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?

[Danmark]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Saying verifiable is vague.

No. It is not. Verifiable evidence is that offered to prove the truth of a claim; to confirm or substantiate. If you make a claim that is not verifiable then it is just that; it is unverifiable or unfalsifiable. If I told you I had a secret text that claimed lizard people ran the government, or that the true God himself spoke to me and told me that the people who believed all that rubbish in the Bible made him laugh and were so far off the mark in everything they said, you'd dismiss it in a heartbeat or, you'd ask me to verify my claim.

True, some claims are not verifiable. That certainly does not make them true or remotely believable. Since we, Christians and non Christians all agree there are millions of ridiculous claims that are not verifiable, why should we make an exception for yours?

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Interestingly your answer to me was using science but you failed to answer my main point of if your tool (science) works for what youre looking for. In my view, science can point to God but it is inadequate for the task for the most part.

Just a little history lesson here... Philosophers long ago thought that God was not needed until they realized their points boiled down to circuilarity or infinite regresses. Many came to terms with the simple logic that God (or a transcedent existence if you prefer the term) must exist for things to make sense, like to explain first cause, problem of consciousness, OBJECTIVE morality, and the biggest question, WHY are we here despite the astronomical odds that we couldve not existed as intelligent life. In other words, philosophers realized that philosophy is DEAD without a God concept or something alike to hinge on.

Keep in mind philosophy dominated for thousands of years as the intellectual discipline.

I have no doubt that science will follow the same course as philosophy. In fact its inevitable, science is built on philosophy anyways.

Here's science... Time and space had a beginning, ie a cause. Even the atheist Stephen Hawking has stated as much. What could possibly exist without or beyond time and space? All attempts to explain away this point results in circuilarity, the same pitfall that atheist philosophers fell to. Think about it!

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 471 by OpenYourEyes]

This does not respond to the OP. It has nothing to do with giving a straight answer to the questions about Christianity, particularly fundamentalism. This is the ancient First Cause argument which his been debunked on this forum many times in sub forums devoted to it.

[Zzyzx]

.
I am aware that Apologists often prefer to wax philosophical about infinite regress, origin of the universe, beginning of time, etc RATHER than address specific issues raised. All the pontificating, preaching and posturing AVOIDS openly and honestly addressing difficult issues even if they are emphasized in bold red font.

Let's try again.

If (since) the issues raised in the OP have not been or cannot be shown to be true and correct scientifically, what verifiable evidence of any kind CAN be offered to show they are true and correct? Ancient stories -- right?

Notice that the OP does not ask if Jesus existed – but does ask why there are no straight answers to:

1) Jesus was anything more than human?

2) Humans possess a soul?

3) An afterlife exists?

4) Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred?

5) Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described?

6) God intercedes in human affairs or life events?

7) Bible writers were actually inspired by God?

Notice that is NOT asking for philosophical pondering but IS asking what verifiable evidence of any kind CAN be offered to show they [1 thru 7 above] are true and correct?

No “history lessons�, diversions, or fancy footwork are required to answer

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Interestingly your answer to me was using science but you failed to answer my main point of if your tool (science) works for what youre looking for. In my view, science can point to God but it is inadequate for the task for the most part.

Science is the only useful tool you've got. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors pretend.

Just a little history lesson here... Philosophers long ago thought that God was not needed until they realized their points boiled down to circuilarity or infinite regresses. Many came to terms with the simple logic that God (or a transcedent existence if you prefer the term) must exist for things to make sense, like to explain first cause, problem of consciousness, OBJECTIVE morality, and the biggest question, WHY are we here despite the astronomical odds that we couldve not existed as intelligent life. In other words, philosophers realized that philosophy is DEAD without a God concept or something alike to hinge on.

You need to study some history (and philosophy and logic and science) before you set out to pontificate.

Keep in mind philosophy dominated for thousands of years as the intellectual discipline.

I have no doubt that science will follow the same course as philosophy. In fact its inevitable, science is built on philosophy anyways.

