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?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 1586 by Goose]

Goose, it's over buddy.

If you claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't violate the laws of physics, then it may have happened but it's not evidence of the supernatural

If you claim the resurrection DID violate the laws of physics, then no amount of historical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that it happened.

Either way, you lost. You're beating a dead horse.

Your little thread here is asking for evidence. When you are given evidence, you simply declare that no amount of it is going to convince you, therefore you win by default. That's quite dishonest debating, isn't it NENB?

I love these posts of yours. They put me in the privileged position of making you this offer:

I will give you $1000 if you link the post in which I declare that no amount of evidence is going to convince me.

At this point the situation is very simple. Either you link that post, or you do anything other than link that post.


I never ever said that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to convince me of the supernatural. You are the one debating dishonestly.

I just said very specifically that no amount of circumstantial, historical, triple or quadruple hearsay testimony would be sufficient to establish a suspension of the laws of physics.

Some anonymous superstitious ignorant guy writing in 150AD that somebody told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told him that some guy who none of the people in this hearsay chain ever met had seen somebody walk on water is NOT sufficient evidence to counter everything we know about the laws of gravity.

Even direct eyewitness testimony is not enough. If you swore under oath, and your statement was verified to be non-deceitful by a polygraph test, that you had a conversation with a talking donkey, nobody would conclude from that that donkeys can talk.

But somehow, if it's not eyewitness testimony of a reliable witness, but instead quadruple hearsay of an anonymous unreliable superstitious barbarian from 4000 years ago who thought the earth was flat, then I'm engaging in dishonest debating if I express skepticism?

Dude seriously, why do you do this to yourself? If you don't care at all about people taking you seriously, why are you even here? And if you do care about being taken seriously, how could you possibly make such patently absurd arguments?

He does make interesting arguments riddled in unintentional fallacies. But I like yours more since it is riddled in a lack of incoherency!

Your post was quite clear, so I have no idea what instantc is harping on. Religious Faith says there is no evidence for the supernatural, so why is that so hard for people to understand or admit this?

[Star]

You cut out the bolded part and knocked down a strawman. I'm not - NOT, NOT, NOT!!!! - arguing the Lazarus Syndrome establishes Jesus' resurrection. Is this sinking in yet? The reason I ignore you is you continue to dishonestly leave out pertinent parts of my posts and misrepresent my position. Until you can actually engage me in an honest manner of debate, don't expect me to take you seriously or respond.

No, but you're arguing that Jesus' supernatural resurrection by God is a credible claim because Lazarus' syndrome shows it's possible in theory, and therefore, not nearly as much of an extraordinary claim as some might believe. Extraordinary, but not an unprecedented violation of physics. Am I right?

It's still silly.

[no evidence no belief]

Why can't goose answer a simple question?

All I want to know is this:

Goose, are you saying that Jesus's resurrection, if it happened, violated the laws of physics as we observe, measure, record and understand them, or that it didn't violate those laws?


Why can't he answer such a simple question? Because he realizes he lost.

The event, if it happened, either violated the laws of physics, or it didn't.

If he wishes to claim they didn't violate the laws of physics, he is openly admitting that it wasn't supernatural and therefore Jesus is not the Son of God.

Is he wishes to claim they did violate the laws of physics, he has to provide sufficient evidence for his claim, and he realizes that hearsay anecdotal evidence may be enough to conclude that an emperor was assassinated, but are NOT enough to conclude the laws of physics were suspended.

He cannot take either position. So he just deflects, ignores, obfuscates and hides in the shadows. If Satan existed, I'd imagine this is how he would debate.

[Goat]

I’m going trim out some the bluster and walls of Wikipedia cut and paste jobs.
Actually I think you might be knocking the strawman.

�Even though Lazarus phenomenon is rare, it is probably under reported. There is no doubt that Lazarus phenomenon is a reality but so far the scientific explanations have been inadequate.�
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121643/

The article goes on to list about half a dozen of those proposed explanations but guess which explanation is curiously missing? That’s right, the one that hypothesizes the doctors made goofs. You see the medical community recognizes the Lazarus Syndrome as a real phenomenon and doesn’t merely dismiss it as Physician error. The recommendations to Physicians are, “Patients should be observed for at least 10 minutes using blood pressure and ECG monitoring after the cessation of CPR before confirming death.� Why do you think that is the case? That recommendation is given not because the Doctor may be mistaken where the person may not be truly dead because death is a process but in the rare event the doctor may have a case of Lazarus Syndrome on his hands.

