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?

[1213]

Nice dodge. Notice that the question does NOT ask why there is no evidence. It asks what evidence exists?
...
Why try to switch the subject to evolution? Is that to avoid addressing the lack of verifiable evidence to support Bible tales?

My point was to show that verifiable evidence from past doesn’t really exist, because we can’t really check what happened. Of course we can pick for example bone and make extravagant claims about it. But the truth is, interpretations are no evidence.

And then the other problem is, if we exclude arbitrarily evidence that we don’t like, as you did with the Bible, then same can be done to evidence for evolution. So, my other point is, it doesn’t matter even if we would have evidence for evolution, we can exclude it, if it does not fit to our ideas.

That is why your attempt to prove evolution theory is pointless, because by your example, we can ignore that, if we don’t like it.

So, there is no reason to switch into evolution defending mode. But because I was not clear enough in my previous post, I understand that you did so and I appreciate that you try to defend it, even though it is unsuccessful.

And because you brought it up, I want to give my answer to that, although it is not entirely on topic.

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.


2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.


4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.

5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

I can agree that evolution in some sense happens, if it is correctly defined. For example, buildings have evolved from caves and simple huts to skyscrapers. Cars have evolved from simple to complex systems. All of those have evolved because of people who have developed them.

Now, even if we could see in nature development, it could be said that God has done that. And it is not some mysterious Mother Earth (Evolution) that created living things. But that I understand is not useful argument. And therefore I go directly to the idea, have species really developed? That may be subjective matter.

If we look what the Bible tells about the beginning, all was good first. And then God was rejected, which lead to degeneration. For example people don’t allegedly live as long as in the beginning. Modern science seems to show that for example human genome is degenerating. I have for example read that Y chromosome is degenerating, not developing.

“It's also lost 90% of genes it used to share with the female X chromosome�
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... g-out.html

Many observations seem to indicate that nature is getting simpler and weaker and not as complex as it once was. I think that is directly against the idea of evolution as development of something. All true findings seem to tell about devolution, not about evolution.

And for the points you quoted:
1. DNA can be seen also as evidence for one creator who used same material when he developed all creatures.
2. Fossil record is proof of devolution, because it shows that more species have existed than nowadays exists.
3. Same as 1
4. Association fallacy
5. There are also other possible explanations than evolution, if evolution understood as development.

I don’t deny that that genetics can be part of how something grows. Even if we believe for example that all modern humans are descendants of Noah’s family, it is obvious that some kind of changes have happened, because now we have more than 8 different looking people in this world. I disagree with idea that those changes could lead to development of species, to that some simple life form is ancestor of all modern species. We have no real evidence for things to become more complex by evolution. Instead we have many examples of degeneration, for example rudiments, fossils of animals that doesn’t exist anymore.

And please notice, argument of silence is usually considered as fallacy. If no one could show evidence that you want, it is not proof that no such evidence can be.

[PghPanther]

In 13 years of internet debating, I've never yet seen an atheist or nonchristian give a plausible answer to the question- "What would have been the Bible writers MOTIVE for making it all up?"
Instead they simply chant the mantra below over and over again (yawn)..

Genesis- LIES!
Exodus- LIES!
Leviticus- LIES!
Numbers- LIES!
Deuteronomy-LIES!
Joshua- LIES!
Judges-LIES!
Ruth-LIES!
1 Samuel-LIES!
2 Samuel- LIES!
1 Kings- LIES!
2 Kings- LIES!
1 Chronicles-LIES!
2 Chronicles-LIES!
Ezra- LIES!
Nehemiah-LIES!
Esther-LIES!
Job-LIES!
Psalms-LIES!
Proverbs-LIES!
Ecclesiastes-LIES!
Song of Solomon-LIES!
Isaiah-LIES!
Jeremiah-LIES!
Lamentations-LIES!
Ezekiel- LIES!
Daniel- LIES!
Hosea- LIES!
Joel-LIES!
Amos-LIES!
Obadiah-LIES!
Jonah-LIES!
Micah-LIES!
Nahum-LIES!
Habakkuk-LIES!
Zephaniah-LIES!
Haggai-LIES!
Zecharia-LIES!
Malachi-LIES!
Matthew-LIES!
Mark-LIES!
Luke-LIES!
John- LIES!
The Acts-LIES!
Romans-LIES!
1 Corinthians-LIES!
2 Corinthians- LIES!
Galatians-LIES!
Ephesians- LIES!
Phillipians-LIES!
Colossians-LIES!
1 Thessalonians-LIES!
2 Thessalonians-LIES!
1 Timothy-LIES!
2 Timothy-LIES!
Titus-LIES!
Philemon- LIES!
Hebrews- LIES!
James-LIES!
1 Peter-LIES!
2 Peter- LIES!
1 John- LIES!
2 John-LIES!
3 John-LIES!
Jude-LIES!
Revelation-LIES!

