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?

[Sonofason]

[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).

Many theists, such as myself, do have evidence that God exists. The problem is, it is not the sort of evidence that an atheist can easily accept. In fact, it is an evidence that is restricted to believers. God provides evidence of Himself to those who love Him. Thus, it is wrong for you to suggest that there is no evidence, because the truth is, there is no evidence for you. I know you'd love to clump God into the physical category, but you cannot. God is not a physical being. God is Spirit. He certainly can manifest Himself into physical things, but He is not a physical thing. Until you devise an apparatus to measure spiritual things, you are highly unlikely to find any evidence of God, until you begin to place at least some faith in Him.

So I remain religious because God has given me cause to remain faithful to Him. I will admit, when I first began to have faith in God, I did not have the sort of evidence that I have now. But when I looked around me, it seemed apparent to me that a god must exist. And when I sought Him, He found me. And now He blesses me with His presence. And for the believer, it is awesome and perfect evidence. What an awesome God who will make Himself evident to those who trust in Him, yet remain in obscurity to those who won't. I think it's a perfect plan. Ya gotta love people with an open mind. It takes an open mind to have faith in God, and I think that's one of the things God's looking for.

[10CC]

[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).

Many theists, such as myself, do have evidence that God exists. The problem is, it is not the sort of evidence that an atheist can easily accept. In fact, it is an evidence that is restricted to believers. God provides evidence of Himself to those who love Him. Thus, it is wrong for you to suggest that there is no evidence, because the truth is, there is no evidence for you. I know you'd love to clump God into the physical category, but you cannot. God is not a physical being. God is Spirit. He certainly can manifest Himself into physical things, but He is not a physical thing. Until you devise an apparatus to measure spiritual things, you are highly unlikely to find any evidence of God, until you begin to place at least some faith in Him.

So I remain religious because God has given me cause to remain faithful to Him. I will admit, when I first began to have faith in God, I did not have the sort of evidence that I have now. But when I looked around me, it seemed apparent to me that a god must exist. And when I sought Him, He found me. And now He blesses me with His presence. And for the believer, it is awesome and perfect evidence. What an awesome God who will make Himself evident to those who trust in Him, yet remain in obscurity to those who won't. I think it's a perfect plan. Ya gotta love people with an open mind. It takes an open mind to have faith in God, and I think that's one of the things God's looking for.

So with your open mind you must agree that the god of the OT was genocidal, yes?

[Student]

[Replying to Goose]

The problem with this argument is it’s built around two words from one verse taken out of context in 1 Corinthians 15:50 all the while ignoring the weight of other evidence for Paul’s belief in a physical resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:50 Paul is answering the question of what the resurrected body of the believer at the general resurrection will be like (1Cor 15:35, 42) and not necessarily what Jesus’ resurrected body was like.

Quiet frankly this line of argumentation is absurd. To Paul, the resurrection of believers would be the same as that of Jesus as he [Paul] makes patently clear:

1Cor 15:12 . “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised�.

See also 1 Cor 15:20 “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep�

So, nowhere does Paul differentiate between the nature of the resurrected other than Jesus was the first.

But even if we assume Paul was referring to Jesus as well there is evidence that �flesh and blood� was an idiom that referred to mankind, so to speak, and not literally to human flesh.

The overwhelming evidence is that “flesh and blood� was used an idiom for “a human body� i.e. a human being. Your assertion, that it is an idiom for “mankind� makes absolutely no sense if we substitute your ‘idiom’ in 1Cor 15:50 “Now this I say, brethren, that mankind cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
According to your version therefore, Paul effectively writes off all of humanity!

However, if instead we substitute “human body� we get: “Now this I say, brethren, that a human body cannot inherit the kingdom of God.�

From this it logically follows:“neither doth corruption inherit in-corruption.� i.e. the human body is corruption; the spiritual body is in-corruption.

Paul goes on to say (1Cor 15:51)"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed".

Earlier, Paul makes a clear distinction between the natural (psychic), corruptible body ([font=Times New Roman]σῶμα ψυχικόν[/font]) which is buried, and the spiritual (pneumatic) in-corruptible body ([font=Times New Roman]σῶμα πνευματικόν[/font]) which is resurrected. (1Cor.15:44ff); [font=Times New Roman]ψυχικός[/font] psuchikos pertains to the life of the natural world and whatever belongs to it, in contrast to the realm of experience whose central characteristic is pneuma ([font=Times New Roman]πνεῦμα[/font]) i.e. spirit.

