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?

[scourge99]

NENB:Ah ah! Got you! Argument from ignorance! I haven't seen somebody make that mistake in a while!


assisigirl:I have, it was you Stan!

Still no donkey evidence.

In deference to the oncoming festive season I have decided to lower the evidence bar. Any of the following are now acceptable.

1.A picture of you NENB riding a donkey.
2.An ancestral connection of any sort (to Balaam of course)
3.A faxed receipt corresponding to a donation to any 'Donkey Sanctuary'.

Happy Christmas

Your responses are never intelligible to me.

Do you take the time to make them that way? Is English not your primary language? Or are your thoughts and ideas as confused and scattered as your posts?

[no evidence no belief]

Well it's clear you have an anti supernatural bias otherwise supernatural events wouldn't be extraordinary to you.

You also have a bias against personal testimony. It's obvious that the best and most reasonable explanation for the testimony in the bible is that its true! The same is true for Near Death Experiences!

I have yet to meet a Christian who accepts both the virgin birth that we read in Matthew and the conception of Cesare Augustus by the God Apollo that we read in Suetonius. They generally also reject the miracle stories of Muhammad, Buddha and other religious figures.

Well that's because the supernaturalism of Christianity has strong evidence and testimony in its favor while other supernatural claims do not. Its uniquely testified by several witnesses and independent historians.

Hey Scourge. I'm sorry, I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic earlier, and so didn't offer a serious reply to your post.

But I guess you're serious. Ok.

Can you please list all the evidence you have of a supernatural claim of your choice, other than people claiming that they saw it happen?

Evidence 1: _________________________________

Evidence 2: _________________________________

Evidence 3: _________________________________

Again, I'm looking for evidence of supernatural claims other than personal testimony.

If all you have is personal testimony, that's ok. We can talk about that specifically. Just need us to be clear.

It is certainly not obvious that the best and most reasonable explanation for the testimony in the New Testament is that it is true. That is why we debate it.

Everything is debatable. Philosophers and scientists debate the meaning and implications of the facts. But Christianity is the best explanation of the facts.

Wait, so in your opinion the best explanation for the fact that somebody wrote down that they heard a donkey talk, is that donkeys can actually talk?

Lots of historians agree.

Please name three historians who are not evangelical apologists who agree with you, and I will send you $1000 by paypal.

[no evidence no belief]

NENB:Ah ah! Got you! Argument from ignorance! I haven't seen somebody make that mistake in a while!


assisigirl:I have, it was you Stan!

Still no donkey evidence.

In deference to the oncoming festive season I have decided to lower the evidence bar. Any of the following are now acceptable.

1.A picture of you NENB riding a donkey.
2.An ancestral connection of any sort (to Balaam of course)
3.A faxed receipt corresponding to a donation to any 'Donkey Sanctuary'.

Happy Christmas

Your responses are never intelligible to me.

Do you take the time to make them that way? Is English not your primary language? Or are your thoughts and ideas as confused and scattered as your posts?

I am confused myself. Are you serious in your posts defending Christianity or are you being sarcastic?

If you're being sarcastic, it's totally ok. Just let me know, so I don't waste time responding. I'm honestly not sure. I thought you were being for real, but then I noticed your signature. Please advise

[scourge99]

Hey Scourge. I'm sorry, I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic earlier, and so didn't offer a serious reply to your post.

But I guess you're serious. Ok.

I'm bored. There hasn't been a decent poster defending Christianity on this forum for a while. Just biblical literalists, the science deniers, the uneducated and obscurantists.

I figured i can make a more reasonable argument than what's been attempted by the Christians so far. Though i have been a bit sarcastic.

Can you please list all the evidence you have of a supernatural claim of your choice, other than people claiming that they saw it happen?

Assume that Jesus did in fact resurrect. What could be provided that would ever satisfy your desire for hard evidence? E. G., If we had the spear that pierced jesus it wouldn't prove he resurrected. If we had the cross, or his clothes, or access to the tomb it wouldn't either.

There is no physical evidence that can provide undeniable proof of an unprecedented event.

Just as no amount of evidence can prove undeniably that Caesar was assassinated. There is always wiggle room for alternative explanations.

What is put forth though is that a resurrected jesus is the best explanation for the circumstances and evidence. Just as Caesars assassination is the best explanation for the circumstances and evidence.

There is no absolute proof available as you demand.

Again, I'm looking for evidence of supernatural claims other than personal testimony.