Doesn't have to be lies...........do you think people who believe aliens are observing us or abducting people are lying?

Or do you think at least some truly believe this is going on but haven't been able to step back and objectively analyze exactly what is happening while the seek evidence to confirm their bias?

Or do you think Satan is deluding them like some fundamental theist do?

Regardless, I know of no one critical of Christianity that thinks they believe in lies.......but the simple fact is humans can get things wrong.....really wrong and still think it is the truth.

Nobody who actually knows of a lie believes in it...............only Christians accuse nonbelievers in saying they believe in a lie.......

I see your retort as irrelevant to the question........

[Hamsaka]

Guess what the significance of such a thing is for me and people living today?

You're completely missing the point in your emphasis on 'significance'. 'Significance' is irrelevant; the point is that ridiculous criteria that Zzyzx tries to impose

To refresh the reader on Zzyzx's ridiculous criteria:

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

Calling these criteria 'ridiculous' is a personal opinion and irrelevant in debate without supportive evidence (at least reason it out a bit).

creates an epistemological trainwreck historically since it would rule out a great deal about what we know about ancient history,

Not unless we worship, have faith in, or conduct our lives in obedience to 'history'.

and this is highlighted by the fact that we could not know that Julius Caesar was assassinated or that Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle existed by those criteria - in short, epistemological trainwreck.

This is the problem with conflating Bible tales, miracles and claims on a one to one basis with obtained 'mundane' historical information. Add to that the claim of Biblical inerrancy as some Christians claim, you have conventional history plagued with bizarre notions of 'accuracy' that no historian ever dreamed of claiming. Talk about an epistemological trainwreck! It isn't a trainwreck until a theist imposes the notion of absolute accuracy (a la biblical inerrancy) which does not exist except in mathematics.

[tam]

Peace to you 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?

A question if I may. What is considered to be verifiable evidence?


Thanks!


Peace,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Clownboat]

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Roman tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that Julius Caesar was stabbed by a team of conspirators?

Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting this basic belief about Roman history must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it"?

I'll take your word for what you say you ate for lunch yesterday, because eating lunch is not an extraordinary feat. I'll look at you askance if you claim you flew from LA to Newark airport after you ate lunch.

The assassination or attempt to it of a Roman emperor is not as prosaic as 'what Paprika ate for lunch yesterday', but it is still not particularly extraordinary, like you flying across the US.

The OP gives a list of crucially extraordinary claims lacking any evidential support whatsoever. Your question is not relevant to the topic, and could be described as a typical dodge, a category fallacy, and answering a question with another question in hopes of shifting the heat away from an honest answer.

See? No straight answers.

Irrelevant.

Quite relevant. I'll repeat myself: you and others can't provide 'verifiable evidence' for an 'ordinary' event under certain conditions; why should you expect me to provide 'verifiable evidence' for an 'extraordinary' event under what are virtually the same conditions?

What 'verifiable evidence' of such a alleged 'ordinary' historical event in ancient history, (with no physical evidence remaining (eg monuments)) can be produced when all the sources are ruled out? None.

Precisely correct. And, irrelevant again. This thread has a topic we should stick to. In an attempt to recast your post as actually addressing the OP, I brought in the reasoned, rational process of accepting 'ordinary' versus 'extraordinary' claims, and necessity of a different approach to each. In your first post, you appeared to be attempting to equivocate 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary', a common fallacy proposed by theists who rationally understand the difference but due to pride or confusion, cannot acknowledge it.

Pretty hard for me to equivocate those words when I didn't actually use them in that post.

And yet even though such alleged 'ordinary' events can't been proven or supported by 'verifiable evidence' under '"no sources allowed" conditions' you demand that others prove alleged 'extraordinary' events (eg. the resurrection) in such a fashion. What a hoot.

Dreary and boring on this end . When such 'ordinary' events such as the assassination of Julius Caesar can be conflated with the miracle of a god writing a Bible, or making himself born of a virgin, or sacrificed for the blood atonement of your sins and mine, then you may have a point.

Quite relevant. I'll repeat myself this once: you and others can't provide 'verifiable evidence' for an 'ordinary' event under certain conditions; why should you expect me to provide 'verifiable evidence' for an 'extraordinary' event under what are virtually the same conditions?

The Bible isn't considered sufficient evidence for the claims it makes for obvious reasons. The Bible is itself a claim

So are the writings of the ancient historians we possess. They're all 'claims' so, according to the methodology propounded in the first post, cannot be validly used to answer historical questions at all.

If the Bible claims of ordinary events can be shown to be nothing more than the moral justifications of the writers (false, in other words), then the Bible's extraordinary claims (miracles, suspension of the laws of physics) suffer an even worse fate in debate.

