What evidence do you have to offer?

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

.

There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking.

What evidence exactly?

ANY evidence more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture. What do you (generic term) have to offer?

Question for debate: What evidence of "gods" can be offered that is more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture?

[instantc]

... The holy books (and teachings) in essence certainly imply there should be.

I understand your idea, but I think you are making a pointless effort. It's quite clear that most things in the Bible cannot be literally true, but it could be 90% made up or metaphorical or whatever, and yet God could still exist. The resurrection of Jesus would, for example, leave the exact amount of evidence that we do have for it today. Suppose someone presents you the claim that there is a personal creator of the universe who raised Jesus from the dead, what evidence would you expect to find with regard to those claims?

[Zzyzx]

.

... The holy books (and teachings) in essence certainly imply there should be.

I understand your idea, but I think you are making a pointless effort. It's quite clear that most things in the Bible cannot be literally true, but it could be 90% made up or metaphorical or whatever, and yet God could still exist.

Yes, regardless what the bible says a god or God could exist.

However, when the bible is offered as evidence and it can be shown to be partially or primarily metaphorical or whatever, AND since the remaining parts CANNOT be shown to be anything more than additional metaphor, there is no sound reason to accept any of it as truthful and accurate.

Proponents of the bible as partially true have not supplied any means to determine which, if any, parts are truthful accounts of entities and events.

The resurrection of Jesus would, for example, leave the exact amount of evidence that we do have for it today.

True. There would likely be no evidence that such an event had occurred.

So, why would anyone claim to know that it had?

Suppose someone presents you the claim that there is a personal creator of the universe who raised Jesus from the dead, what evidence would you expect to find with regard to those claims?

I would expect to find NO evidence regarding such a claim.

Therefore I would regard it as just another of the thousands of unsupported claims made by promoters of thousands of proposed "gods." None of the promoters of "gods" have demonstrated that they have any knowledge of such things " only opinions, conjecture, testimonials, unverifiable stories.

Many (most) people choose to believe tales told by supporters of one of the proposed "gods"; however, the number of believers is no indication that the tales are true. Humans can be gullible enough to believe incredible tales that are unsupported by evidence " perhaps citing unverifiable, anonymous ancient writings as "proof."

Others require verifiable evidence / information upon which to make a reasoned decision regarding which, if any, of the "gods" to accept or worship.

[Korah]

Therefore I would regard it as just another of the thousands of unsupported claims made by promoters of thousands of proposed "gods." None of the promoters of "gods" have demonstrated that they have any knowledge of such things " only opinions, conjecture, testimonials, unverifiable stories.

We're still where we started on this thread. For those convinced of this, we might as well delve into said "unverified" opinions and stories as we were until a few days ago in the thread "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=140
Nobody has yet made a serious effort to address my Thesis of seven written eyewitness records to Jesus contained in the four gospels. (My text really starts at #59 and #62, but my third in the series was drawn in first at Post 43.)

Yet there may be something to explore on this thread itself. In 1970 I published the following attempt to prove God using Evolution and calculus:

A new proof of Gods existence is now possible by extrapolation of scientific progress to its implication that omniscience and omnipotence already exists in the universe. Starting from fundamental perspective on the situation, there is no reason that anything at all would exist in the universe, much less thinking beings. Yet here we humans are. The usual argument is that the universe and our thinking powers are derived from God. This is probably correct, but many say that all this occurred spontaneously. If so, then evolution to the present state of knowledge and power is possible, since it has occurred. E = mcc places almost infinite power in the hands of thinking beings. Continuing the present favorable situation for scientific research would soon lead to knowledge and over so great as to be virtually what is commonly understood as God. Since this development is occurring on Earth, it is possible elsewhere also. In the infinity and eternity of the universe, the probabilities by methods of calculus reduce to virtually zero that Earth is the first such evolution. Therefore, a Being we would call God already exists, even granting the unlikely premise that God is not the creator of the present universe. The premise is unlikely because the present Einsteinian universe, so exactly expressible in mathematical terms, is evidently mind-stuff organized in the form of physical objects by the physical laws set up by the creator.

[Zzyzx]

.

Therefore I would regard it as just another of the thousands of unsupported claims made by promoters of thousands of proposed "gods." None of the promoters of "gods" have demonstrated that they have any knowledge of such things " only opinions, conjecture, testimonials, unverifiable stories.

Nobody has yet made a serious effort to address my Thesis of seven written eyewitness records to Jesus contained in the four gospels.

Are you saying that your proposal has not generated response or found acceptance and adherents in the scholarly / theological communities in spite of forty years of promotion, or at several websites, or here?

Lack of response need not indicate lack of ability to address what you say -- it can also indicate that no one even takes it seriously.

Yet there may be something to explore on this thread itself. In 1970 I published the following attempt to prove God using Evolution and calculus:

A new proof of Gods existence is now possible by extrapolation of scientific progress to its implication that omniscience and omnipotence already exists in the universe.

Extrapolations of science by those who study theology often lack validity and supporting evidence.