Further your interpretation is strained anyway as every example Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 uses a material object. Or do you actually believe Paul thought seeds give rise to spirit plants when he used a planted seed as his primary analogy to describe the glory of the resurrected body (1Cor 15:35-38)?

If anyone’s interpretation is strained it is yours.
In order to answer his rhetorical question in 1 Corinthians 15:35 [font=Times New Roman]ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔ�χονται[/font]; (poi� de s�matai erchontai) with what body [are the dead after resurrection going to come?], Paul speaks of bodies of plants (vs. 37f), which are different in kind from the ‘body’ of the seed which is planted. This concept was prevalent at the time – Maximus Tyrius. 40, 60e makes a distinction between the s�mata of plants, which grow old and pass away, and their spermata which endure. – s�mata of plants also in Apollonius Paradoxographus 7 [after Aristotle].
So Paul clearly does not see the pre and post resurrection bodies as being continuous, but different in kind, the former physical, the latter spiritual (1 Cor 15:44)

Also, your interpretation fails to take into account the many other places where Paul is quite clear Jesus was resurrected bodily such as earlier in the very same chapter to name but one.

�But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.� – 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

It’s inconceivable that Paul being a former Pharisee, who held to the resurrection of the dead, would be speaking of anything other than a bodily resurrection here.

Firstly you should substantiate your wildly inaccurate claim regarding the “many other places where Paul is quite clear Jesus was resurrected bodily�.

Secondly, you are deliberately confusing what Paul actually wrote with what you would like him to say on the basis of preconceptions of what Pharisees in general believed. This argument is flawed as it presupposes that all Paul’s beliefs post conversion were identical to his pre conversion beliefs.

Perhaps in his previous life as a Pharisee Paul rejected Jesus on the basis that there was no evidence of Jesus’ physical resurrection; converted, Paul realised the virtue and merit of Jesus’ resurrection as a spiritual event. This at least is consistent with Paul’s own writings.

Finally, there is nothing in 1 Cor 15:20 – 22 that could possibly be construed as meaning the resurrection of a physical body, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Thirdly, Paul’s letters are not our only source of data regarding Paul’s resurrection beliefs.

I had hoped we could deal with the primary evidence, that provided by Paul and ‘Peter’ before examining what is at best secondary, and contradictory evidence in the gospels/acts. I shall deal with your other ‘proofs’ presently.

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Comment

Please do not accuse another of dishonesty. If someone misrepresents you, just correct it without judging their intentions.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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'. 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).

Many theists, such as myself, do have evidence that God exists. The problem is, it is not the sort of evidence that an atheist can easily accept. In fact, it is an evidence that is restricted to believers. God provides evidence of Himself to those who love Him.

Dear Son, welcome back.

You are saying that evidence that God exists will only manifest to those who already believe he exists. Stop and think about it for a second, my friend. Does this make any sense? I know it's hard to think straight, because it's the very core of your worldview that is being shaken, but try.

You already believed that God existed when you allegedly obtained this "evidence for his existence", right? If you hadn't received this evidence, it wouldn't have changed your belief in God's existence. You already believed in God.

I'm not going to go through my usual routine of obliterating your argument, and kinda bullying you into admitting defeat or going away. You've shown great maturity and courage, so you deserve consideration and respect, and an opportunity to figure things out by yourself. I'll just throw some thoughts out there, to point you in the right direction.

First off, do you know the fable called "The emperor's new clothes"? If not, you can read the wiki of it HERE.

Isn't "evidence that is invisible to those who don't have faith" kind of the same as "Clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or hopelessly stupid"?

Doesn't your system of belief and evidence sound a little bit like a Nigerian money order scam?
"We will provide evidence for God, but only if you already believe he exists"
"We will wire you $10,000,000, but only if first you wire us $300 to cover processing expenses".