What's wrong with testimony?

Do you reject the testimony of historians writing about Caesars assassination because its testimony? Or do you have some magical video of him getting assassinated that proves it to you?
Were you an eyewitness?

It seems you rely on testimony of historians for all sorts of beliefs about history. Why then are you biased against one's that support the Christian narrative?

If all you have is personal testimony, that's ok. We can talk about that specifically. Just need us to be clear.

There are prophecies, changed lives, the holy spirit, answered prayers, the success of Christians worldwide, etc, that all point to the truth of Christianity. None of them in and of themselves proves Christianity true. Just as no individual fossil or groups of fossils prove evolution. They are all clues pointing to the truth.

It is certainly not obvious that the best and most reasonable explanation for the testimony in the New Testament is that it is true. That is why we debate it.

Everything is debatable. Philosophers and scientists debate the meaning and implications of the facts. But Christianity is the best explanation of the facts.

Wait, so in your opinion the best explanation for the fact that somebody wrote down that they heard a donkey talk, is that donkeys can actually talk?

We were focused on the resurrection and you've done a bait and switch by changing to talking donkeys.

Each claim must be assessed on its own merits and context.

Lets stay focused on the resurrection.

Lots of historians agree.

Please name three historians who are not evangelical apologists who agree with you, and I will send you $1000 by paypal.

If a historian comes to the conclusion that Jesus did resurrect then how would he not be a Christian? Isn't it unreasonable to suggest that a historian who is convinced of these things by careful analysis and research wouldn't be a Christian or have become one?

[Star]

Star:Maybe if you articulated your point of view more effectively, you'd have better luck.


assisigirl: Let me get this on tape, Star, if I was a better writer, NENB would be more likely to answer a simple question. Is it not more likely that the answer is, in fact D'oh and that the OP is a nonsense.

Yes, if you were a better writer, maybe.

I'm serious. I can't make sense of your posts, so it's fully possible NENB can't either.

You seem to be asking him what he knew of the talking donkey before writing the OP? He knew what scripture said. Isn't that enough? He's not making a claim that there was a talking donkey, so he needn't be an expert on the subject. Seems like you're trying to shift the burden of evidence to him. If you're a non-believer yourself, why do you do it?

[Danmark]

Hey Scourge. I'm sorry, I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic earlier, and so didn't offer a serious reply to your post.

But I guess you're serious. Ok.

I'm bored. There hasn't been a decent poster defending Christianity on this forum for a while. Just biblical literalists, the science deniers, the uneducated and obscurantists.

I figured i can make a more reasonable argument than what's been attempted by the Christians so far. Though i have been a bit sarcastic.

Can you please list all the evidence you have of a supernatural claim of your choice, other than people claiming that they saw it happen?

Assume that Jesus did in fact resurrect. What could be provided that would ever satisfy your desire for hard evidence? E. G., If we had the spear that pierced jesus it wouldn't prove he resurrected. If we had the cross, or his clothes, or access to the tomb it wouldn't either.

There is no physical evidence that can provide undeniable proof of an unprecedented event.

Just as no amount of evidence can prove undeniably that Caesar was assassinated. There is always wiggle room for alternative explanations.

What is put forth though is that a resurrected jesus is the best explanation for the circumstances and evidence. Just as Caesars assassination is the best explanation for the circumstances and evidence.

There is no absolute proof available as you demand.

Again, I'm looking for evidence of supernatural claims other than personal testimony.

What's wrong with testimony?

Do you reject the testimony of historians writing about Caesars assassination because its testimony? Or do you have some magical video of him getting assassinated that proves it to you?
Were you an eyewitness?

It seems you rely on testimony of historians for all sorts of beliefs about history. Why then are you biased against one's that support the Christian narrative?

If all you have is personal testimony, that's ok. We can talk about that specifically. Just need us to be clear.

There are prophecies, changed lives, the holy spirit, answered prayers, the success of Christians worldwide, etc, that all point to the truth of Christianity. None of them in and of themselves proves Christianity true. Just as no individual fossil or groups of fossils prove evolution. They are all clues pointing to the truth.

It is certainly not obvious that the best and most reasonable explanation for the testimony in the New Testament is that it is true. That is why we debate it.

Everything is debatable. Philosophers and scientists debate the meaning and implications of the facts. But Christianity is the best explanation of the facts.

Wait, so in your opinion the best explanation for the fact that somebody wrote down that they heard a donkey talk, is that donkeys can actually talk?