Here's science... Time and space had a beginning, ie a cause. Even the atheist Stephen Hawking has stated as much. What could possibly exist without or beyond time and space? All attempts to explain away this point results in circuilarity, the same pitfall that atheist philosophers fell to. Think about it!

All that you suggest fails in the face of the the most powerful scientific statement possible: "We don't know ... YET!"

[Divine Insight]

Just a little history lesson here... Philosophers long ago thought that God was not needed until they realized their points boiled down to circuilarity or infinite regresses. Many came to terms with the simple logic that God (or a transcedent existence if you prefer the term) must exist for things to make sense, like to explain first cause, problem of consciousness, OBJECTIVE morality, and the biggest question, WHY are we here despite the astronomical odds that we couldve not existed as intelligent life. In other words, philosophers realized that philosophy is DEAD without a God concept or something alike to hinge on.

But the problem is that any "God Concept" doesn't resolve any of the logical problems you've mentioned. All it does is propose that a magical "non-logical" entity must exist because as far as we can see the universe can't be logical.

The problem with this is that all it does is imagine a "non-logical" entity existing in an attempt to conclude that we must have a "logical" explanation for things.

But how in the world does proposing a "non-logical" entity rescue logic? It doesn't. Therefore to proclaim that a "Logical Solution" to the problem is to imagine a "Non-logical Entity" existing, is to do nothing more than surrender to insanity.

Keep in mind philosophy dominated for thousands of years as the intellectual discipline.

Until it was proven to be inept by the observational sciences.

Philosophy has been proven to be inept and most certainly undependable.

Why? Because on a level of pure philosophy there is absolutely nothing preventing us from imagining that the universe itself exists eternally and has no beginning and no end in either space or time.

Yet, from observing the universe (i.e. using observational science methods) we realized that we are not free to imagine just anything we can imagine. We must take into consideration the actual world around us. And that world tells us that the universe is not eternal, at least not in the state it's currently in today.

This observation proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that pure philosophy based on logic alone cannot provide us with dependable truth. Because there is nothing in logic alone that would prevent our universe from being eternal and unchanging in any major way over time.

Pure philosophy is therefore "Dead", as Steven Hawking has observed. It cannot be depended upon to reveal truth. Only the observational sciences can provide reliable truth.

I have no doubt that science will follow the same course as philosophy. In fact its inevitable, science is built on philosophy anyways.

Wrong. Science is NOT built on "pure philosophy". Science is built on observations of the real world.

Pure philosophy is dead. It cannot produce reliable results of truth as has already been proven by the fact that there is absolutely no reason why we cannot imagine an eternal "static" universe when thinking in terms of pure philosophy.

So it is extremely misguided to think that science is merely a "subset of philosophy". That's totally wrong. Pure philosophy does not require that we must adjust our knowledge based on observations of the real world. That is a requirement of science.

Once you have accepted that we must allow for the real world to dictate how it must be, then you have accepted science, and you have already recognize the futility of "Pure Philosophy"?

As a history lesson to you, philosophers used to believe that they could answer all question using pure thought and logic alone. But that clearly turned out to be a false assumption.

So "pure philosophy" is indeed dead. That is any philosophy that is based entirely on pure thought.

Only philosophy that recognizes the importance of observing the real world has any merit, and that philosophy is called "The Physical Sciences".

So if you are still thinking that pure philosophy has merit, you aren't keeping up with human advanced knowledge.

Here's science... Time and space had a beginning, ie a cause. Even the atheist Stephen Hawking has stated as much. What could possibly exist without or beyond time and space? All attempts to explain away this point results in circuilarity, the same pitfall that atheist philosophers fell to. Think about it!

Proclaiming that an illogical God exists for the sake of claiming to have provided a logical solution to this problem is itself an extreme case of circularity.

If you think that proclaiming the existence of an "illogical magical God" in a desperate attempt to make "logical sense" of reality is not circular, then you aren't thinking clearly.

[OpenYourEyes]

.
I am aware that Apologists often prefer to wax philosophical about infinite regress, origin of the universe, beginning of time, etc RATHER than address specific issues raised. All the pontificating, preaching and posturing AVOIDS openly and honestly addressing difficult issues even if they are emphasized in bold red font.

