evidence of the existence of God.

So basically, get a copy of the NT, read it with the presupposition that it is true, acknowledge that it is true, repeat, do what it says blindly, love an invisible entity, obey and invisible entity, and then confirm to yourself that what you are doing is true.
That makes perfect sense.

Yes, I thought so too.

That is the opposite of reasonable.

Then why did you say it makes perfect sense?

I was using sarcasm as you already know. Your just playing cute.

Ahh, you're probably right about that.

So let's go back to the topic at hand.

Sonofason wrote:

Okay, Go get yourself a copy of the New Testament of the Bible. Read it. Understand that what you are reading is true. Acknowledge the truth as you read it. Do what it says, as it is a prescription for knowing the Creator. Love God. Obey God. And you will have substantial evidence of the existence of God.

Nickman wrote:

So basically, get a copy of the NT, read it with the presupposition that it is true, acknowledge that it is true, repeat, do what it says blindly, love an invisible entity, obey and invisible entity, and then confirm to yourself that what you are doing is true.

Well you've almost got it. Let me try to be more specific and more clear.

Read the New Testament. I would suggest, due to the gravity of the subject matter, that you read it leaving behind all bias, if that is at all possible for you. When I first read it, it seemed to me that the authors of each text were being quite sincere, that what they wrote, they wrote in a context of real history, that they actually believed what they were writing. When I read it today, it still seems that the authors were telling what they believed was the honest truth. I believe that should have some impact, some effect on your perception and understanding of the message that these individuals were trying to convey.

I am not exactly suggesting that you must presume that the Bible is true. But I am suggesting that you do not go into this with a closed mind. It could be that your personal biases are obstructing your understanding. But I am suggesting, that if you desire to experience God, if you want personal evidence of the existence of God, that you will need to believe in God. I cannot tell you how to go about doing that. Perhaps you need to go get brainwashed. Perhaps that's what I've done. I don't recall that happening, but of course brainwashing can be very subtle. But I can tell you that if I have been brainwashed into believing in God, then I am most grateful for it. For it is my belief in God that is the foundation, that for some reason, has enabled me to experience God. If it is a delusion, I must thank God for my delusion.

I believe the words of the Bible ought to be causing you to search within your own soul. I don't know what to tell you if you should be reading the Bible and it does not cause such feelings in you. It has for me. It has for many others. Many people, including myself, recognize particular truths written in the Bible that actually are applicable to our own lives, truths that cause us to question, "what if this is all true?" I find it hard to believe that this hasn't happened to you. What do you do with this? Are you not compelled to seek an explanation? Do you not find the answers to your question contained within this very same book? What do you do with all the prophesies of the Bible? Do you not recognize that many have already come true? Do you not see that others seem to be in the process of coming true? Why do you read the Bible, to find possible discrepancies that confirm your former biases? Or do you read it because you are searching for the truth? Are you seeking God, or are you trying to disprove God? Who is it that you are listening to outside the Bible for understanding with regard to that which is written in the Bible? Are you going it alone? Are you just taking the information and presenting it before your atheist friends, to see what they make of it? I found a guy I really like. Perhaps you should listen to him, rather than I. I'm just groping in the dark here. But there are people who know God far better than it seems I can ever hope to know God. Yet I am so convinced of God that I could never be convinced that He is not there. I am in awe when I think of those who know Him far beyond what I know of Him. Take an hour of your time. Struggle through the opening prayers or skip over it if you want, but listen to this guys message.
http://www.harvestreno.org/messages/2013-09-29

If you want to see more.
http://www.harvestreno.org/messages/messages-by-date[/quote]

[no evidence no belief]

I get it. You don't have any evidence that evolution is true.

I for one have no problem believing that evolution is true. It seems to me to be a rather reasonable theory. If there should be evidence in existence that shows that evolution is true, I have not seen it. ...

You appear to be making contradictory statements. You claim there is no evidence that evolution is true, yet you also say it is a reasonable theory.

Let's clarify.
Are you saying there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Are you saying there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution, but it fails to prove evolution is 'true' absolutely?

Actually, I have not stated that there is no evidence that evolution is true. What I have stated is that "no evidence no belief" has not provided any evidence that evolution is true. All he has provided is claims of evidence that evolution is true. Claims are not evidence. I have even gone out on a limb and stated that "no evidence no belief" has never seen evidence that evolution is true, and that he accepts such a notion as true by faith.

I suggest that evolution is a reasonable theory because I have accepted by faith that scientists who claim to have evidence that genetic mutations can occur that can be passed from generation to generation are telling the truth. I have not seen their evidence. I personally would not go so far as to say that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species however. I could however accept that a species could evolve over time. That is not to say that a species becomes a new species, but that a species over time changes. It is scientists of evolution and biology who have set limits on what a species is. I do not accept their limits. Every generation of one kind of species is the same species as it's predecessor. My concept is rather more thoughtful and more reasonable than the notion that one species can become another species over time. We do not change into a new species over time, but a species may indeed change over time.

I am saying that I have faith that scientists are making observations. I have faith that they are recording their observations with some degree of accuracy. And so I have faith in the idea that a species can change over time. And so, if evolution is a gradual change in a species over time, I believe, by faith, that species do indeed change over time. But I have not seen any of this evidence. I have no idea if the evidence that supports evolution is overwhelming evidence or not. It sounds reasonable to me. It may indeed be reasonable. But I accept the idea by faith.

You're equivocating. There certainly is evidence for the validity of evolution. You do not deny this, but you like to claim you 'have not seen it.' It's there for you to see, but you apparently would prefer to say you take it on faith that it's reasonable, rather than admit the abundance of evidence.

Your motive is transparent. You want to place the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the same 'faith' category you put your belief in god so you can argue they are equivalent. They are obviously not equivalent. In the first there is tremendous evidence that you can examine if you want to. The result of that evidence is the conclusion evolution is valid based on simple logic and reason after observation of evidence.

This is completely distinct from faith in a god for whom you can produce no evidence, zero. All you can do is what you've done, claim you have personal unidentified, unverified, unrepeatable personal subjective 'data' you claim is evidence. To claim this faith scenario is the same as the scientific basis for evolution is preposterous.

And yet you, like "no evidence no belief", are incapable of providing any evidence that evolution is true. It seems you and I are in the same boat after-all.

Please man, stop this charade. Your attempt to draw an equivalency between the evidence for evolution and evidence for your fairy tales about talking donkeys failed miserably.

I offered you money, I offered you a first class trip with complimentary limo and 5 star hotel, for the opportunity to see empirical evidence for evolution which would require ZERO belief, and would just require direct observation of empirical objective data.

I applaud your effort, but seriously, stop.

Is this what Jesus would do? Stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la, I can't hear you"?