Here's my second thought: You write "What an awesome God who will make Himself evident to those who trust in Him, yet remain in obscurity to those who won't" It's not an awesome system. It's a stupid system. It's exactly the kind of system that a God that doesn't exist would use. The exact same system can be claimed to be in place for ANY faith. A Muslim could say the exact same thing as you, but you can't both be right. Jesus either is or isn't the Son of God. Somebody who believed in Zeus could have said the same thing, as well, and perceive every thunder storm as evidence of Zeus. Somebody who claims that aliens from Mars communicate to him through vibrations in his table spoons could say the same thing. He could say that these aliens are very particular about who they talk to, and only reveal themselves to those who demonstrate their superior intellect by spending hours with a table spoon pressed to their ear trying to talk to aliens and truly believing in the aliens, and that the reason you don't hear anything when you put a spoon to your ear is that you don't have enough faith in the aliens.

This is called confirmation bias and it's a very well understood psychological dysfunction.

My last thought is this: Why do you like the guy? This Yahweh fellow. Why do you worship him? Never mind our difference in opinion (I think he's fictional, you think he's real). Let's assume that a God, as described in the Bible, exists. The character described in those pages is an evil and twisted monster. There is no denying that. Ever read the friggin book?

Name one evil, horrible, perverted thing that this "god" doesn't carry out, command, endorse or encourage.

Murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, ritual human sacrifice, infanticide, genital mutilation, slavery, sexual slavery, incest, rape, forced prolonged interaction with rapist, subjugation of women, violent homophobia, violent xenophobia, demands for totalitarian obedience, drowning of pregnant women, abortion of viable fetuses, extreme violence with your slaves, torture, thought control, thought manipulation, eternal torture, compulsory adoration, etc.

Never mind that your system to determine that this entity is real is fatally flawed. How could you possibly want such a monster to exist?

[Clownboat]

[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).

Many theists, such as myself, do have evidence that God exists. The problem is, it is not the sort of evidence that an atheist can easily accept. In fact, it is an evidence that is restricted to believers. God provides evidence of Himself to those who love Him.

Dear Son, welcome back.

You are saying that evidence that God exists will only manifest to those who already believe he exists. Stop and think about it for a second, my friend. Does this make any sense? I know it's hard to think straight, because it's the very core of your worldview that is being shaken, but try.

You already believed that God existed when you allegedly obtained this "evidence for his existence", right? If you hadn't received this evidence, it wouldn't have changed your belief in God's existence. You already believed in God.

I'm not going to go through my usual routine of obliterating your argument, and kinda bullying you into admitting defeat or going away. You've shown great maturity and courage, so you deserve consideration and respect, and an opportunity to figure things out by yourself. I'll just throw some thoughts out there, to point you in the right direction.

First off, do you know the fable called "The emperor's new clothes"? If not, you can read the wiki of it HERE.

Isn't "evidence that is invisible to those who don't have faith" kind of the same as "Clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or hopelessly stupid"?

Doesn't your system of belief and evidence sound a little bit like a Nigerian money order scam?
"We will provide evidence for God, but only if you already believe he exists"
"We will wire you $10,000,000, but only if first you wire us $300 to cover processing expenses".

Here's my second thought: You write "What an awesome God who will make Himself evident to those who trust in Him, yet remain in obscurity to those who won't" It's not an awesome system. It's a stupid system. It's exactly the kind of system that a God that doesn't exist would use. The exact same system can be claimed to be in place for ANY faith. A Muslim could say the exact same thing as you, but you can't both be right. Jesus either is or isn't the Son of God. Somebody who believed in Zeus could have said the same thing, as well, and perceive every thunder storm as evidence of Zeus. Somebody who claims that aliens from Mars communicate to him through vibrations in his table spoons could say the same thing. He could say that these aliens are very particular about who they talk to, and only reveal themselves to those who demonstrate their superior intellect by spending hours with a table spoon pressed to their ear trying to talk to aliens and truly believing in the aliens, and that the reason you don't hear anything when you put a spoon to your ear is that you don't have enough faith in the aliens.

This is called confirmation bias and it's a very well understood psychological dysfunction.

My last thought is this: Why do you like the guy? This Yahweh fellow. Why do you worship him? Never mind our difference in opinion (I think he's fictional, you think he's real). Let's assume that a God, as described in the Bible, exists. The character described in those pages is an evil and twisted monster. There is no denying that. Ever read the friggin book?

Name one evil, horrible, perverted thing that this "god" doesn't carry out, command, endorse or encourage.

Murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, ritual human sacrifice, infanticide, genital mutilation, slavery, sexual slavery, incest, rape, forced prolonged interaction with rapist, subjugation of women, violent homophobia, violent xenophobia, demands for totalitarian obedience, drowning of pregnant women, abortion of viable fetuses, extreme violence with your slaves, torture, thought control, thought manipulation, eternal torture, compulsory adoration, etc.

Never mind that your system to determine that this entity is real is fatally flawed. How could you possibly want such a monster to exist?

I submit that people who have a fear of eternal hell fire is a very powerful tool.

Just imagine that you are in his shoes and REALLY believe that you will burn for eternity if you don't serve this god.

It's a very powerful tool. The trick is getting people to actually believe this. That is why it is best to trick our youngsters, they will believe almost anything we tell them after all.

[Goose]

Quiet frankly this line of argumentation is absurd. To Paul, the resurrection of believers would be the same as that of Jesus as he [Paul] makes patently clear:

1Cor 15:12 . “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised�.

See also 1 Cor 15:20 “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep�

So, nowhere does Paul differentiate between the nature of the resurrected other than Jesus was the first.

The easiest explanation is that Paul understood Jesus to be the first to be raised from the dead or “first fruit� of the general resurrection. That was his belief filtered through the Pharisaical doctrine of the end time general resurrection of the dead, which was a physical one. This is the proverbial nail in the coffin of your argument.

The overwhelming evidence is that “flesh and blood� was used an idiom for “a human body� i.e. a human being. Your assertion, that it is an idiom for “mankind� makes absolutely no sense if we substitute your ‘idiom’ in 1Cor 15:50 “Now this I say, brethren, that mankind cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
According to your version therefore, Paul effectively writes off all of humanity!

Correct. Man is not compatible for the heavenly realms in his current state of corruptibility. He must be changed to be like Christ, glorious and powerful.

�For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.� – Philippians 3:21

Compare this to the concept of change found in 1 Cor 15:51-52 which will take place at “the last trumpet� (i.e. end time resurrection).

�Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed�

However, if instead we substitute “human body� we get: “Now this I say, brethren, that a human body cannot inherit the kingdom of God.�

And if we slot in “human body� for “flesh and blood� elsewhere it becomes problematic.

“And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because [a human body – literally flesh] did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.� - Matthew 16:17

Does this make more sense as “man,� as in mankind, or “human body� as in literal flesh? Did Jesus believe things were sometimes revealed through the flesh of a human body?

�to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with [a human body – literally flesh], nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me� – Galatians 1:16-17

Does this make more sense as “man,� as in mankind, or “human body� as in literal flesh? Did Paul sometimes talk to the flesh of human bodies?

�For our struggle is not against [a human body – literally flesh], but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.� – Ephesians 6:12

Does this make more sense as “man,� as in mankind, or “human body� as in literal flesh?

Why did Paul choose to use the idiom, “flesh and blood,� that apparently had greater conations than simply the literal flesh? Whatever Paul may have meant by “flesh and blood� he obviously didn’t simply mean the literal flesh on our bodies and the blood in our veins.

Earlier, Paul makes a clear distinction between the natural (psychic), corruptible body (σῶμα ψυχικόν) which is buried, and the spiritual (pneumatic) in-corruptible body (σῶμα πνευματικόν) which is resurrected. (1Cor.15:44ff); ψυχικός psuchikos pertains to the life of the natural world and whatever belongs to it, in contrast to the realm of experience whose central characteristic is pneuma (πνεῦμα) i.e. spirit.

Elsewhere, only a few verses earlier, Paul speaks of his own spirit (pneuma).

�For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit (pneuma) prays, but my mind is unfruitful.� – 1 Cor 14:14

If Paul meant we are raised as a spirit why didn’t he just say that? Why didn’t Paul simply say, �it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirit (pneuma)�?

But Paul doesn't say that. He carefully qualifies his remarks in at 15:44 when he says:

�it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body (sōma).�

That is, the body which is raised is spiritual, not a spirit. In other words, the raised body is now spiritually oriented as opposed to its previous state of being naturally oriented. Consider, 1 Cor 2:14-15:

�But a natural (psuchikos) man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual (pneumatikos) appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.�

These are the very same words and the same type of contrast as we find in 1 Cor 15:44.

�it is sown a natural (psuchikos) body, it is raised a spiritual (pneumatikos) body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.�

The contrast isn’t between a human body and a spirit. The contrast Paul is making in both verses is between being spiritually oriented vs. naturally oriented.