The problem is one you have never addressed because you have ignored my post from about 10 pages ago:

Autoresuscitation [sometimes called the 'lazarus phenomenon] has no comparison with a body that has been dead and buried for 3 days.

This is the second time you've misrepresented me on the same point. Why do you continually cut out pertinent parts of my posts? Is it because you find it easier to knock down strawmen rather than address the actual position of your opponent? Or are you simply failing to grasp my position? Here is the full quote of what I wrote to Tired of the BS:

"The article goes on to list about half a dozen of those proposed explanations but guess which explanation is curiously missing? That’s right, the one that hypothesizes the doctors made goofs. You see the medical community recognizes the Lazarus Syndrome as a real phenomenon and doesn’t merely dismiss it as Physician error. The recommendations to Physicians are, “Patients should be observed for at least 10 minutes using blood pressure and ECG monitoring after the cessation of CPR before confirming death.� Why do you think that is the case? That recommendation is given not because the Doctor may be mistaken where the person may not be truly dead because death is a process but in the rare event the doctor may have a case of Lazarus Syndrome on his hands. It’s only folks like you, arguing in a circle, that try to outright dismiss the Lazarus Syndrome as human error. Again, this gives us a baseline of plausibility for a resurrection, though it doesn’t fully establishes Jesus’. Whereas flying reindeer have no such baseline. Thus you have a bogus analogy. But never mind all that logic stuff, carry on with your juvenile arguments by ridicule. After all, it’s pretty much all you have and I wouldn’t want to deprive you of that."

I don't see how he misrepresented you, nor do I see you addressing the points he made, just complain about him misrepresenting you.

Now, are you saying that the apparent resurrection of Jesus was a totally natural phenomena??

As someone said, there is a difference between almost dead, and completely dead. However, I don't think Jesus had any loose change in his pockets.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 1586 by Goose]

Goose, it's over buddy.

If you claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't violate the laws of physics, then it may have happened but it's not evidence of the supernatural

If you claim the resurrection DID violate the laws of physics, then no amount of historical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that it happened.

Either way, you lost. You're beating a dead horse.

Your little thread here is asking for evidence. When you are given evidence, you simply declare that no amount of it is going to convince you, therefore you win by default. That's quite dishonest debating, isn't it NENB?

I love these posts of yours. They put me in the privileged position of making you this offer:

I will give you $1000 if you link the post in which I declare that no amount of evidence is going to convince me.

At this point the situation is very simple. Either you link that post, or you do anything other than link that post.


I never ever said that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to convince me of the supernatural. You are the one debating dishonestly.

I just said very specifically that no amount of circumstantial, historical, triple or quadruple hearsay testimony would be sufficient to establish a suspension of the laws of physics.

Some anonymous superstitious ignorant guy writing in 150AD that somebody told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told him that some guy who none of the people in this hearsay chain ever met had seen somebody walk on water is NOT sufficient evidence to counter everything we know about the laws of gravity.

Even direct eyewitness testimony is not enough. If you swore under oath, and your statement was verified to be non-deceitful by a polygraph test, that you had a conversation with a talking donkey, nobody would conclude from that that donkeys can talk.

But somehow, if it's not eyewitness testimony of a reliable witness, but instead quadruple hearsay of an anonymous unreliable superstitious barbarian from 4000 years ago who thought the earth was flat, then I'm engaging in dishonest debating if I express skepticism?

Dude seriously, why do you do this to yourself? If you don't care at all about people taking you seriously, why are you even here? And if you do care about being taken seriously, how could you possibly make such patently absurd arguments?

Fair enough, looking at it again, I too find my above criticism fairly idiotic, I tend to write stupid posts after long days at work. I guess I mostly find it dishonest to constantly make an intentional equivocation between 'evidence' and 'sufficient evidence'. It makes a difference for the theist position whether there is at least some evidence rather than no evidence at all, doesn't it?

Furthermore, I'm here to listen what other people have to say, rather than to make my own case. My expertise lies somewhere completely else than in this field, so I wouldn't advice you to take any of my arguments "seriously", if you know what I mean. Just read them and respond as you find best.

