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?

[KenRU]

There's all kinds of answers but it's all based on belief and faith. Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that God hasn't chosen certain individuals to testify to his word and learn about the future and how he put together his creation.

Conversely, then, just because you DO believe in god doesn't mean he did those things either.

I suggest we then use evidence and reasoned thinking to determine what did and did not happen.

-all the best

[polonius]

[Replying to post 10 by Elijah John]

Elijah John posted:

Some things, like the existence of God Himself. are unverifiable by the Scientific Method. And so far cannot be proven or disproven one way or another.

RESPONSE:
Evidently, the Catholic Church disagrees with you on that point.
First Vatican Council (1869-1870) is the first paragraph of Dei Filius,
The same holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the principle and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason from created things.

[Zzyzx]

.

Evidently, the Catholic Church disagrees with you on that point.
First Vatican Council (1869-1870) is the first paragraph of Dei Filius,
The same holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the principle and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason from created things.

What the Catholic church "holds and teaches" is not binding (even upon Catholics who disagree with officialdom). It is OPINION -- not shown to be factual, truthful, accurate.

[arian]

.

Wow Z, it's been a while that I read your posts, but I have to admit you are truly amazing. And earendil, you can't go wrong debating here before you publish your book, .. if you live through the scrutiny, especially by Z here, and still decide to publish it, it'll be a best seller for sure

Thanks Arian. However, such books need not pass scrutiny to be best sellers -- but should be properly identified as fiction.

Lol, .. you just got-ta love this guy, .. labeled as fiction, that's good. Wait, how would that even sound, 'religious-fiction', isn't that the same thing?

One can speculate and imagine whatever they wish. Demonstrating that their speculations are true and accurate is another matter " which seems to be in rather short supply

And this comes from someone who believes that a quantum speck of "we don't yet know what", popped out of, .. or has always resided in nothing,. . .

CORRECTION: You have NEVER seen Z claim knowledge of the origin of the universe. I do NOT speculate about such things, do not claim knowledge I do not possess, do not make up stories, do not defend ANY origin stories.

Kindly refrain from FALSELY assigning to me a position. Try debating against my ACTUAL position. You can't

Darn it Z, I am truly sorry, I keep thinking all atheists (and all the other things you claim, too long to list here) believe in both, the BB-Evolution stories, but you did mention that a few time before. Again I'm sorry.
Another Darn, .. what was your 'ACTUAL position again? Something like ignostic, then you changed back to atheist/agnostic or something like that, I can't remember?

The other story Z swears by is the Evolution thriller, ..

Z correctly states that evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs every time microbes become antibiotic resistant. Those who deny that evolution occurs cannot deny that this happens -- thus that evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs.

Hey, I'm not in front of the microscope all day looking at viruses speciating, so sure, why not? But to say we evolved from a single celled bacteria that popped out of a rock, then evolved all the way to monkeys which fell out of the tree and continued to evolve into the man we are, is a little far fetched don't you think? Or you don't believe in that either, just that (genetic change through generations) occurs??

Those who attempt to defend their Magical God beliefs are therefore inclined to claim that some evolution occurs but not much (limited evolution) but are UNABLE to identify the mechanism that limits the amount (to meet their specifications). However, they cannot explain the diversity of life forms that exist on Earth without resorting to the Magical God claims that CANNOT be supported with anything more than testimonials, conjecture and opinion.

Oh, if you mean evolution in the special dog and horse breeds sense, hey I'm with you Z. So God created these different species, then let them keep changing, but birds were created birds, and horses created as horses right? God love diversity, that's why He made sure no two leafs are alike on a tree, or no two snow flakes.
But to take our Creator out of the picture, you have to admit is lunacy.

I also don't believe in the magical gods, all the cheating, all the incest, murders, I mean each god-story is like me having to watch my older sisters soaps because she only had one TV. It can drive a teen-boy mad trying to figure out which god (idol) cheated on who?

Notice that Z states and defends NO origin of life theories -- but simply says "I don't know how life originated and you don't either." The difference is that you (generic term) speculate and I do not.

I don't speculate, it's right there in front of me. I have never seen a monkey turn into a human, and there are millions of species, the time is just as ripe as it was millions and billions of years ago, yet no reports of animal-watchers or scientist who should know which species is about to make that big move and change from chimp-to-man or short beaked finch to long beak, especially if they are taken out of their habitat on purpose just to see if evolution really does happen, right?

