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?

[Goat]

I like the way Peter Kreeft deals with this:

. . . Suppose our best and most honest reflection on the nature of things led us to see the material universe as self-sufficient and uncaused; to see its form as the result of random motions, devoid of any plan or purpose. Would you then be impressed by reading in an ancient book that there exists a God of love, or that the heavens proclaim his glory? Would you be disposed to take that message seriously? More likely you would excuse yourself from taking seriously anything claimed as a communication from the Creator. As one person put it: I cannot believe that we are children of God, because I cannot believe there is anyone to do the adopting.

It is this sort of cramped and constricted horizon that the proofs presented in this chapter are trying to expand. They are attempts to confront us with the radical insufficiency of what is finite and limited, and to open minds to a level of being beyond it. If they succeed in this—and we can say from experience that some of the proofs do succeed with many people—they can be of very great value indeed.

The Argument from Change
The Argument from Efficient Causality
The Argument from Time and Contingency
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
The Design Argument
The Kalam Argument
The Argument from Contingency
The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
The Argument from Miracles
The Argument from Consciousness
The Argument from Truth
The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
The Ontological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Conscience
The Argument from Desire
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
The Argument from Religious Experience
The Common Consent Argument
Pascal's Wager



-http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/ ... stence.htm

Of course, one thing that it seems many people can not understand, arguments are not evidence. And, by the way, each one of those arguments are highly flawed, they have been discussed on various threads over and over again.

In general, they start with an unprovable assumption, go through a line of reasoning that is untenable, and then come to a conclusion that is predetermined
by the personal belief, rather than have anything to do with , well, verifiable facts.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to 99percentatheism]

It would be just as easy to make this charge against materialists/atheists. You know things are true to you because you all reinforce each other constantly.

One certainly might make the case that non believers reinforce each other on this forum I suppose. But since there is not now nor has there ever been a church of atheism for atheists to congregate at for the purpose of inventing and establishing atheistic truism and traditions, your argument falls completely flat. I first reached the conclusion that I was an atheist when I was about 13 years old, back in the early sixties. It was years before I met my first other avowed atheist. I could only dream of having intellectual atheistic reinforcement back then. Being all alone never served to alter my conclusions however

[no evidence no belief]

This is the "everyone knows it's true" argument which is essentially the heart and soul of Christian assumptions and Christian beliefs. Because this is what Christians tell each other is true based on what they know must be true, and so declare to BE true according to common consent among themselves.

It would be just as easy to make this charge against materialists/atheists. You know things are true to you because you all reinforce each other constantly.

The problem is not when a belief is reinforced by the fact that many around you believe it as well.

The problem is when this social reinforcement is the only reason for believing something. Or is only coupled by equally weak reasons for believing something.

Part of the reason I am comfortable with the belief that the earth is a globe is indeed that everybody believes it as well.

But at the core of my belief that the earth is a globe is measurable, empirical data. I personally tested the belief.

That's the key difference between most secular beliefs (which you and I both hold) and supernatural beliefs (which only you hold).

[Star]

It would be just as easy to make this charge against materialists/atheists. You know things are true to you because you all reinforce each other constantly.

Is this how you perceive science, a sort of groupthink that uses circular logic?

[no evidence no belief]

It would be just as easy to make this charge against materialists/atheists. You know things are true to you because you all reinforce each other constantly.

Is this how you perceive science, a sort of groupthink that uses circular logic?

I know, right? A groupthink that uses circular logic.... to land unmanned vehicles on Mars and perform heart transplants

[no evidence no belief]

The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?

No, it would not. I'm familiar with the moral argument, and it's rubbish.

It goes something like this:

1) Primates and other animals seem to exhibit restraint in actions that cause harm to others.
2) baseless assertion
3) argument from ignorance
4) random faith statement
5) unfalsifiable claim
6) Therefore donkeys can talk and zombies are real

LOL based on all this nonsense it seems that you are NOT familiar with the moral argument. Your ridiculous caricature is rubbish.

The moral argument has been subject to much scrutiny and a lot of philosophical scholarship and your response does not address any of the relevant issues regarding the argument. All you have done so far is regurgitate ad nauseum 'I want proof for talking donkeys and farting fairies.' Guess what, this subforum is for debating Christianity and Christianity does not claim that donkeys talk and fairies fart. You should try to gain a genuine understanding of what Christianity is and maybe it would clear up a lot of this confusion about talking donkeys and farting fairies.

The basic claims that are central to Christianity are that a theistic God exists and that Jesus was God incarnate. You have many Christians in this thread presenting historical evidence and philosophical arguments for these claims and, in response, you simply dismiss all this by providing cartoonish caricatures of the arguments and evidence. How is this productive?

So you agree the silliness in Numbers 22:
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.

And the talking serpent in Genesis are pure mythology and have nothing to do with the basic claims that are central to Christianity?

Yup, pretty much. I don't believe that the donkey talked, or that there was an actual serpent in an actual garden of Eden with only two actual people. I do believe that miracles have and do occur, but many of the stories in the Old Testament don't make sense when taken literally. Much of the content within the Old Testament seems to be scientifically invalid, and I try to go where the evidence leads.

You stated that you go where the evidence leads and that you believe that miracles have occurred, and you are active on a thread requesting evidence for the supernatural.

So, are you going to give us an example of a supernatural that you believe happened, and the evidence that, quote, "leads" you to this belief?

Thank you

[no evidence no belief]

The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?

No, it would not. I'm familiar with the moral argument, and it's rubbish.

It goes something like this:

1) Primates and other animals seem to exhibit restraint in actions that cause harm to others.
2) baseless assertion
3) argument from ignorance
4) random faith statement
5) unfalsifiable claim
6) Therefore donkeys can talk and zombies are real

LOL based on all this nonsense it seems that you are NOT familiar with the moral argument. Your ridiculous caricature is rubbish.

The moral argument has been subject to much scrutiny and a lot of philosophical scholarship and your response does not address any of the relevant issues regarding the argument. All you have done so far is regurgitate ad nauseum 'I want proof for talking donkeys and farting fairies.' Guess what, this subforum is for debating Christianity and Christianity does not claim that donkeys talk and fairies fart. You should try to gain a genuine understanding of what Christianity is and maybe it would clear up a lot of this confusion about talking donkeys and farting fairies.

The basic claims that are central to Christianity are that a theistic God exists and that Jesus was God incarnate. You have many Christians in this thread presenting historical evidence and philosophical arguments for these claims and, in response, you simply dismiss all this by providing cartoonish caricatures of the arguments and evidence. How is this productive?

So you agree the silliness in Numbers 22:
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.

And the talking serpent in Genesis are pure mythology and have nothing to do with the basic claims that are central to Christianity?

Yup, pretty much. I don't believe that the donkey talked, or that there was an actual serpent in an actual garden of Eden with only two actual people. I do believe that miracles have and do occur, but many of the stories in the Old Testament don't make sense when taken literally. Much of the content within the Old Testament seems to be scientifically invalid, and I try to go where the evidence leads.

You stated that you go where the evidence leads and that you believe that miracles have occurred, and you are active on a thread requesting evidence for the supernatural.

So, are you going to give us an example of a supernatural that you believe happened, and the evidence that, quote, "leads" you to this belief?

Thank you

You also said that you disbelieve in much of the content of the OT because it seems to be, quote, "scientifically invalid".

Could you please present a claim in the NT which seems scientifically valid?

The maggot-infested brain-dead and heart-dead decomposing carcass coming back to life and floating into the sky?

[Goose]

[Goose]

[help3434]

[Replying to post 1724 by Goose]

What does Ehrman say about Gallic Wars?