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?

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 428 by KenRU]

Hello KenRU,

(For Post #428)

Your decision to leave the gospel life to never again return is final? Are you sure?

You said,

No, because I tried to know god and Christ. I believed, and I did what I was told to do and what was taught in the bible.
You can't know someone personally if they don't exist - which is the conclusion I eventually came to.

Daily repentance and reconciliation are primary actions of the believer. But your charges against God are antithetical to both. How do you start your car with a short-circuited battery?

If you can’t see God, have you considered the condition that Jesus gave for us to see Him (Matthew 5:8)? This condition is what repentance is supposed to bring about. The fact that some people cannot see sunlight does not necessarily mean that the sun is not present.

I know of no influence, no matter how good that’s without its trail of disillusioned individuals. A majority among seventy disciples left Jesus with only the original twelve supposedly for fear of engagement in cannibalism. I, a believer for a long time have yet to consume human flesh and blood. When Jesus ask the twelve if they would also leave, Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life (St. John 6:66).� Although the disciples that left worked miracles at Jesus’ command before their exit, what did the twelve know that they didn’t?

If it’s bad enough for one to judge another only to find himself guilty of the same thing later, what about his trying to judge God who originated the universe and the standards by which we may judge? How is that possible? Are you sure that this great God that knows the number of your hairs is unable to clear Himself of your charges? Are you sure your charges are not the real reason for your rejection? There’s a rogue nature in all of us that tends to hide things. Should God repent of His ways? If so, He would have to repent from His offer of the cross that made repentance available to us. Is that what you want? I don’t! Are you without sin to judge? Your sins number zero?

When surprised that God exists on that great day, ready yourself to judge Him instead. But before you try I would suggest that you extinguish the sun to prove that great power of yours! That task is a billion trillion times easier. (Did I underestimate?)

Scripture warned us long before now that all will not make it. Should you be seen as among them? I do not and I hope that you don’t force me to.

If you want to get the car that’s stalled for 20 years moving again, why not get rid of the short and replace the damaged battery? No wonder the car wouldn’t start!!! Why trash an automobile that can be repaired? Please don’t trash your irreplaceable salvation car!

Take care,
Earl

[Zzyzx]

.

What’s the difference between hard and soft atheism?

As discussed elsewhere many times Atheism is “without belief in gods�. Hard Atheism is taken to mean in addition denial that gods exist while Soft Atheism is does not include denial.

If there is such, have you considered the possibility of a severe crisis that would force you to choose whether to abandon or harden yourself toward atheism?

In a severe (or any) crisis the LAST thing I am concerned about is theistic position. Instead, I deal with the matters at hand rather than looking for supernatural support.

Which would be your most likely choice if such would happen?

Kindly identify a crisis (or any condition) that you think would force me to make such a choice.

Isn’t it compromise that causes unintended further drifts into depravity?

Depravity? That term is defined as “very evil : having or showing an evil and immoral character� or “Morally corrupt; perverted.�

Kindly show how and why it applies in this discussion.

It is not uncommon for Believers to label Non-Believers as “depraved� – based on their beliefs and emotions. Perhaps it is they who are depraved.

You don’t think that I should be “corrected� away from knowledge, do you?

I suggest that people learn to base decisions on careful consideration of verifiable evidence. “Knowledge� based upon myth, legend, fable, etc isn't very useful in dealing with the real world.

From your statement, “This is evident from your earlier claim that you will only accept refutation from an infallible god,� may I ask what’s wrong with my taking seriously only that which comes from infallible God?

Replace the word “infallible� with “imaginary� and

Shouldn’t we all? Isn’t God (of the Bible) the source of our rights and all knowledge?

No – or more correctly, that has not been shown to be true.

Why shouldn’t I allow Him to be my standard?

Why choose the Bible God over thousands of other proposed gods – all supposedly invisible, undetectable supernatural entities

Why should I or anyone accept the mindset that the God that gave us our rights is non-existent?