Tell me Z, (or any Evolutionist here that can tell me) why aren't all those evolutionists keeping an eye on potential speciation's? They claim to know what a dried up femur of a giant lizard looked like millions and millions of years ago, what it ate, how it lived and how it died, so why in hell can't they keep checking animals right here in the now that meet all the requirements for speciation? We have DNA testing machines, MRI's you name it. We can see the genetic code, so why don't we see millions of glass incubators full of potential bugs, rodents, ducks, etc. being watched for that special moment, where they say they KNOW with absolute certainty that they have evolved from one species to another millions of years ago, yet with all this technology we have today, no one is looking for that jump??

Oh yea, they can only tell 'with certainty' that this here fossil of a lizard evolved to that there fossil of a bird, .. lol. But fresh new species, well why even look, right? I mean it just doesn't make sense, .. but as we both know, religion doesn't have to make sense, it's all based on testimonials, conjecture and opinion, mixed in with a lot of assumptions. That's why the Evolution story only works with fossils and dried up bones, the story can't be verified, but has to be accepted on blind faith.

[arian]

The fundamental consciousness, because it is consciousness, can be thus identified as a being, which we then can name God, or any other suitable name.

One can speculate and imagine whatever they wish. Demonstrating that their speculations are true and accurate is another matter " which seems to be in rather short supply.

Wow Z, it's been a while that I read your posts, but I have to admit you are truly amazing. And earendil, you can't go wrong debating here before you publish your book, .. if you live through the scrutiny, especially by Z here, and still decide to publish it, it'll be a best seller for sure, .. or you'll go into your office, pull a gun to your mouth and, .. just kidding, well let's hope not anyways.

Whoaa there. You obviously put way to much weight on Z's opinions.

Not at all, it's just that he has this ability to mix what you say up so bad, that you have to start all over and are made to rethink everything, .. Here, like this; like if you had your book all on typed loose-paper with no page numbers, and you were going out with it to your publisher, and Z walked by and knocked all that paper out of your hand flying all over your office, .. now you are left with trying to put it all in order again, but in the process as you are re-reading the pages to see where they go, you notice some mistakes .. like that. That's why I also said that other choice with the gun, .. lol.

Besides it is already published. It is called "The Science Behind the Christ".
OOPs...there I go, I just self-agrandized again.

Hey, why oops, .. that's awesome, I have scientific evidence of God. So when can we read your book? I Googled it and it didn't come up? Most of what came up was about scientology.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 375 by arian]

Thanks Arian, that is quite a complement and the analogy is reasonably accurate summation of my intent. Another way to look at it is as a "reality check" " or "How do those ideas stand up to scrutiny?"

[arian]

.
[Replying to post 375 by arian]

Thanks Arian, that is quite a complement and the analogy is reasonably accurate summation of my intent. Another way to look at it is as a "reality check" " or "How do those ideas stand up to scrutiny?"

Not many would be willing to do that either, people (including me, or used to anyways) can take it wrong, not realizing the benefit till later (like after picked up all the loose paper off the floor), or like in my case, after I looked up half the words I didn't understand the meanings of, so you guys messed up the bits and pieces of information I had originally floating in my head.

Hey, I got it, you're like a drill Sargent, no matter how good the cadets makes their bed, you tear it down and make them do it over. Only that can get really old for those who have graduated from military academy with higher honors then you, .. right?

Z: "Sorry General, (yank the bed sheets off) now make it again!"

Wait, .... now that I mentioned it, .. were you ever a drill Sargent? Just asking?

[Zzyzx]

.

Wait, .... now that I mentioned it, .. were you ever a drill Sargent? Just asking?

Heck no. I did not get past E-4 " but as a member of Division Recon (during peacetime fifty years ago) was usually part of a small force (in war game training) attacking much larger units. Part of the mission was to "draw fire" and expose weak points. Attacking those with adequate firepower and tactics was almost always successful.

Hey, I got it, you're like a drill Sargent, no matter how good the cadets makes their bed, you tear it down and make them do it over.

That's not a great analogy, but the cadets may only think they perform flawlessly. Unwarranted confidence can be destructive to deadly.

Only that can get really old for those who have graduated from military academy with higher honors then you, .. right?

