Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 40 by Wootah]

What could possibly constitute verifiable evidence?

Hundreds of people supposedly rose from the grave and walked the streets and were seen by many. What could constitute as verifiable evidence is any account or multiple accounts written or documented around the time of the events described. With witnesses named.

There is silence on this subjects for decades until the gospels are written. If someone were to find such an account it would be worth considering and would give credence to the gospels.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 23 by Hamsaka]

Jesus is not known to most of the people alive today on Planet Earth, except perhaps in a comparative religion course in Uttar Pradesh (university in India). Your response is Christian-o-centric, and is not 'true' beyond Christianity.

I am pretty sure the majority of the world knows of Jesus, by the age of five even. I would be willing to bet if you asked a 100 eight year olds who Jesus was , they would all know , the main answer would be God. My response is absolutely true . I would imagine by adulthood all would know who Jesus is. The impression left on humanity goes beyond human understanding , this answers the question. This is without question .

I've been raised to believe I have a soul or spirit that manifests . . . somewhere, in my body, just around it . . .? I even 'like' the idea, to be honest, but I'm imaginative to a fault. When it gets right down to it, a spirit or soul cannot be shown to exist, in the manner we are able to show that other things exist -- including immaterial things. So far, it appears to be a faith-based belief rather than something that actually exists.

We have souls , there is no question. Your consciousness is your soul. This is part of what gives you the will to go on. We have a life force beyond the physical. We have an inner self. This is a soul. You are aware of this inner self, the same as you are aware of your surroundings. We all are aware of our inner self.

When a man or woman displays illogical human strength say to lift a car , or a tree , that normally they could not budge, to save someone's life. This is surely being powered by that life force that resides in all of us, as this could not be repeated under normal circumstances, showing that this force can manifest itself in the physical when the need arises. One would wonder what your aura would look like under these circumstances.

Why? Was the basis of Jesus' message and life about making sure you get to the Afterlife? I realize how important this idea is to Christians, and that of all the doctrines, may be the one most counted on by Christians to help them make sense of and tolerate the bad things that happen to everyone.

The reason why is because there would no longer be a need for faith. Christianity is a faith based religion , take the need for faith away , then the whole basis of being a Christian becomes moot.

Those who come into the faith for the sole purpose of eternal life , would more then likely not be written into the "book of life" . This is not what it is about. .e.g

A serial,killer is evil up until the day of his execution . That day he decides to get saved , sorry , does not work that way. This would be insincerity at the highest. This would be a selfish act .

Some pastors would disagree here , but I can tell you , the lord is all about sincerity. The Christian God demands it.

The reason for the afterlife is to reunite with God , to walk in his glory, not just about immortality . This " walk" is beyond our understanding , as far as what " plane " we will reside in. Hell could be nothingness vs your soul being accepted by God and brought into his realm , or state of being .

Anyway, I'm going to say that not all Christians would agree their religion is 'moot' without the doctrine of an afterlife. Perhaps this is true for you, as is Jesus being the most significant human being (or part human) person to have walked the earth

What I have stated above should clear this up for you. The doctrine is not just about the immortality , the doctrine is about how having faith, that should you believe , then you are saved. One must have faith to be saved , should Zzyzyx get his " proof" and not believe until then , faith would become a moot point at that point.

Wouldn't you agree ?

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 40 by Wootah]

What could possibly constitute verifiable evidence?

Hundreds of people supposedly rose from the grave and walked the streets and were seen by many.

Hundreds?

What could constitute as verifiable evidence is any account or multiple accounts written or documented around the time of the events described. With witnesses named.

Heh. Suppose there were such accounts; skeptics would still dismiss them as falling under the bracketing of 'tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation' and therefore claim them as unreliable, etc etc.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 24 by Zzyzx]

All that is known about the impression made by Jesus is that a few devotees seem to have been impressed by tales about him. No one else seems to have noticed and no contemporary historians or chroniclers left records about "miraculous" feats for us to examine.

I believe you are way underestimating here , a few devotees? Let's be real. There was no need for historians to write on Jesus , he far surpasses their projection. The impression of Jesus is unavoidable , beyond our understanding. The impression of Jesus precedes any history book. History is forgotten. Jesus is not forgotten, he has left an impression and a lasting relevance unmatched by any human.

No one seems to have noticed ?

Really? You are writing topics on it , what does this tell you ?

I make no such contention. Instead, I ask those who propose such things to demonstrate that I (generic for we) possess or exhibit any force that is not of our own making.

Seems to me you are . I have demonstrated this in my retort to hamsaka , concerning the illogical , extraordinary strength one can gain in life saving situations , that come from this life force within us , as surely under normal circumstances they would not have this physical strength. This surely is beyond our understanding.

I do NOT hear voices in my head (and do not have "visions" or hallucinations

Most everyone has inner speech , though some as you , claim they do not . These inner voices are a private thing . I am not talking about unhealthy voices , that are not controllable. I am just giving you an example of a function of our inner self. The consciousness could very well be our soul , connected to our soul. The pineal gland is some times referred to as " the seat of our soul".