One should be willing to accept that the idea that one of the thousands of proposed gods “gave us our rights� is pure hokum.

NONE of us have been given rights – except to the extent that our society may grant certain rights. Platitudes do not insure or grant rights.

Kindly identify ONE right that can be attributed to supernatural sources.

Remove Him from conscience so that our rights would no longer be unalienable.

NO rights are unalienable. If anyone thinks otherwise try to name one right that applies to everyone – every human being.

In reality our rights are limited by real world conditions.

Why should it be considered pointless to consider the question of God, reality, etc?

We consider such things here in debate (as well as elsewhere). Reality seems to conflict with supernatural claims and stories about gods.

Isn’t that where real evidence point?

WHAT evidence points to gods? I've been asking Theists for that evidence for most of seventy-six years and have received nothing more than “Take my word for it (or his or this book)�, a lot of “wind� / opinions / conjectures / stories. None of what is offered can be shown to be anything other than products of human imagination.

If we should talk about reasoning and seeking evidence, what about the use of what is already given us? Should we ignore it?

We were “given� certain mental abilities by inheritance and by experience / circumstances. We are well advised to learn to use reasoning and judgment to make sound decisions based upon verifiable evidence.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 428 by KenRU]

Hello KenRU,

(For Post #428)

Your decision to leave the gospel life to never again return is final? Are you sure?

Reasonably. Unless god suddenly decides to reveal himself to me, yes, I am pretty sure.

You said,

No, because I tried to know god and Christ. I believed, and I did what I was told to do and what was taught in the bible.
You can't know someone personally if they don't exist - which is the conclusion I eventually came to.

Daily repentance and reconciliation are primary actions of the believer. But your charges against God are antithetical to both. How do you start your car with a short-circuited battery?

You are putting the effect before cause. Or, to use your analogy, I won’t bother trying to start my car if the car or battery isn’t there.

If you can’t see God, have you considered the condition that Jesus gave for us to see Him (Matthew 5:8)? This condition is what repentance is supposed to bring about. The fact that some people cannot see sunlight does not necessarily mean that the sun is not present.

Seems like a bad example to me. I could just as easily say, just because you don’t believe the words of Mohammed, doesn’t mean they are not true.

Does that argument hold any merit with you? If not, why?

I know of no influence, no matter how good that’s without its trail of disillusioned individuals. A majority among seventy disciples left Jesus with only the original twelve supposedly for fear of engagement in cannibalism. I, a believer for a long time have yet to consume human flesh and blood. When Jesus ask the twelve if they would also leave, Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life (St. John 6:66).� Although the disciples that left worked miracles at Jesus’ command before their exit, what did the twelve know that they didn’t?

If it’s bad enough for one to judge another only to find himself guilty of the same thing later, what about his trying to judge God who originated the universe and the standards by which we may judge?

Do you fear judging Zeus or the Hindu god Deva?

How is that possible?

The same way you judge that Deva or Zeus is not there to answer your prayers.

Are you sure that this great God that knows the number of your hairs is unable to clear Himself of your charges?

If this god you propose exists, then he should be wise enough to know that the evidence he put forth for his existence is non-existent, the holy book you purport speaks his words is full of contradictions, moral bankruptcy and atrocities, and knowing such, this god should be compassionate enough to forgive. Or are you arguing he is not?

Are you sure that the Hindu god is non-existent and will be compassionate enough to forgive your non-belief?

Are you sure your charges are not the real reason for your rejection?

So many things wrong here, just in that one sentence. My “real� reason is what I tell you they are. You can believe them or not, but please don’t pretend to know me more than I know myself. I took the matter of acknowledging losing my faith quite seriously.

The concept that a god who could and would commit such atrocities as listed in the bible (and be proud of it like a virtue) could even be remotely considered loving and/or compassionate is ludicrous or disingenuous. That is just one of the many reasons why I became skeptical of Christianity.

There’s a rogue nature in all of us that tends to hide things. Should God repent of His ways?

He could start by explaining how the suffering he caused to innocents should be considered benevolent.

