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?

[Clownboat]

except we do and you can. There is a large variety of simple experiments you can do yourself to verify this. You can also examine all of the research papers made in the last century and check their work if you have the time(it could take a while there are volumes but it is doable).

And nothing of it gives verifiable evidence for that all species developed as the theory of evolution claims. But yes, I really understand that you firmly believe it. If you disagree, tell me one example that is really verifiable evidence for the development of species as the theory of evolution claims.

In clarification I want to say, according to the theory, all species have developed from single species by the mechanisms of evolution.

Like some other poster here, you seem to struggle with refuting arguments posed to you without complaining about evolution (or a big bang).
For the sake of this discussion, can we just assume that evolution has been falsified so we can avoid unnecessary complaining about it?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to start a topic about evolution in the science sub forum to avoid unnecessary derailing here. Again, in this thread I don't see why we cannot debate with the assumption that evolution was falsified this morning.

With that said,
What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that: .... (See debate question)

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 75 by Clownboat]

It appears you've entirely misunderstood my point.

I think we should let the readers decide. My point was that I don't think you thought your point out.

And here is why:
You question us on how we can even know that Caesar was murdered.
I grant you this and acknowledge that if we cannot know about Caesar as you argue, then we for sure cannot know anything about Jesus.

You are basically pointing out to us that we cannot know anything about this Jesus character since we cannot even be sure about Caesar.
This IMO suggests that you may have not thought this through because your argument does not help your case that Jesus was real (as told in the Bible).

Thanks though...

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 5 by acapiz]

I admitted many times that many of these things are not "provable"..the fact that you may not have accepted my answers, nor agreed with them does not mean they were in any way evasive.

I am merely trying to point out that there are other ways of "knowing" and to you I say that this is not a science site...though science enters into many of the topics.

If you want to debate me about the MEANING of a particular verse of Scripture, then have at it, but though you may not agree, does not mean that the answer was not direct.

Or are you suggesting that because I often try to point out deeper meanings, that I don't have any place on a debating site? Because I do not take a hard, scientific skeptical view of matters of the heart and soul?

Because I DON"T take a pure atheistic or Fundamentalist pov, that there are no other acceptable approaches to a given question?

The point is that ALL the information available on the subject comes from a source that has been shown to contain so many, shall we say: "errors," that a rational person is hard pressed to believe its pronouncements even if it were to advance the hypothesis that the sky is blue. The Bible's track record is not even as good as that of medieval medicine.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Mr. Z!!!

It could be that none of those questions are answered on here, because the evidence that is pointed to God, some give other credit to its origins. An example is creation. Creation points the evidence to God, but some give credit to (name your choice). God, does and is constantly working in my life, but some just say, "Hey, you would be the same person without Him." Knowing my life before Him, I know this is not true.

The following is an interesting article on Jesus. Most people did not read or write back then. The leaders of the Jewish church didn't much care for Jesus Why would they document something that threatened the church as they knew it?http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient ... an-sources.

I don't have time to look up more sources, but these questions really intrigue me. If Christianity was so far fetched, what accounts for historically billions of followers? Many people have claimed to have seen Heaven upon dying for a brief time, why are they similar experiences?

[Danmark]

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.

This is absurd. First you change the subject, bringing up the worst argument possible, that there is no evidence of the obvious: evolution; then you claim NOTHING in the past can be proved. Of course there is verifiable evidence of the past. You can prove you were born, can't you? Thousands of things about the past get proved every day, many of them beyond reasonable doubt.

Is the evidence of the Bible really so weak that one must resort to saying NOTHING can be proved?

[Zzyzx]

.
PN, Thanks for the reasoned and civil reply.

[Replying to Zzyzx]
It could be that none of those questions are answered on here, because the evidence that is pointed to God, some give other credit to its origins. An example is creation. Creation points the evidence to God, but some give credit to (name your choice).

Does existence of the universe "point to God" for astrophysicists (people who actually study such things)? Does the existence of life forms "point to God" for biologists (people who actually study such things)?

Of course those things "point to God" for those who are already committed to believe supernatural origins – including theologians who study theology, not astrophysics and biology.

Everyday / in-the-pew Christians are often absolutely convinced that they KNOW how the universe and life forms originated (without actually studying such things beyond the level of television, sermons, testimonials, and ancient writings).

Many of us acknowledge that we do not have answers to such questions – and are not willing to chose one of the hypotheses offered. "I don't know" works for me. I do not NEED to know such things in order to live a successful, rewarding, fulfilling life – so why become concerned or emotional when people push their pet theories (hypotheses)?

God, does and is constantly working in my life, but some just say, "Hey, you would be the same person without Him." Knowing my life before Him, I know this is not true.

When a Christian friend in real life made that statement, my response was "You must have been a basket case before because you're no paragon of virtue now."