If anyone’s interpretation is strained it is yours.
In order to answer his rhetorical question in 1 Corinthians 15:35 ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔ�χονται; (poi� de s�matai erchontai) with what body [are the dead after resurrection going to come?], Paul speaks of bodies of plants (vs. 37f), which are different in kind from the ‘body’ of the seed which is planted. This concept was prevalent at the time – Maximus Tyrius. 40, 60e makes a distinction between the s�mata of plants, which grow old and pass away, and their spermata which endure. – s�mata of plants also in Apollonius Paradoxographus 7 [after Aristotle].
So Paul clearly does not see the pre and post resurrection bodies as being continuous, but different in kind, the former physical, the latter spiritual (1 Cor 15:44)

Even with a rudimentary understanding of agriculture the ancients recognized that there was continuation between a seed and the plant that emerged.

Firstly you should substantiate your wildly inaccurate claim regarding the “many other places where Paul is quite clear Jesus was resurrected bodily�.

No problem.

Egeiro – to awaken or cause to rise up

Romans 4:24-25
24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

Romans 6:4
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:9
9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again ; death no longer is master over Him.

Romans 7:4
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

Romans 8:11
11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Romans 8:34
34 who is the one who condemns ? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Romans 10:9
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved ;

1 Corinthians 15:12-13
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead ? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised ;

2 Corinthians 5:15
15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead

Ephesians 1:20
20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,

Colossians 2:12
having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

1 Thessalonians 1:10
and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.

2 Timothy 2:8
Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel,

Anastasis – to rise from the dead.

Not a reference to Jesus but as a context control Ephesians 5:14

14 For this reason it says, "Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you."

Romans 1:4
4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Romans 6:5
5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,

1 Corinthians 15:42
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;

Philippians 3:10
that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death

The context of these references are quite plainly to a returning to life from the state of death. How on earth you could interpret these to be references to a spiritual resurrection is beyond me.

Secondly, you are deliberately confusing what Paul actually wrote with what you would like him to say on the basis of preconceptions of what Pharisees in general believed. This argument is flawed as it presupposes that all Paul’s beliefs post conversion were identical to his pre conversion beliefs.

It’s not a presupposition, it’s an inference. There’s a difference.

�But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.� – Philippians 3:7-11

Even though Paul counts all things as rubbish in comparison to gaining Christ he still wished to take part in Pharisaical belief in the general resurrection of the dead, which was a physical one.

I had hoped we could deal with the primary evidence, that provided by Paul and ‘Peter’ before examining what is at best secondary, and contradictory evidence in the gospels/acts. I shall deal with your other ‘proofs’ presently.

Since you’ve introduced other writers as a lens for interpreting Paul’s use of the seed analogy I don’t see how you can now outright discount Luke’s testimony, especially considering Luke was a companion of Paul. Seems to be a double standard at play here.

[no evidence no belief]

Quiet frankly this line of argumentation is absurd. To Paul, the resurrection of believers would be the same as that of Jesus as he [Paul] makes patently clear:

1Cor 15:12 . “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised�.

See also 1 Cor 15:20 “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep�

So, nowhere does Paul differentiate between the nature of the resurrected other than Jesus was the first.

The easiest explanation is that Paul understood Jesus to be the first to be raised from the dead or “first fruit� of the general resurrection. That was his belief filtered through the Pharisaical doctrine of the end time general resurrection of the dead, which was a physical one. This is the proverbial nail in the coffin of your argument.

The overwhelming evidence is that “flesh and blood� was used an idiom for “a human body� i.e. a human being. Your assertion, that it is an idiom for “mankind� makes absolutely no sense if we substitute your ‘idiom’ in 1Cor 15:50 “Now this I say, brethren, that mankind cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
According to your version therefore, Paul effectively writes off all of humanity!

Correct. Man is not compatible for the heavenly realms in his current state of corruptibility. He must be changed to be like Christ, glorious and powerful.

�For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.� – Philippians 3:21

Compare this to the concept of change found in 1 Cor 15:51-52 which will take place at “the last trumpet� (i.e. end time resurrection).

�Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed�

However, if instead we substitute “human body� we get: “Now this I say, brethren, that a human body cannot inherit the kingdom of God.�

And if we slot in “human body� for “flesh and blood� elsewhere it becomes problematic.