We were focused on the resurrection and you've done a bait and switch by changing to talking donkeys.

Each claim must be assessed on its own merits and context.

Lets stay focused on the resurrection.

Lots of historians agree.

Please name three historians who are not evangelical apologists who agree with you, and I will send you $1000 by paypal.

If a historian comes to the conclusion that Jesus did resurrect then how would he not be a Christian? Isn't it unreasonable to suggest that a historian who is convinced of these things by careful analysis and research wouldn't be a Christian or have become one?

You ask a good question, 'What evidence would you expect if there really were a resurrection?'
First I would expect that accounts of it would have been written right away, not 20 or 30 years of gossiping. I would expect those accounts to have been written in the language of the people who witnessed them. I would expect that some of 'the 500' would be named and would have written first hand accounts.

I would expect the 2d coming about 2000 years ago.
I would expect that when Jesus said greater miracles, such as moving mountains, would have taken place; that if anything were asked in his name it would have happened. There's a very long list of what we would expect if any of this were true. I would expect that this fantastic religious story would be special and better supported than it is and better supported than any of the thousand other religious myths that have accompanied man's fear of reality and flight of fancy to escape this mortal coil.

[no evidence no belief]

Star:Maybe if you articulated your point of view more effectively, you'd have better luck.


assisigirl: Let me get this on tape, Star, if I was a better writer, NENB would be more likely to answer a simple question. Is it not more likely that the answer is, in fact D'oh and that the OP is a nonsense.

Yes, if you were a better writer, maybe.

I'm serious. I can't make sense of your posts, so it's fully possible NENB can't either.

Yup. I have no idea what this person is saying.

She is asking if I knew about a Bible passage before writing this post, and feels that whether my OP makes sense at all is contingent on my answering that question.

At least I think that's what the argument is. It could easily be the opposite, or it could be that she is just stringing together words with no further motive than to create a grammatically correct sequence of meaningless words, like "The crawling rainbow emptied the gravitational apple into the white and interesting anecdote".

Truly, no clue.

[no evidence no belief]

Hey Scourge. I'm sorry, I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic earlier, and so didn't offer a serious reply to your post.

But I guess you're serious. Ok.

I'm bored. There hasn't been a decent poster defending Christianity on this forum for a while. Just biblical literalists, the science deniers, the uneducated and obscurantists.

I figured i can make a more reasonable argument than what's been attempted by the Christians so far. Though i have been a bit sarcastic.

That's cool. I'm ok with debating anything you bring up on its own merits for the sake of debate, irrespective of what your personal beliefs on the topic are.

Can you please list all the evidence you have of a supernatural claim of your choice, other than people claiming that they saw it happen?

There is no absolute proof available as you demand.

Ok, if you start putting words into my mouth, I will get tired of debating you very quickly.

As I said I don't mind debating you irrespective of your personal beliefs, but I need to know you're taking this seriously, otherwise I will not waste my time.

Please confirm that you understand that I am not asking for "absolute proof" of anything. I am just asking for evidence.

I need you to write "I understand that NENB is asking for evidence, not for absolute proof, and that the two are completely different".

Assume that Jesus did in fact resurrect. What could be provided that would ever satisfy your desire for hard evidence?

I don't know. Provide all the evidence you have, and we can analyze in detail and determine whether it's reasonable to believe in flying corpses on its basis.

E. G., If we had the spear that pierced jesus it wouldn't prove he resurrected. If we had the cross, or his clothes, or access to the tomb it wouldn't either.

True. You are admitting that it will be very very hard to demonstrate that 2000 years ago the corpse of a carpenter came back to life and then flew into the sky.

What's your point? Are you saying that it's impossible for you to provide good evidence, therefore we should believe it based on bad evidence?

There is no physical evidence that can provide undeniable proof of an unprecedented event.

I am not asking for undeniable proof. This will be the last post I reply to, if your next one doesn't clearly state that you understand the difference between evidence and undeniable proof.

Just as no amount of evidence can prove undeniably that Caesar was assassinated.

The amount of evidence for Caesar's assassination is sufficient to meet the burden of proof for the claim that he was assassinated.

There is always wiggle room for alternative explanations.

Sure. I am not asking for undeniable proof. Just sufficient evidence to show that corpses flying in the air are more likely than people making up stories about corpses flying in the air.

What is put forth though is that a resurrected jesus is the best explanation for the circumstances and evidence. Just as Caesars assassination is the best explanation for the circumstances and evidence.