Starting from fundamental perspective on the situation, there is no reason that anything at all would exist in the universe, much less thinking beings. Yet here we humans are.

The usual argument is that the universe and our thinking powers are derived from God. This is probably correct, but many say that all this occurred spontaneously.

One guess is as good as another.

The OP asks for evidence " not pontification, proposals, conjectures, opinions, guesses

If so, then evolution to the present state of knowledge and power is possible, since it has occurred. E = mcc places almost infinite power in the hands of thinking beings. Continuing the present favorable situation for scientific research would soon lead to knowledge and over so great as to be virtually what is commonly understood as God. Since this development is occurring on Earth, it is possible elsewhere also. In the infinity and eternity of the universe, the probabilities by methods of calculus reduce to virtually zero that Earth is the first such evolution. Therefore, a Being we would call God already exists,

Extrapolations often lead to unfounded conclusions " particularly when the proponent has an agenda of proving their beliefs.

That a "god" could exist is a LONG way from "a god does exist."

even granting the unlikely premise that God is not the creator of the present universe. The premise is unlikely because the present Einsteinian universe, so exactly expressible in mathematical terms, is evidently mind-stuff organized in the form of physical objects by the physical laws set up by the creator.

Any of the thousands of proposed "gods" could exist and could have built the universe. Is there compelling evidence that you (generic term) know anything about such things or such entities and their actions?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 14 by Zzyzx]
That's a good answer, Z,
With the excellent analysis you routinely supply.
I wanted to say that clearly, whatever I might quote and attempt to refute.
However, straight Analysis is a means of arguing Against (proposed) Truth (or at least of limiting it perhaps to mere tautology). It stands against the Creativity found in Synthesis and Idealism, two of the other main means of exploring Truth.

[Korah]

.

Therefore I would regard it as just another of the thousands of unsupported claims made by promoters of thousands of proposed "gods." None of the promoters of "gods" have demonstrated that they have any knowledge of such things " only opinions, conjecture, testimonials, unverifiable stories.

Nobody has yet made a serious effort to address my Thesis of seven written eyewitness records to Jesus contained in the four gospels.

Are you saying that your proposal has not generated response or found acceptance and adherents in the scholarly / theological communities in spite of forty years of promotion, or at several websites, or here?
Lack of response need not indicate lack of ability to address what you say -- it can also indicate that no one even takes it seriously.

True, but I'm sure you agree that my postings here are more substantial than the usual fare here. As for other venues, the largely skeptical members at EarlyChristianWritings.Com don't seem to know what to do with me. The typical thread there gets 20 to 30 views for every overt reply. However, my main current thread there has a record 110 views to every reply. Now such a hostile audience is not going to pass up the opportunity to refute what they regard as nonsense--believe me. No, with Richard Bauckham's 2006 Jesus and the Eyewitnesses the platform has been established for someone like me to plow under the ruins of Form Criiticism and get explicit about eyewitnesses. (This is not to prove I'm right, just that disproving my claims is not easy--I work with the texts that Lower Criticism has provided and the Higher Criticism has made feasible to work with.)
So can I expect to see you once again over on "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true", but starting now to debate the specifics?

Yet there may be something to explore on this thread itself. In 1970 I published the following attempt to prove God using Evolution and calculus:

A new proof of Gods existence is now possible by extrapolation of scientific progress to its implication that omniscience and omnipotence already exists in the universe.

Extrapolations of science by those who study theology often lack validity and supporting evidence.

But they nevertheless generate deep philosophical discussion, and this argument does not depend on analogy, the weakness of Paley's Watch in the Argument from Design.

Starting from fundamental perspective on the situation, there is no reason that anything at all would exist in the universe, much less thinking beings. Yet here we humans are.

The usual argument is that the universe and our thinking powers are derived from God. This is probably correct, but many say that all this occurred spontaneously.

One guess is as good as another.

The OP asks for evidence " not pontification, proposals, conjectures, opinions, guesses.

Correction, you have denigrated "unjustified" whatevers, and until we discuss them we cannot label them "unjustified". And my supposings here are merely recognitions that the game may have already been won for theism, but that even if not there is this novel proof that I present here.

If so, then evolution to the present state of knowledge and power is possible, since it has occurred. E = mcc places almost infinite power in the hands of thinking beings. Continuing the present favorable situation for scientific research would soon lead to knowledge and over so great as to be virtually what is commonly understood as God. Since this development is occurring on Earth, it is possible elsewhere also. In the infinity and eternity of the universe, the probabilities by methods of calculus reduce to virtually zero that Earth is the first such evolution. Therefore, a Being we would call God already exists,

Extrapolations often lead to unfounded conclusions " particularly when the proponent has an agenda of proving their beliefs.

Calculus does operate with asymptotes as here, it's not a pure extrapolation into eternity. The point is that approach to the asymptote over such an extended period of time has to be true for all intents and purposes, even if not 100% certain. Calculus did not come along until Newton and Leibnitz in the 17th Century, but all mathematicians accept it.