“And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because [a human body – literally flesh] did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.� - Matthew 16:17

Does this make more sense as “man,� as in mankind, or “human body� as in literal flesh? Did Jesus believe things were sometimes revealed through the flesh of a human body?

�to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with [a human body – literally flesh], nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me� – Galatians 1:16-17

Does this make more sense as “man,� as in mankind, or “human body� as in literal flesh? Did Paul sometimes talk to the flesh of human bodies?

�For our struggle is not against [a human body – literally flesh], but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.� – Ephesians 6:12

Does this make more sense as “man,� as in mankind, or “human body� as in literal flesh?

Why did Paul choose to use the idiom, “flesh and blood,� that apparently had greater conations than simply the literal flesh? Whatever Paul may have meant by “flesh and blood� he obviously didn’t simply mean the literal flesh on our bodies and the blood in our veins.

Earlier, Paul makes a clear distinction between the natural (psychic), corruptible body (σῶμα ψυχικόν) which is buried, and the spiritual (pneumatic) in-corruptible body (σῶμα πνευματικόν) which is resurrected. (1Cor.15:44ff); ψυχικός psuchikos pertains to the life of the natural world and whatever belongs to it, in contrast to the realm of experience whose central characteristic is pneuma (πνεῦμα) i.e. spirit.

Elsewhere, only a few verses earlier, Paul speaks of his own spirit (pneuma).

�For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit (pneuma) prays, but my mind is unfruitful.� – 1 Cor 14:14

If Paul meant we are raised as a spirit why didn’t he just say that? Why didn’t Paul simply say, �it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirit (pneuma)�?

But Paul doesn't say that. He carefully qualifies his remarks in at 15:44 when he says:

�it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body (sōma).�

That is, the body which is raised is spiritual, not a spirit. In other words, the raised body is now spiritually oriented as opposed to its previous state of being naturally oriented. Consider, 1 Cor 2:14-15:

I really appreciate how you guys might find literary analysis interesting and stimulating, but could you take it elsewhere if you're not here to actually debate evidence?

I mean, this is really really silly.

This is a thread in which I clearly ask for evidence of the supernatural.

You keep talking in detail about the resurrection, but you refuse to tell me whether you consider it a supernatural event!

Was the resurrection supernatural or not? Jesus Christ! Why would you not answer such a simple question?

If it wasn't supernatural, then why are you talking about it on a thread about the supernautral?

If it was supernatural, can you give some evidence for it? (Paul's post-seizure ramblings obviously don't count).

[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).

Many theists, such as myself, do have evidence that God exists. The problem is, it is not the sort of evidence that an atheist can easily accept. In fact, it is an evidence that is restricted to believers. God provides evidence of Himself to those who love Him. Thus, it is wrong for you to suggest that there is no evidence, because the truth is, there is no evidence for you. I know you'd love to clump God into the physical category, but you cannot. God is not a physical being. God is Spirit. He certainly can manifest Himself into physical things, but He is not a physical thing. Until you devise an apparatus to measure spiritual things, you are highly unlikely to find any evidence of God, until you begin to place at least some faith in Him.

So I remain religious because God has given me cause to remain faithful to Him. I will admit, when I first began to have faith in God, I did not have the sort of evidence that I have now. But when I looked around me, it seemed apparent to me that a god must exist. And when I sought Him, He found me. And now He blesses me with His presence. And for the believer, it is awesome and perfect evidence. What an awesome God who will make Himself evident to those who trust in Him, yet remain in obscurity to those who won't. I think it's a perfect plan. Ya gotta love people with an open mind. It takes an open mind to have faith in God, and I think that's one of the things God's looking for.

How can you say you have evidence when you admit it is not "open" to all?
That must be one of the silliest arguments anyone could ever write or offer.

It is clear that you do not understand the basic definition of evidence or faith.

Surely you can understand why one might suspect you were not arguing for faith, and are not now, but are instead merely wasting your correspondents' time and this thread's space trying to contradict your own faith by offering unfalsifiable evidence.

Until you can provide reason to accept that faith is a belief based on no evidence for it claims, otherwise not, I bid you good night, son.

[otseng]

Jesus Christ! Why would you not answer such a simple question?

Moderator Comment

Please avoid using religious language as an expletive.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.