Of course, I would not make that response to anyone in debate (honoring decorum and Forum Rules). However, if someone says that Christians are much improved by "finding Jesus" AND Christians cannot be shown to be any less likely to be incarcerated, divorced or have abortions (for example) than other groups, that does not say much for what those Christians really are / were before becoming Christians.

Maybe it is best that such people found SOME way to improve themselves. Going to prison (or to college) can also result in people "turning their life around."

On the other hand, many people are fine, upstanding, benevolent citizens / people without any influence from "gods" or religions or prisons or college. Were they just "better" people to start with?

The following is an interesting article on Jesus. Most people did not read or write back then. The leaders of the Jewish church didn't much care for Jesus Why would they document something that threatened the church as they knew it?http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient ... an-sources.

That link produced a 404 error for me. However, many non-religious people acknowledge that a wandering preacher named Jesus (or something comparable) lived 2000 years ago. So what?

There is no assurance that if he lived he was anything more than a human preacher. All the supernatural claims are contained in religion promotional literature written by anonymous people decades or generations after he is said to have died. None of the writers can be shown to have had actual, personal knowledge of Jesus or to have witnessed any of his words or works.

I don't have time to look up more sources, but these questions really intrigue me. If Christianity was so far fetched, what accounts for historically billions of followers?

Salesmanship and promotion by Paul/Saul, gospel writers, and others – enforcement by Roman emperors as official state religion of the empire – domination as a theocracy in Europe during the Dark and Middle Ages – spread worldwide by force during the colonial / expansionist era – evangelism and proselytization since.

Many people have claimed to have seen Heaven upon dying for a brief time, why are they similar experiences?

I do not pretend to explain testimonials by those who claim to have supernatural experiences. However, do many Muslims or Buddhists claim to see Jesus?

[OnceConvinced]

Many people have claimed to have seen Heaven upon dying for a brief time, why are they similar experiences?

I do not pretend to explain testimonials by those who claim to have supernatural experiences. However, do many Muslims or Buddhists claim to see Jesus?

There may be similarities, but it's the differences that are the key issues. If you look at even just the Christian claims of visits to Heaven, there are always things that contradict each other. One can only come to the conclusion, surely, that they are seeing what they think they should be seeing. What they have been taught to see as evidenced by the fact that Muslims see Mohammed rather than Jesus and that every religions seems to see their version of God.

When you consider that there are many NDEs where the dying person has met fictional creatures and characters... ie mythological creatures, characters from video games and comics etc, you really have to start asking yourself, just how much of this is being conjured up by the sub conscious?

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 85 by Danmark]

Is the evidence of the Bible really so weak that one must resort to saying NOTHING can be proved?

I'm pretty sure the bible exist , should you mean proof that miracles happened then you are barking up the wrong tree, that is the message form 1213.

Why would you ask for proof from a faith based religion ? Where is the true weakness here ? The Christian faith creates some of the strongest, most resilient people here on earth , hands down. They do not pick up the bible looking for "proof" of God . They realize him and his message through the words in the bible. Should they pick up the bible looking for proof , they would surely never gain the strength that it is meant to give a Human, here on earth .

The only reason I quest for this knowledge(the ways of our origins ) is curiosity , never proof of God . The asking for proof of Jesus , or his miracles is a fruitless adventure. The message Christians receive from these events in the bible is far more important than realizing them in a literal fashion , this is not a necessity , denial is not a necessity either. We all have different perceptions of situations. I do not believe God holds us to account on how we believe Jonah lived in a whale. The story of Jonah was foretelling , it was prophecy fulfilled , according to the bible. One does not have to deny it either. Should I sit back and tell myself , "no way , this is crazy " , then the message is lost.

Missing the message here , if you thought this way reading the bible, would make you weaker , surely not stronger , if you are trying to get closer to the God you suppose.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 87 by OnceConvinced]

When you consider that there are many NDEs where the dying person has met fictional creatures and characters... ie mythological creatures, characters from video games and comics etc, you really have to start asking yourself, just how much of this is being conjured up by the sub conscious?

Yes, you could be experiencing, or imagining only your own previous experiences. I believe the common one is the tunnel and the light , this has been perceived many times.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

Now, I am not sure if it is proper, but allow me to admit up front, you had, "opinion," and "speculation" listed, which I intentionally omitted, because at this time I would rather focus on the ones I have listed, and we will save the others for later if we get to it.

At any rate, as I read your statement above, it certainly seems to suggest, you recognize, "Biblical tales," (which could be labeled as stories) Biblical "claims," and Biblical "testimonials," as "verifiable evidence."

Of course my question then is, am I correct? Do you understand these things to be, "verifiable evidence?"

Pardon the lack of clarity in my statement. No, I do NOT regard Bible tales (stories) and biblical testimonials as verifiable evidence.

Instead I regard them as unverifiable writings by unidentifiable people decades or generations after the events and conversations they purport to relay in detail as though writers had direct personal knowledge and had witnessed said events (none of which can be shown to be true).