I understand that this is what you're trying to put forth. But you're wrong.

The available evidence for Caesar's assassination is sufficient to determine that the best explanation is that Caesar was assassinated.

The available evidence for Jesus's "resurrection" is NOT sufficient to determine that a maggot-infested decomposing corpse came back to life and flew into the sky.

Again, I'm looking for evidence of supernatural claims other than personal testimony.

What's wrong with testimony?

Do you reject the testimony of historians writing about Caesars assassination because its testimony? Or do you have some magical video of him getting assassinated that proves it to you?
Were you an eyewitness?

It seems you rely on testimony of historians for all sorts of beliefs about history. Why then are you biased against one's that support the Christian narrative?

Ok, let me explain this slowly.

If you tell me "I saw a guy called Steve stare at a brick", that counts as eyewitness testimony.

I would consider it sufficient to believe that what you claim happened, happened.

If you tell me "I saw a guy called Steve stare at a brick and then the brick started hovering a few inches in the air. Steve did this through his supernatural ability to move objects with his mind", that would count as eyewitness testimony.

I would NOT consider it sufficient to believe that what you claim happened, happened.

Do you agree or disagree that whether the same amount of evidence (eyewitness testimony) is sufficient to establish whether a claim is true, depends on the nature of the claim?

Do you agree that a person swearing he saw a pig and a person swearing that he saw a flying pig are different? Somebody saying that he saw a pig is possibly sufficient to establish that there was a pig. Somebody saying he saw a flying pig is definitely not sufficient to establish that there actually was a flying pig.

Lets make a detailed comparison of two relevant eyewitness testimonies you mentioned:

Testimony 1 (caesar's assassination): I saw a guy get stabbed to death

Testimony 2 (Jesus's resurrection): I saw a guy get nailed through hands and feet, stabbed in the heart, bleed to death, dumped in a tomb. Once in a tomb, this brain-dead and heart-dead cadaver started a process of decomposition: Its lungs collapsed, it's liver, kidneys, intestine, stomach and all other vital organs failed. Whatever blood was left in its veins after massive blood loss, clotted completely inside veins and arteries. The bacteria in the intestine started producing methane, bloating or even bursting the belly. The pancreas started digesting itself, causing green goo to ooze out of the carcass's mouth, nose and anus. While bacteria and enzymes were eating the body from within, flies laid thousands of eggs over the open wounds, which hatched into maggots which started borrowing into the flesh and eating it from the outside in. After 3 days of this, this cadaver came back to life. The brain went from a bloodless lump of dead flesh, back to a perfectly functioning operating system, with all cognitive abilities, memories, etc, fully intact. The blood unclotted itself, and started feeding nutrient to denatured and decomposed cells thanks to the pumping of a decomposed and dead heart. This fully restored slab of maggot-infested putrid meat strolled into town, chatted with me, and then I saw him fly into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

Can you see why I might tentatively believe Testimony 1, but would disbelieve testimony 2?

Both are eyewitness testimony. The evidence in favor of both claims is the same. The evidence against each claim is very different.

Caesar's assassination.
Evidence in favor: Eyewitness testimony.
Evidence against: Pretty much nothing. There is no conflicting evidence

Jesus's resurrection:
Evidence in favor: Eyewitness testimony.
Evidence against: EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT MEDICINE, BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS.

Do you understand?

If not, consider this scenario:
Miami Heat scored 46 points. This was sufficient for them to win the game against the Knicks.
Chicago bulls scored 46 points. This was NOT sufficient for them to win the game against the Celtics.

You might say "The two teams scored the same points, why is it that one team won but the other lost"? It's because you have to match what each team scored, against what the opposing team scored.

If Miami Heat scored 46 and the opposing team scored 12, then they won.

If Chicago Bulls scored 46 and the opposing team scored 380, then they lost.

If the evidence for Caesar's assassination is eyewitness testimony, and opposing evidence is very little, then Ceasar's assassination is believable.

If the evidence for Jesus's resurrection is eyewitness testimony, and opposing evidence is overwhelmingly strong physical empirical evidence, then Jesus's resurrection is not believable.

If all you have is personal testimony, that's ok. We can talk about that specifically. Just need us to be clear.