Here's what I think, I don't know if other people find this reasonable. Your, and some other people's, contention seems to be that Christianity or any other superstition hasn't been conclusively proven. I find this self-evident, otherwise everyone would be Christian. There is, however, some evidence and some arguments. I think the optimal use of sites like this would be to discus the strength of the evidence and the arguments, but you seem to be skipping that part on basis that those arguments are in any case insufficient to overcome the initial implausibility of the claims.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 1586 by Goose]

Goose, it's over buddy.

If you claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't violate the laws of physics, then it may have happened but it's not evidence of the supernatural

If you claim the resurrection DID violate the laws of physics, then no amount of historical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that it happened.

Either way, you lost. You're beating a dead horse.

Your little thread here is asking for evidence. When you are given evidence, you simply declare that no amount of it is going to convince you, therefore you win by default. That's quite dishonest debating, isn't it NENB?

I love these posts of yours. They put me in the privileged position of making you this offer:

I will give you $1000 if you link the post in which I declare that no amount of evidence is going to convince me.

At this point the situation is very simple. Either you link that post, or you do anything other than link that post.


I never ever said that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to convince me of the supernatural. You are the one debating dishonestly.

I just said very specifically that no amount of circumstantial, historical, triple or quadruple hearsay testimony would be sufficient to establish a suspension of the laws of physics.

Some anonymous superstitious ignorant guy writing in 150AD that somebody told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told him that some guy who none of the people in this hearsay chain ever met had seen somebody walk on water is NOT sufficient evidence to counter everything we know about the laws of gravity.

Even direct eyewitness testimony is not enough. If you swore under oath, and your statement was verified to be non-deceitful by a polygraph test, that you had a conversation with a talking donkey, nobody would conclude from that that donkeys can talk.

But somehow, if it's not eyewitness testimony of a reliable witness, but instead quadruple hearsay of an anonymous unreliable superstitious barbarian from 4000 years ago who thought the earth was flat, then I'm engaging in dishonest debating if I express skepticism?

Dude seriously, why do you do this to yourself? If you don't care at all about people taking you seriously, why are you even here? And if you do care about being taken seriously, how could you possibly make such patently absurd arguments?

Fair enough, looking at it again, I too find my above criticism fairly idiotic, I tend to write stupid posts after long days at work. I guess I mostly find it dishonest to constantly make an intentional equivocation between 'evidence' and 'sufficient evidence'. It makes a difference for the theist position whether there is at least some evidence rather than no evidence at all, doesn't it?

Furthermore, I'm here to listen what other people have to say, rather than to make my own case. My expertise lies somewhere completely else than in this field, so I wouldn't advice you to take any of my arguments "seriously", if you know what I mean. Just read them and respond as you find best.

Here's what I think, I don't know if other people find this reasonable. Your, and some other people's, contention seems to be that Christianity or any other superstition hasn't been conclusively proven. I find this self-evident, otherwise everyone would be Christian. There is, however, some evidence and some arguments. I think the optimal use of sites like this would be to discus the strength of the evidence and the arguments, but you seem to be skipping that part on basis that those arguments are in any case insufficient to overcome the initial implausibility of the claims.

There is no evidence for any gods. The definition and meaning of faith defined and grounded this.
This is a serious problem for philosophers as many make a living off this nonsense. I think you just confirmed this. All it shows is that philosophy belongs to antiquity, with theology.
The real question is:
Some there is no evidence, never were as per definition of faith, WHY do you still hold a belief in a god?
Many theologians know there are no evidence, they ate the agnostic theists - nothing new there.
Some have a justification why they remain religious (e.g they have no other skills to find a new job, etc.) , so let's hear them.
Theists need to admit they have no evidence and then tell us the justification why they remain religious knowing it is only faith (there is no evidence).

[Danmark]

I guess I mostly find it dishonest to constantly make an intentional equivocation between 'evidence' and 'sufficient evidence'. It makes a difference for the theist position whether there is at least some evidence rather than no evidence at all, doesn't it?

.... There is, however, some evidence and some arguments [for Christianity]. I think the optimal use of sites like this would be to discus the strength of the evidence and the arguments, but you seem to be skipping that part on basis that those arguments are in any case insufficient to overcome the initial implausibility of the claims.

