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 1634 by Goose]




You are avoiding my questions. Can you please address these:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 501#602501


I even made a more detailed explanation here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 774#603774


Why are you ignoring this?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1634 by Goose]




You are avoiding my questions. Can you please address these:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 501#602501


I even made a more detailed explanation here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 774#603774


Why are you ignoring this?

Isn't it obvious? It's because he doesn't have an answer!

He can't even tell us whether he claims the resurrection was supernatural, while debating on a thread about the supernatural!

He is backed into a corner. Honesty is not an option because it would require him to admit his belief system is flawed. Obfuscation and changing the subject will not work because we're calling him on it every time. His only option is silence.

Bye bye Goose.

[otseng]

Honesty is not an option because it would require him to admit his belief system is flawed. Obfuscation and changing the subject will not work because we're calling him on it every time. His only option is silence.

Bye bye Goose.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments of a personal nature. Also, do not make any comments on whether someone responds or not. There is no obligation from anybody to respond to any post in any particular time period.

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]

Honesty is not an option because it would require him to admit his belief system is flawed. Obfuscation and changing the subject will not work because we're calling him on it every time. His only option is silence.

Bye bye Goose.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments of a personal nature. Also, do not make any comments on whether someone responds or not. There is no obligation from anybody to respond to any post in any particular time period.

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.

Dear Goose,
I do not mean to put words in your mouth or to infer the reason for your silence.

I would just like to make it known that I would greatly appreciate it if you could simply specify if your position is that Jesus's resurrection violated the laws of physics or if your position is that it didn't. That's all.

Thank you, and have a good day.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to no evidence no belief]

Dear Goose,
I do not mean to put words in your mouth or to infer the reason for your silence.

I would just like to make it known that I would greatly appreciate it if you could simply specify if your position is that Jesus's resurrection violated the laws of physics or if your position is that it didn't. That's all.

Thank you, and have a good day.

Goose has abruptly ended the discussion he was having with me as well. Apparently when he doesn't like the way things are going he takes a hike. And I thought things were going so well between us, too! I was certainly making every effort to be all warm and chatty. I know that I was perfectly happy to match my response's to his, point for point. Like pointing out that Act's very clearly indicates that Paul went three days without drinking, which is the very definition of being dehydrated. And I provided medical references which indicate that severe dehydration typically causes confusion, semi-blindness and delirium, among other symptoms. The very symptoms attributed to Paul in Act's 9. Still, Goose referred to my conclusion that while ill and clearly suffering from dehydration Paul had simply hallucinated a vision of the years dead Jesus, as "horrible." Because what's obvious to Goose is that Paul actually had a conversation with a dead man. But Goose has chosen to end the discussion, so he will no longer have to suffer the indignity of seeing his lifetime of programming being so successfully, and rather effortlessly, impugned.

[olavisjo]

.

[Replying to post 1634 by Goose]
Why are you ignoring this?

Isn't it obvious? It's because he doesn't have an answer!

He can't even tell us whether he claims the resurrection was supernatural, while debating on a thread about the supernatural!

He is backed into a corner. Honesty is not an option because it would require him to admit his belief system is flawed. Obfuscation and changing the subject will not work because we're calling him on it every time. His only option is silence.

Bye bye Goose.

Should I assume that your silence means that you don't have an answer either.

I suspect that you don't understand the moral argument, and if you don't understand it, how can you say it is not evidence? So I asked you to explain to the forum how the moral argument works, but you were unable to do so. So if you don't understand the evidence how can you say it is not evidence? Here is the proof...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 880#573880

If you did respond to the post, I missed it, (not hard to do given how long this thread is) would you link to it?

[Goose]

Dear Goose,
I do not mean to put words in your mouth or to infer the reason for your silence.

Please don't assume my lack of response to you is because I can't.

I would just like to make it known that I would greatly appreciate it if you could simply specify if your position is that Jesus's resurrection violated the laws of physics or if your position is that it didn't. That's all.

I clarified my position to you way back on p. 127

I wrote:

"Now, what this essentially boils down to is whether or not the Christian is standing on strong enough historical evidence to justify the belief that our observation that usually dead people stay dead did not hold in the case of Jesus. Of course, I believe the Christian is standing on solid enough historical evidence – you no doubt disagree as you’ve stated."

But since you refuse to actually discuss the historical evidence we are at an impasse. Let me know when you are ready.

[scourge99]

Dear Goose,
I do not mean to put words in your mouth or to infer the reason for your silence.

Please don't assume my lack of response to you is because I can't.

I would just like to make it known that I would greatly appreciate it if you could simply specify if your position is that Jesus's resurrection violated the laws of physics or if your position is that it didn't. That's all.

I clarified my position to you way back on p. 127

I wrote:

"Now, what this essentially boils down to is whether or not the Christian is standing on strong enough historical evidence to justify the belief that our observation that usually dead people stay dead did not hold in the case of Jesus. Of course, I believe the Christian is standing on solid enough historical evidence – you no doubt disagree as you’ve stated."

But since you refuse to actually discuss the historical evidence we are at an impasse. Let me know when you are ready.

You seem to be dodging the question.

Is that a "yes" or "no" to the question: "Jesus' resurrection violated the laws of physics as we know them."

[Goose]

Goose has abruptly ended the discussion he was having with me as well. Apparently when he doesn't like the way things are going he takes a hike.

Oh, please. I gave you my reasons for ending our discussion here. And was trying to be polite about it.

Your arguments against the historical evidence amounted to essentially walls of cut and paste jobs from Wikipedia. That was bad enough but I thought to myself, "Oh well, what the heck, at least he's trying to argue against the evidence unlike others in this thread. So let's see where it goes." When those wiki arguments were countered by me you seemed to be at loss for what to do next since Wikipedia doesn't have a counter to my counter arguments. All you seemed to be able to do past that point was muster up some superficial complaints and cry foul. When you've got something a little more sophisticated than cut and pasts from Wikipedia and rants, do let me know. I'll be around.

[Goose]

You seem to be dodging the question.

Well that's priceless coming from the guy who's been dodging a discussion with me about the historical evidence for the resurrection for pages. Whenever you're ready.