There are prophecies

Name one

changed lives

Scientology claims those as well.t

the holy spirit

No idea what you mean by this

, answered prayers

Studies show prayer has zero statistical significance in obtaining what desired

the success of Christians worldwide

No greater success than Islam, Scientology and others, when it comes to rate of initial growth and other factors

, that all point to the truth of Christianity

None of them point to the truth of christianity. They are either false (prophecy, answered prayer), or meaningless (the holy spirit) or proof of Christianity being false (by virtue of contradicting faiths such as islam and scientology being correct) to an equal degree as Christianity being true (success, changed lives)

None of them in and of themselves proves Christianity true.

Each one is demonstrably false/meaningless/irrelevant. You could write me millions of checks for ZERO dollars, I would not get rich through that.

Just as no individual fossil or groups of fossils prove evolution.

No individual fossil proves evolution, but each individual fossil is tangible empirical physical evidence for evolution. As oppsoed to all the things you mentioned which not only are not proof, they don't even constitute evidence, in that they are demonstrably false/meaningless/irrelevant.

It is certainly not obvious that the best and most reasonable explanation for the testimony in the New Testament is that it is true. That is why we debate it.

Everything is debatable. Philosophers and scientists debate the meaning and implications of the facts. But Christianity is the best explanation of the facts.

Wait, so in your opinion the best explanation for the fact that somebody wrote down that they heard a donkey talk, is that donkeys can actually talk?

We were focused on the resurrection and you've done a bait and switch by changing to talking donkeys.

Each claim must be assessed on its own merits and context.

Lets stay focused on the resurrection.

Sure. Lets talk about decomposed maggot-infested corpses with completely failed organs and denatured enzymes in the brain, coming back to life and flying into the sky.

Are you saying that the best explanation for the fact that somebody wrote down that they saw a maggot infested putrefied cadaver come back to life and fly into the sky, is that maggot-infested putrefied cadavers can come back to life and fly into the sky?

Lots of historians agree.

Please name three historians who are not evangelical apologists who agree with you, and I will send you $1000 by paypal.

If a historian comes to the conclusion that Jesus did resurrect then how would he not be a Christian? Isn't it unreasonable to suggest that a historian who is convinced of these things by careful analysis and research wouldn't be a Christian or have become one?

Fair point.

I don't want to dwell on this too much, because it's close to becoming an argument from authority. But can you name 5 reputable historians who are currently teaching at reputable secular universities, who claim that their belief in the resurrection is based on careful analysis of the historical data, and an unbiased application of the historical method to available evidence?

Would you like to play a game where you name 5 such historians, and then I name 5 historians with equal credentials who disagree, then you name 5 more from your camp, and I name 5 more from my camp, and the first person to run out of names gives the other $1000?

[assisigirl]

Star:
'You seem to be asking him what he knew of the talking donkey before writing the OP? 'Yes

He knew what scripture said. Isn't that enough? He's not making a claim that there was a talking donkey, so he needn't be an expert on the subject.(No Proof, so no)

Seems like you're trying to shift the burden of evidence to him.(Yes)

If you're a non-believer yourself, why do you do it? (I will tell you why)

NENB:
'She is asking if I knew about a Bible passage before writing this post, and feels that whether my OP makes sense at all is contingent on my answering that question'.( Yes )

[assisigirl]

This is a case of giving a guy 'a dose of his own medicine' There can be many unpredictable and beneficial spin-offs from such an exercise. i think NENB can 'take it'.

NENB, has used the melodramatic backdrop of the courtroom many times during this thread. It affords him the ideal opportunity to postulate and prevaricate regarding the 'supernatural'.

NENB: Has been accused by many subscribers on this thread of 'acting in bad faith'

Let's examine the facts.

NENB, did wilfully choose an exact, identifiable unique creature, ie the 'talking' donkey of Numbers
NENB had no provable prior knowledge of the afore mentioned creature.
NENB had to get the exact Numbers reference from the Bible (No evidence to the contrary)
NENB then did wilfully demand 'evidence' for the donkey while simultaneously declaring that his own source material would be 'inadmissible' as evidence'

Are we making new law here? ''Evidence for the inadmissible'' Can it be done NENB, ask your lawyer, Danmark. Is inadmissible evidence for the inadmissible a 'double negative' and if so is it logically 'admissible'. If it is then NENB is guilty of obstruction as charged. Simples.

There may be what they call 'mitigating circumstances' here, even a plea of diminished responsibility. Please, not a plea for leniency. I would suggest a few nights in the stocks.

ps Danmark, please use the phrase 'sub judice' in your summation (I just love the sound of it)