I agree with this approach. There is evidence for Christianity, the first question for any proposition is whether that evidence rises to the level where it should even be considered. The next question is whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove the proposition. And this brings the final question, what is the burden of proof or persuasion?

Regarding the burden of proof, we can take as an example the various levels used in courts of law. Mere preponderance, 'clear, cogent, and convincing,' and 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

The latter is used in criminal cases only, and even with that high standard, innocent people are regularly convicted, their cases later overturned via DNA evidence or other factors. With propositions that require a special case to be made regarding what is otherwise known from various scientific and other academic disciplines, the admissibility of evidence for consideration and the level of proof should be rigorous.

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1586 by Goose]

Goose, it's over buddy.

If you claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't violate the laws of physics, then it may have happened but it's not evidence of the supernatural

If you claim the resurrection DID violate the laws of physics, then no amount of historical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that it happened.

Either way, you lost. You're beating a dead horse.

Your little thread here is asking for evidence. When you are given evidence, you simply declare that no amount of it is going to convince you, therefore you win by default. That's quite dishonest debating, isn't it NENB?

I love these posts of yours. They put me in the privileged position of making you this offer:

I will give you $1000 if you link the post in which I declare that no amount of evidence is going to convince me.

At this point the situation is very simple. Either you link that post, or you do anything other than link that post.


I never ever said that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to convince me of the supernatural. You are the one debating dishonestly.

I just said very specifically that no amount of circumstantial, historical, triple or quadruple hearsay testimony would be sufficient to establish a suspension of the laws of physics.

Some anonymous superstitious ignorant guy writing in 150AD that somebody told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told him that some guy who none of the people in this hearsay chain ever met had seen somebody walk on water is NOT sufficient evidence to counter everything we know about the laws of gravity.

Even direct eyewitness testimony is not enough. If you swore under oath, and your statement was verified to be non-deceitful by a polygraph test, that you had a conversation with a talking donkey, nobody would conclude from that that donkeys can talk.

But somehow, if it's not eyewitness testimony of a reliable witness, but instead quadruple hearsay of an anonymous unreliable superstitious barbarian from 4000 years ago who thought the earth was flat, then I'm engaging in dishonest debating if I express skepticism?

Dude seriously, why do you do this to yourself? If you don't care at all about people taking you seriously, why are you even here? And if you do care about being taken seriously, how could you possibly make such patently absurd arguments?

Fair enough, looking at it again, I too find my above criticism fairly idiotic, I tend to write stupid posts after long days at work. I guess I mostly find it dishonest to constantly make an intentional equivocation between 'evidence' and 'sufficient evidence'.

Jesus Christ, man! Of course when one asks for evidence, it must be sufficient evidence. It's implicit! If it's insufficient to make the case, or to counter the overwhelming evidence against the case, what's the point?

When I ask you for a glass of water, I mean a glass of water.... WITH WATER IN IT!

There is absolutely no equivocation here that the only type of evidence that is worth presenting is evidence that isn't totally and completely irrelevant and meaningless.

If we are 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that my son is 6 years old, then any "evidence" you might present that he killed John Lennon in 1980 is MEANINGLESS DRIBBLE, unless it's concrete tangible evidence that directly demonstrates that we are wrong in our notion that it's impossible to shoot somebody in the head if you aren't born yet!

It makes a difference for the theist position whether there is at least some evidence rather than no evidence at all, doesn't it?

There is ALWAYS some "Evidence" for stuff, the question is whether that evidence is sufficient.

There is some evidence that reindeer can fly. The lyrics of the song "Rudolph the red nose reindeer" constitute evidence of that, as does the fact that there have to be at least a dozen 4 year olds in the world that believe it.

There is evidence for Santa, Spiderman, and Zeus.

The question is this: Does this "evidence" bear any weight whatsoever? Does it stand up to any level of scrutiny, or is it just meaningless rubbish? Most important, does this "evidence" do anything to counter the overwhelmingly strong empirical, measurable, discrete evidence against the existence of Santa, Spiderman or Zeus?