Academy / academic honors don't mean squat "where the rubber meets the road" . . . .

In these debates we have had people who cited lofty "credentials" face plant when attempting to demonstrate their great knowledge (only to get hammered " and disappear).

Thanks Arian, that is quite a complement and the analogy is reasonably accurate summation of my intent. Another way to look at it is as a "reality check" " or "How do those ideas stand up to scrutiny?"

Not many would be willing to do that either,

Agreed " and some of the "willing" do so only after repeatedly having their pet theories shot full of holes (and finding that they can't patch fast enough).

people (including me, or used to anyways) can take it wrong, not realizing the benefit till later (like after picked up all the loose paper off the floor),

Unfortunately, many do not acknowledge or admit that their "papers" contain big flaws such as unsubstantiated claims, unverified stories, testimonials that cannot be shown to be true, assumptions that are unwarranted and unsupportable, etc. They may just restack the papers and go elsewhere to peddle the book.

[earendil]

The fundamental consciousness, because it is consciousness, can be thus identified as a being, which we then can name God, or any other suitable name.

One can speculate and imagine whatever they wish. Demonstrating that their speculations are true and accurate is another matter " which seems to be in rather short supply.

Wow Z, it's been a while that I read your posts, but I have to admit you are truly amazing. And earendil, you can't go wrong debating here before you publish your book, .. if you live through the scrutiny, especially by Z here, and still decide to publish it, it'll be a best seller for sure, .. or you'll go into your office, pull a gun to your mouth and, .. just kidding, well let's hope not anyways.

Whoaa there. You obviously put way to much weight on Z's opinions.

Not at all, it's just that he has this ability to mix what you say up so bad, that you have to start all over and are made to rethink everything, .. Here, like this; like if you had your book all on typed loose-paper with no page numbers, and you were going out with it to your publisher, and Z walked by and knocked all that paper out of your hand flying all over your office, .. now you are left with trying to put it all in order again, but in the process as you are re-reading the pages to see where they go, you notice some mistakes .. like that. That's why I also said that other choice with the gun, .. lol.

Why the gun? If Z's arguments are accurate, then that is good and helpful...how would that lead to suicide? If Z's arguments are garbage, then you simply recognize it and still no need for a gun. So if Z can cause one to commit suicide, then you are certainly ascribing to him some special thing.

In any case, I have been around a while (also on this forum many years ago) and there is probably not an argument he could make that I haven't already heard.

Besides it is already published. It is called "The Science Behind the Christ".
OOPs...there I go, I just self-agrandized again.

Hey, why oops, ..

Context.

Z was claiming that my mention of the book was self-agrandizing.
(Note how he skips quoting this post to avoid further contamination.)

that's awesome, I have scientific evidence of God. So when can we read your book? I Googled it and it didn't come up? Most of what came up was about scientology.

You can find it easily on Amazon.

You actually would have found it on google about 12 pages in.
(Those #$ scientologists hogging all the links.)

[Zzyzx]

.

Why the gun? If Z's arguments are accurate, then that is good and helpful...how would that lead to suicide? If Z's arguments are garbage, then you simply recognize it and still no need for a gun. So if Z can cause one to commit suicide, then you are certainly ascribing to him some special thing.

There is nothing "special" about exposing flaws in debate positions. Perhaps that can be depressing to some recipients (though hopefully not to the level of self-destruction). Most, however, seem to gloss over exposed flaws using denial, evasion, distraction or other tactics to avoid acknowledging flaws.

In any case, I have been around a while (also on this forum many years ago) and there is probably not an argument he could make that I haven't already heard.

Hearing an argument is a LONG way from being able to dispute it convincingly (to readers).

Notice that Z's position is "Any of the thousands of 'gods' proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, and fought over MAY actually exist " awaiting verifiable evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision."

Care to try to dispute that position?

Besides it is already published. It is called "The Science Behind the Christ".

Yes, it is available in paperback (only) for $10.32 " self-published through CreateSpace -- and is not available in Kindle edition

Perhaps the author could offer to send an electronic copy to anyone interested or post a link to where it can be read without the author making a profit. If not, I would be willing to pay up to 99 cents for the book.

OOPs...there I go, I just self-agrandized again.

Did something strike a raw nerve " since it is mentioned frequently?


Rather than saying "read my book", the author could attempt to debate actual issues and present verifiable evidence.