There is a difference in physical function when ones inner voice is randomly creating thought , compared to if one is told just to repeat a sentence, with their inner voices. e.g

You are leaving the store and you think " milk!". This your inner voice working , or going over how a meeting with your boss will be , even imagining his feedback, this might not trigger verbal speech muscled , the same as a repeated sentence, meaning another force could be " driving" it , that goes beyond the physical .

[ecco]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Bump

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 40 by Wootah]

What could possibly constitute verifiable evidence?

Hundreds of people supposedly rose from the grave and walked the streets and were seen by many. What could constitute as verifiable evidence is any account or multiple accounts written or documented around the time of the events described. With witnesses named.

There is silence on this subjects for decades until the gospels are written. If someone were to find such an account it would be worth considering and would give credence to the gospels.

And if that account were anything more than revisionist myth, it would have made the "headlines" of the day!

But there is NO outside historical documentation of this story.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 37 by Paprika]

So you concede that by the criteria provided, you can't prove that the assassination of Julius Caesar - accepted by most historian - actually happened. And why is this so? The extremely unreasonable criteria proposed in the first post make such history impossible.

I concede that by the criteria provided the assassination of Julius Caesar might not have happened as described by Plutarch. I would also argue there appears to be a bit of embellishment.

That being said it is also reasonable to conclude he was assassinated. Maybe not in the manner described by Plutarch but there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest his reign ended suddenly and with intent.

What evidence do you have that Socrates existed? Or Plato? Or Aristotle? What verifiable evidence can you present besides Greek hearsay, stories, opinions, and the lot?

Reached a dead end and decided to move the goal posts?

As to whether Jesus existed, even the famous critic of mainstream Christianity Bart Erhman has written a book just to counter the a historical nonsense peddled out by many skeptics.

This is a misrepresentation of my position. I have already conceded that Jesus could have existed. Where I differ is that I am unwilling to jump to conclusions based upon what scant evidence we do have. I agree with Erhman on a lot of things and his Hypothesis to the existence of Jesus has some merit. I don't think it is quite strong enough to be convincing though. So I remain unable to affirm that Jesus did indeed exist in the manner as described in the bible.

I think there are two fallacies if you want to keep pushing this argument forward.

1. You need to establish that most historians over 50% threshold claim that the assassination of Caesar described by Plutarch is factual.

2. That establishing the veracity of something is unreasonable with regard to belief.

edit:

2a. That the claims of the gospels are equal to the claims about Caesar in terms of reasonability.

There are also the account of Nicolaus of Damascus, who was contemporary to the events. While he was not an eye witness, he at least accounted what was being said in the aftermath of the event.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 40 by Wootah]

What could possibly constitute verifiable evidence?

Hundreds of people supposedly rose from the grave and walked the streets and were seen by many.

Hundreds?

What could constitute as verifiable evidence is any account or multiple accounts written or documented around the time of the events described. With witnesses named.

Heh. Suppose there were such accounts; skeptics would still dismiss them as falling under the bracketing of 'tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation' and therefore claim them as unreliable, etc etc.

Opinion of the 'true' motivation of skeptics noted. Suppose there were such accounts? These accounts would be subject to the same criteria for veracity as any other claimed historical account.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 40 by Wootah]

What could possibly constitute verifiable evidence?

Hundreds of people supposedly rose from the grave and walked the streets and were seen by many.

Hundreds?

What could constitute as verifiable evidence is any account or multiple accounts written or documented around the time of the events described. With witnesses named.

Heh. Suppose there were such accounts; skeptics would still dismiss them as falling under the bracketing of 'tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation' and therefore claim them as unreliable, etc etc.

Opinion of the 'true' motivation of skeptics noted. Suppose there were such accounts? These accounts would be subject to the same criteria for veracity as any other claimed historical account.

My dear fellow, I'm just borrowing Zzyzx's criteria: those accounts are still included under 'tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation', and would be especially rejected if they were written by Christians as being biased, self-serving, etc. How many times must I repeat myself?

[Paprika]

Whoops, missed this earlier.

[Replying to post 37 by Paprika]

That being said it is also reasonable to conclude he was assassinated. Maybe not in the manner described by Plutarch but there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest his reign ended suddenly and with intent.

It is not reasonable to conclude that he was assassinated because the sources that say he was are ruled out of consideration entirely as 'hearsay, opinion, stories' etc.

What evidence do you have that Socrates existed? Or Plato? Or Aristotle? What verifiable evidence can you present besides Greek hearsay, stories, opinions, and the lot?

Reached a dead end and decided to move the goal posts?

Nope. But are you going to answer the question?

The point is that the criteria established by Zzyzx are utter nonsense: by them the existence of these three Greek characters cannot be established for we only have 'hearsay, opinion, stories etc etc' of them.

I think there are two fallacies if you want to keep pushing this argument forward. (snip)

My dear fellow, I gather from what you demand I do that you don't even understand my argument.