Furthermore, I'm here to listen what other people have to say, rather than to make my own case. My expertise lies somewhere completely else than in this field

I earnestly hope that your field of expertise isn't the English language.

so I wouldn't advice you to take any of my arguments "seriously", if you know what I mean. Just read them and respond as you find best.

Here's what I think, I don't know if other people find this reasonable. Your, and some other people's, contention seems to be that Christianity or any other superstition hasn't been conclusively proven.

Wrong. Nothing other than logical absolutes and mathematical formulas can be proven conclusively in the true sense of the word. We are not saying that they haven't been proven conclusively. We are saying that there isn't a shred of valid evidence for them whatsoever, and overwhelming, extremely strong as-close-to-conclusive-as-you-can-get evidence AGAINST these fairy tales.

I find this self-evident, otherwise everyone would be Christian. There is, however, some evidence and some arguments.

Yes, all the evidence is invalid, and all the arguments are flawed. Don't agree? Name one piece of evidence or one argument that isn't total rubbish.

I think the optimal use of sites like this would be to discus the strength of the evidence and the arguments, but you seem to be skipping that part on basis that those arguments are in any case insufficient to overcome the initial implausibility of the claims.

The optimal use of the site is indeed to discuss the strength of the evidence. That the evidence is insufficient to overcome the implausibility of the claim is not something we SKIP TO, is the conclusion we tentatively arrive to based on close inspection of the "evidence" provided for the claims. If somebody provides evidence for a claim that IS sufficiently strong to counter the overwhelming evidence against that claim, then I will become a theist.

[instantc]

Yes, all the evidence is invalid, and all the arguments are flawed. Don't agree?

Since you are under the misconception that evidence is invalidated by the fact that there is more evidence for the opposite, there is no point arguing with your rambling here.

You are way off here in many ways. For example, you claim that what we know about the laws of nature is evidence against the resurrection. The laws of nature are evidence against the claim that someone was resurrected by natural means. Nothing in the laws of nature is technically evidence against the claim that the laws of nature were temporarily suspended at some point in the past. The fact that we have regularly observed the laws of nature and they have never been suspended raises the initial implausibility of these claims.

Your claim that the laws of nature invalidate all historical evidence for the resurrection is simply rubbish.

I earnestly hope that your field of expertise isn't the English language.

English is my third language, so I apologize that my posts don't meet your language standards.

[no evidence no belief]

Yes, all the evidence is invalid, and all the arguments are flawed. Don't agree?

Since you are under the misconception that evidence is invalidated by the fact that there is more evidence for the opposite, there is no point arguing with your rambling here.

So you disagree with that?

In your opinion if a Voodoo Doctor claims that my 6 year old son shot Martin Luther King, on the basis of the evidence of a mystic vision he had, is that evidence valid?

If an old naval journal claims that the earth is flat based on the captain's testimony that he witnessed a ship fall of the edge, is that valid evidence for the earth being flat?

If a drug addict claims that while he was doing LSD, Jack Daniels, Heroine and cocaine, he saw a pig fly, is that valid evidence for pigs flying?

The laws of nature are evidence against the claim that someone was resurrected by natural means.

Correct.

Nothing in the laws of nature is technically evidence against the claim that the laws of nature were temporarily suspended at some point in the past.

Actually you are wrong. EVERYTHING about the laws of nature is evidence of the fact that they were NOT suspended at some point in the past. Everything we know tells us very very clearly that the universal laws of nature are... UNIVERSAL.

Just because somebody says "I saw a pig fly", is not a good reason to believe that the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended. Are you kidding me?

Your claim that the laws of nature invalidate all historical evidence for the resurrection is simply rubbish.

Ok, so you are saying that the laws of nature, like for example the earth being round, do NOT invalidate the historical evidence for the earth being flat? Is that your position?

Are you saying that despite all the physical evidence that the earth is round, the historical evidence contained in that naval journal might mean that in fact the earth is flat? You are saying that the historical evidence for the earth being round flat is NOT invalidated by the evidence for the earth being round?

I earnestly hope that your field of expertise isn't the English language.

English is my third language, so I apologize that my posts don't meet your language standards.

Tu tambien? Yo soy italiano, y hablo espanol tambien. Qual son tus primeros dos idiomas? Guarda, se vuoi possiamo parlare anche italiano, che ovviamente e' la mia lingua madre.