If so, He would have to repent from His offer of the cross that made repentance available to us.

Not in the least. If you believe the flood tale, we could discuss why 99.9% of all life (babies, puppies and kittens alike) all had to die.

Or, perhaps he could mention why he never once condemned slavery. He manages 4 commandments about himself but not one about the evils of owning another human being. Was this an oversight?

Is that what you want?

What I want is that if someone is going to propose such a character for me to believe in, it better be consistent and make sense, and there better be evidence for me to take it seriously.

I don’t!

That is your choice.

Are you without sin to judge?

In this context, discernment is a better word. You propose a god concept, I use my faculties to discern if your proposition makes sense. It doesn’t.

The same way you use your faculties to discern that the Hindu god is not worth believing in.

Your sins number zero?

Well, I think what you believe to be a sin, I may not, so I will need more information on what you consider a sin. : )

When surprised that God exists on that great day, ready yourself to judge Him instead.

If I find myself in a afterlife faced with god, I most certainly wil have questions for him, no worries.

But I’m not holding my breath.

And what if you find that he is the Jewish god, and is very angry at you for eating pork and believing in a false god (Jesus)?

Does that concern you?

But before you try I would suggest that you extinguish the sun to prove that great power of yours! That task is a billion trillion times easier. (Did I underestimate?)

Hyperbole comes to mind.

Apologies, but your task is far greater than mine. You have yet to show any evidence you speak the truth, and are no more relevant than a Mormon pastor, Jewish Rabbi or Islamic Imam.

Good luck.

Scripture warned us long before now that all will not make it. Should you be seen as among them? I do not and I hope that you don’t force me to.

I’m not sure what you mean here. But, if you worry for my soul, please don’t. My conscience is clear.

If you want to get the car that’s stalled for 20 years moving again, why not get rid of the short and replace the damaged battery?

Because the battery you are selling is one of rubber bands and duct tape. It is an illusion.

No wonder the car wouldn’t start!!! Why trash an automobile that can be repaired? Please don’t trash your irreplaceable salvation car!

I just bought a new one where the parts actually exist and the car actually works in the real world.

The one I was given as a kid was just a toy, imaginary at best. So, as an adult, I realized that I should never have been expecting it to work in he first place.

That realization explained so much, and was quite enlightening.

All the best,

[rikuoamero]

I'm leaving this thread, at least until someone more interesting than Erexsaur shows up.

Erexsaur, what you're doing here constantly is fallacious. Your arguments make no sense whatsoever. You're trying to 'warn' us of dire consequences for our lack of a belief, but as Divine Insight constantly says on these forums - who is the one threatening harm to us, in your belief system?
Also, in trying to warn us, you're forgetting the most important step of all - showing us the evidence that there is something there to warn us about. You have none. All you have is your own belief and your holy book, which myself, KenRu and Z have all read and decided is not worth much if anything. Us three will have our own precise opinions on the Bible, but I can guarantee that all three of us do not believe it to be the work or inspiration of anything divine, at the very least.
Your arguments presuppose that the only valid answer for anything would be "God" and more than that, the specific god that you already worship. You dismiss out of hand any other possible explanation for reality, not because you have examined these other proposed explanations, but simply because you already have one.
You dismiss what we say and pretend that we are somehow depraved. I demand an apology for that. Unless you can somehow present evidence of our wrong-dong, then I demand an apology for what you called us. You will note that none of us here have said that you are evil or anything of the sort.
You seem to think that emotional climaxes in the middle of a crisis are a valid way of discerning truth about reality, but you couldn't be more wrong. You go with that option because that way prevents you from questioning your biases, your assumptions. It prevents any questioning of the claim being made. Instead of having your belief withstand scrutiny, you prevent scrutiny, you decry it.

I would accept myself proven wrong as long as the given proof is based on God-given knowledge

In other words, you don't even entertain the possibility that your god is false, or non-existent. Precisely my point.

may I ask what’s wrong with my taking seriously only that which comes from infallible God?