If the premise is true, then perhaps the conclusion follows. But without such demonstrations I think we can all chalk this down as 'wishful thinking'.

[/quote]

Your point seems to be that we should doubt how Caesar died. Great! I have doubt about how Caesar died.

How in the heck is this suppose to help justify any Jesus beliefs about him being born of a virgin, or the son of a god, or that he came back to life after 3 days? Did you think this thought process through?

If you think we should doubt Caesar, then please apply this to Jesus. If you doubt how Caesar died, I don't see how you can be intellectually honest and think you could know anything about the Jesus guy.

Are you sure you want to put this type of argument forward? It seems counter productive considering your Jesus beliefs.

(This is a scenario, not directed at anyone in particular)
Person A) You're a fool if you think Jesus was the son of a god and rose from the dead.
Person B) Oh ya, well how can you even know for certain how Caesar died?
Person A) Good point, your a bigger fool than I thought.

[FinalEnigma]

Many observations seem to indicate that nature is getting simpler and weaker and not as complex as it once was. I think that is directly against the idea of evolution as development of something. All true findings seem to tell about devolution, not about evolution.

Full stop. This paragraph by itself discredits your entire argument on evolution (not that the rest of it is flawless either). This is a misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution is adaptation to environment. getting smaller and weaker and dumber can very well be evolution (not that that, as a general trend, is reflected in the fossil record). If you are in an environment where the primary survival trait is consuming less calories, getting smaller and weaker and dumber would be a positive adaptation that increased your chance of survival.

[Paprika]

Guess what the significance of such a thing is for me and people living today?

You're completely missing the point in your emphasis on 'significance'. 'Significance' is irrelevant; the point is that ridiculous criteria that Zzyzx tries to impose[/quote]

To refresh the reader on Zzyzx's ridiculous criteria:

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) (snip)

Calling these criteria 'ridiculous' is a personal opinion and irrelevant in debate without supportive evidence (at least reason it out a bit).[/quote]
I actually have. Try reading my posts.

creates an epistemological trainwreck historically since it would rule out a great deal about what we know about ancient history,

Not unless we worship, have faith in, or conduct our lives in obedience to 'history'.

Another irrelevant point. Yawn. Try rereading 'epistemological trainwreck'.

and this is highlighted by the fact that we could not know that Julius Caesar was assassinated or that Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle existed by those criteria - in short, epistemological trainwreck.

This is the problem with conflating Bible tales, miracles and claims on a one to one basis with obtained 'mundane' historical information. Add to that the claim of Biblical inerrancy as some Christians claim, you have conventional history plagued with bizarre notions of 'accuracy' that no historian ever dreamed of claiming. Talk about an epistemological trainwreck! It isn't a trainwreck until a theist imposes the notion of absolute accuracy (a la biblical inerrancy) which does not exist except in mathematics.

Who's brought up the red herring of 'inerrancy'? It would appear to be you.

Try to address the epistemology, please.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 75 by Clownboat]
It appears you've entirely misunderstood my point. This is my suggestion: read the phrase 'epistemological trainwreck', then my post about it. If you don't get it repeat; if all else fails ask me again.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 54 by 1213]

Maybe it is because of the same reason why we don’t have any verifiable evidence beyond “scientists� explanations that all species developed as the theory of evolution claims?

Atheists are forever asking for evidence. Could not link to your source .

I think you might be talking about skeptics not atheists. Skeptics tend to ask for evidence, atheists don't find god concepts believable. Big difference.

Either way...
Would 'gullible' not be the opposite of being skeptical?

If so, consider the ramifications:
"He was a skeptic about the pyramid scheme, unlike the many gullible people who lost all their money."

I submit that being skeptical is a good thing. If you disagree, and would prefer to argue that being gullible is a better approach, I am listening.

You make it sound like asking for evidence is a bad thing.
Have you forgot that the Bible encourages you to examine everything carefully? Asking questions and gather information would qualify as examining IMO. How are people to examine closely without asking questions?

Perhaps we should scrap 1 Thessalonians 5:21?

If a god gave us brains, wouldn't it be a shame to not use them?

[PghPanther]

I suppose a straight answer could be that, like the a blind cannot know light, the unspiritual cannot perceive spiritual things, if we are to believe the Bible, one of the source books about spiritual life anyway.

Why does that source result in such conflict among those who claim it as a spiritual source of truth?

What good are ancient manuscripts that have resulted in over 39,000 denominations/creeds of those who claim theirs is the correct one?

Where is the assurance of the holy spirit guidance to the believer's reading of scripture to reveal the truth of its words?

I see no evidence in the consistency of any kind of revelation.........just humans thinking they do from their own conscious mistaken as a supernatural existential agency..........