That a "god" could exist is a LONG way from "a god does exist."

even granting the unlikely premise that God is not the creator of the present universe. The premise is unlikely because the present Einsteinian universe, so exactly expressible in mathematical terms, is evidently mind-stuff organized in the form of physical objects by the physical laws set up by the creator.

Any of the thousands of proposed "gods" could exist and could have built the universe. Is there compelling evidence that you (generic term) know anything about such things or such entities and their actions?

You didn't bring it up, but my argument deals only with the omniscience and omnipotence of God, not His omnibenevolence. But this does show that the Problem of Evil is irrelevant to this proof. We just establish that God is, and then have to work with what kind of God He is. Debating Christianity & Religion is a good place to do that.

[Zzyzx]

.

Nobody has yet made a serious effort to address my Thesis of seven written eyewitness records to Jesus contained in the four gospels.

Are you saying that your proposal has not generated response or found acceptance and adherents in the scholarly / theological communities in spite of forty years of promotion, or at several websites, or here?

Lack of response need not indicate lack of ability to address what you say -- it can also indicate that no one even takes it seriously.

True, but I'm sure you agree that my postings here are more substantial than the usual fare here.

If no one takes posts seriously, what difference does it make how "substantial" they appear to be?

As for other venues, the largely skeptical members at EarlyChristianWritings.Com don't seem to know what to do with me.

What happens on other websites is immaterial here (and certainly is not any indication that proposals have merit).

So can I expect to see you once again over on "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true", but starting now to debate the specifics?

I am willing to "debate the specifics" with those who can provide a means by which anyone can determine which parts of scripture are literal truth and which are non-literal " and reach the same conclusion as anyone else applying the same method. If it is a matter of opinion and subjectivity there is nothing substantial to debate.

One guess is as good as another.

The OP asks for evidence " not pontification, proposals, conjectures, opinions, guesses.

Correction, you have denigrated "unjustified" whatevers, and until we discuss them we cannot label them "unjustified".

Those who think they have credible evidence are asked, invited, welcomed to present that evidence for all to consider.

And my supposings here are merely recognitions that the game may have already been won for theism, but that even if not there is this novel proof that I present here.

Theists have imagined for centuries that they have "won the game" but don't seem to fare very well in debate when their beliefs are not shown favoritism " i.e., the level playing field we have here.

Additionally, Theism appears to be declining as knowledge and education increase in technologically advanced nations. Theism is, however, advancing in undeveloped nations of Africa, South America, and parts of Asia. Perhaps those areas are where theism can "win the game."

Calculus does operate with asymptotes as here, it's not a pure extrapolation into eternity. The point is that approach to the asymptote over such an extended period of time has to be true for all intents and purposes, even if not 100% certain. Calculus did not come along until Newton and Leibnitz in the 17th Century, but all mathematicians accept it.

If you wish to use calculus to prove the existence of gods, I trust that there are mathematicians who will be more than happy to engage the topic.

We just establish that God is, and then have to work with what kind of God He is. Debating Christianity & Religion is a good place to do that.

Feel free any time to begin establishing that "God is."

[Korah]

Those who think they have credible evidence are asked, invited, welcomed to present that evidence for all to consider.

And I have been providing that in the thread "How Can we determine which parts of scripture are true" which you have ignored since Aug. 12 and never once addressed my specifics anyway. A mere Analyst skepticism does not refute inductive reasoning:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=140

We just establish that God is, and then have to work with what kind of God He is. Debating Christianity & Religion is a good place to do that.

Feel free any time to begin establishing that "God is."

Poorly phrased on my part--my meaning was that I had here established that God is, but had not dealt with God's character. The Problem of Evil does not preclude discussion--we have to work from the facts, not jump to negative conclusions.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 11 by instantc]

The resurrection of Jesus would, for example, leave the exact amount of evidence that we do have for it today. Suppose someone presents you the claim that there is a personal creator of the universe who raised Jesus from the dead, what evidence would you expect to find with regard to those claims?
Well, this isn't technically true is it? We have the Gospels which were originally purported to have been written at the time of Christ, yet we now know they weren't.

The fact that we could have had written documents from that time, but don't, is pretty telling don't you think? Such a historical event, yet no one bothered to write about it. And this is one of many historical inaccuracies present in said book.

[Zzyzx]

.

Those who think they have credible evidence are asked, invited, welcomed to present that evidence for all to consider.

And I have been providing that in the thread "How Can we determine which parts of scripture are true" which you have ignored since Aug. 12 and never once addressed my specifics anyway.

As I have pointed out previously repeated, reference to a work that has not found publication or acceptance by the scholarly community in forty years does nothing to "determine which parts of scripture are true."

A mere Analyst skepticism does not refute inductive reasoning:

Inductive reasoning from false or questionable premisses is not likely to yield credible results.

. . . we have to work from the facts, not jump to negative conclusions.

We must avoid jumping to a POSITIVE conclusion as well.

Let's start with the facts (as you say) and search for truth. What facts can you cite that give indication of the existence (or non-existence) of a god or gods?