I might as well tell you what's wrong, and then leave this thread until someone else comes along.
The problem comes from the fact that we are fallible humans. We do not possess all knowledge. We lack any method to verify whether someone or something that claims to be infallible...actually really is infallible.
You have your belief that the god you worship is infallible, and have prevented any questioning as to whether he actually IS infallible. You declare it such and that is that. End of discussion.

If we should talk about reasoning and seeking evidence, what about the use of what is already given us? Should we ignore it?

Because this way lies presuppositionalism, where you declare, from the get go, a certain book (in your case the Bible) to be infallible as is the god creature talked about therein and you don't allow it to be challenged.


Unless you actually ask yourself these hard questions, Erexsaur, I do not want to hear from you again. All you say boils down to "I believe in this God, he is perfect, infallible, I present no evidence to support it, questioning him is wrong and you are depraved for being a non-believer".
That isn't arguing. That isn't debate. That's just preaching.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 429 by Erexsaur]

Ex writes:

I would accept myself proven wrong as long as the given proof is based on God-given knowledge that should never be forsaken and that I realized that I unintentionally deviated. It is written, “let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4)?� You don’t think that I should be “corrected� away from knowledge, do you?

Interesting quote in Romans. So Jesus was fully human. Every man is a lair. So for Jesus to be fully man, he had to be a liar, right?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 32 by Paprika]

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?

Ordinary events don't need to first prove a supernatural realm in order to explain.

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?

It seems that you have repeated yourself more than just this once on the exact same point.
( see above for the same exact quote )

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.

There are degrees of proof... and claims that are more reasonable than others.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Hello Rikuoamero,

I'm leaving this thread, at least until someone more interesting than Erexsaur shows up.

 

OK. But may I state my defense before you go?

Why fear me? My teeth are only an inch longer than T-rex's--Only an inch!

You said,

I might as well tell you what's wrong, and then leave this thread until someone else comes along.
 
The problem comes from the fact that we are fallible humans. We do not possess all knowledge. We lack any method to verify whether someone or something that claims to be infallible...actually really is infallible. 

You have your belief that the god you worship is infallible, and have prevented any questioning as to whether he actually IS infallible. You declare it such and that is that. End of discussion. 

Thanks for your very helpful admission that we are all fallible. With that the case, why shouldn't we seek and trust a superior infallible being? Please? Don't we live by someone's final word? Is it final or debatable that one should never commit murder?

Who or what else should we trust for resolving ever present conflicts among us? As fallible beings, how do we know that what we know as truth is indeed the truth unless we know that it originated from a higher infallible Source? Even if unknown, wouldn't there be a collective cry for such? Did the laws of physics originate with any of us that are fallible? Why shouldn't we acknowledge and trust Him that's revealed to us?

How do children know right from wrong except from their parents that know everything compared with their developing level of knowledge? How do the parents guide their children, employers their workers, and rulers the land but by the higher standard of Him that's infallible?

Despite superior accuracy of today's electronic test equipment because of digitizing and laser trimming of resistors, companies better have them traceable to the National Bureau of Standards if they want to prevail in court cases! The NBS better not be left out! How are we better off without indispensable standards without which a merchant may “legally� cheat? Is there any suspicion why there's so much effort to leave God out of everything--especially in court cases?

Why depend on fallible man instead of Him that's supernaturally infallible? Who is able to rival the Infallible having no weakness that may be ingenuously and subtly exploited? Should we collectively pretend Him out of existence to open up an easy path for a deceiver? On what bases may we the infallible rebuke the deceiver? How do we convict criminals without a trustworthy standard? What do you think of a seller of gasoline that hates auditors?

Although true that the laws of nature such as that of physics are infallibly reliable in the natural, what have we to depend on morally? Should toddlers with high IQ do away with their wise parents?

In response to my statement,
“If we should talk about reasoning and seeking evidence, what about the use of what is already given us? Should we ignore it?�

You said,

Because this way lies presuppositionalism, where you declare, from the get go, a certain book (in your case the Bible) to be infallible as is the god creature talked about therein and you don't allow it to be challenged. 

Unless you actually ask yourself these hard questions, Erexsaur, I do not want to hear from you again. All you say boils down to "I believe in this God, he is perfect, infallible, I present no evidence to support it, questioning him is wrong and you are depraved for being a non-believer". 
That isn't arguing. That isn't debate. That's just preaching.

As for your first statement, may I ask what if what's already given is from an authority universally known to be imfallible?

Let me pause to make this statement:

We appear to be at war with each other simply because we express our determined stand on worldviews at war with each other. One is that God is and the other is that God is only a figment of imagination. Differences in life decisions according to these worldviews are as night and day. That makes it impossible for us to bend to support the others contrary view. But why should we as as fellow citizens be at war with each other? How do we know which view should be kept and which to be discorded? We must examine the fruit. Our walking away from each other would only allow us to build ourselves up in each other's absence for a more brutal battle later.

In reference to your statement, "That isn't arguing. That isn't debate. That's just preaching," is it more desirable to continue with a debate or controversy ad-infinitum by rejecting any view that may possibly solve the conflict? What possible consequences may occur if that's the case?

Should my defense be rejected only because of it viewed as preaching? If preaching happens to be my only defense, what's so terribly wrong with it? Should my effort to glorify God of my good conscience be counted abominable? I treat you well and respect your dignity with that same conscience and you respect me with the same! There's a piece of God in all of us. You heard me right. Isn't that what the first amendment is about? You don't despises preaching, do you? Is it good to do so?

Why shouldn't my saying that “God said so� be counted as evidence for support? A child may present his case by saying that “mom and dad said so� from memory that past disobedience brought undesirable consequences. Shouldn't that be counted as evidence? Is there any reason to be angry at the child for acting in support of his wise parents? Training of a child to obey his parents amounts to training to obey authority past his parents up to the highest including God. Our world is full of horrible consequences of failure to obey God. Don't we see much proof of such.

Why should one be proud to be an unbeliever? I just described some of its devastating consequences above. Quit driving because of the person that ran the red light and banged you. Isolate yourself in a room from that DANGEROUS (!!!) highway! Stay away from God and the Gospel likewise in this fallwn world because of your failed experience. Haven't you lived long enough to see truth behind my statements in daily life?

For all of you guys: Get ready for the weight of another thousand apes on you backs in place of the monkey! Regardless the number of years in medical school, flunking scores in the courses will only prevent graduation and knock out the possibility of opening any practice unless clandestine. Despite the years you said you spent in the Bible, your speech shows me a grade point score in Biblical knowledge so low that even a zero is too high! How about minus four out of four points (-4.0 out of 4.0)?

Now go your way, Riku until the truth catches up with you!

RUN!

SKAT!

GIT!

Take care,
Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to KenRU]

Hi Guys,

I have a few questions for you that are convinced that God is nonexistent.

1. Is it impossible for the God of the Bible to exist?

2. Is it impossible for the Bible to be revelation from God that it claims ito be?

3. Could the God of the Bible reveal things to us in such a way that we could be absolutely certain of them?

4. Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?


Finally, If I could prove to your satisfaction that God is really true, would you trust and worship Him?

Take care,
Earl

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 437 by Erexsaur]

1. Is it impossible for Zeus to exist?

2. Is it impossible for the Koran to be revelation from God that it claims to be?

3. Could Zoloft of the Fuqawi reveal things to us in such a way that we could be absolutely certain of them?

4. Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?

Finally, If I could prove to your satisfaction the God of the Bible is a preposterous idea, would you abandon this silly belief?

[Danmark]

Erexsaur writes:

I would accept myself proven wrong as long as the given proof is based on God-given knowledge that should never be forsaken and that I realized that I unintentionally deviated.

In other words, your proof of God is based on what you think this 'god' of yours says. This is tautological and therefore meaningless, except to announce you rely on circular reasoning.