Let's try again.

If (since) the issues raised in the OP have not been or cannot be shown to be true and correct scientifically, what verifiable evidence of any kind CAN be offered to show they are true and correct? Ancient stories -- right?

Notice that the OP does not ask if Jesus existed – but does ask why there are no straight answers to:

1) Jesus was anything more than human?

2) Humans possess a soul?

3) An afterlife exists?

4) Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred?

5) Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described?

6) God intercedes in human affairs or life events?

7) Bible writers were actually inspired by God?

Notice that is NOT asking for philosophical pondering but IS asking what verifiable evidence of any kind CAN be offered to show they [1 thru 7 above] are true and correct?

No “history lessons�, diversions, or fancy footwork are required to answer

Ive already offered my response to your question. There is no 'scientifically' verifiable means to verify the subject mattrr of your questions. But again, the lack of verification is not something to question the validity of but rather it's to acknowledge the limitations of science. Remember my example about proving that Jesus was even a man from the first century.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 475 by Divine Insight]

Many of your points are false. Being outside or without time and space is often connected to God because that happens to be two attributes of His nature. Sure, it is not logical by our standards but neither would anything else that you posit in his place.

Secondly, pure philosophy is not dead, ir at leadt not completely. Phydicist theories are often based on nothing more than theory or math. Math = logic.

Take String theory for example. There is no empirical evidence let alone a feasible way to test it. The theory is built largely on math although i dont deny that mathematical models can lead to empirical facts. Again Logic = math and both stem from philosophy.

Verify that there are multiverses and 11 dimensions. Zzyzx, Divine, or anyone else.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 477:

Many of your points are false. Being outside or without time and space is often connected to God because that happens to be two attributes of His nature. Sure, it is not logical by our standards but neither would anything else that you posit in his place.

Don't it just beat all, God's always in the places we can't look.

And never in the places we can.

[Zzyzx]

.

Notice that is NOT asking for philosophical pondering but IS asking what verifiable evidence of any kind CAN be offered to show they [1 thru 7 above] are true and correct?

No “history lessons�, diversions, or fancy footwork are required to answer

Ive already offered my response to your question. There is no 'scientifically' verifiable means to verify the subject mattrr of your questions. But again, the lack of verification is not something to question the validity of but rather it's to acknowledge the limitations of science. Remember my example about proving that Jesus was even a man from the first century.

Is it really, really, really difficult to understand “what verifiable evidence of any kind CAN be offered to show they [1 thru 7 above] are true and correct?�?

“Of any kind� does NOT limit the evidence to “scientific�.

For instance, if I state that the US and Allies invaded Normandy on June 6, 1944 and someone asks for supporting evidence I can supply hundreds of references from all over the world (including Germany) that the event occurred. That is in no way “scientific� – it is just reasonable and honorable supporting of my statement with verifiable evidence. I do not ask that anyone take my word for it or the word of a select few people – but multiple disconnected sources.

If I state that I own a piece of real estate and will sell it for a certain amount of money, a rational person would verify that I own the property and have the right to convey free and clear title before forking over the money. Right? There is nothing “scientific� about looking at courthouse records and/or consulting attorneys and title companies. That is simply verification that I speak truthfully and accurately about owning the property and having the right to deliver free and clear title.

What verifying evidence can be provided to substantiate claims of soul, afterlife, divinity, miracles, earthquakes (etc), supernatural influence in human affairs, and godly inspiration of Bible writers?

If there is no verifying evidence (beyond “take my word for it (or his or this book)�, is it too painful or embarrassing to admit that the evidence is lacking? Readers are unlikely to be fooled by diversionary tactics.

Verify that there are multiverses and 11 dimensions. Zzyzx, Divine, or anyone else.

If I ever make the claim that there are multiverses and 11 dimensions, I will supply verification. However, until and unless I make that claim it is irrational to ask that I supply verification (of a claim that I have not made). Don't stand on one foot waiting for me to make any such claims.

Take String theory for example. There is no empirical evidence let alone a feasible way to test it.

Notice the word THEORY, which in the scientific community means: As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

Is that the best level of "arguments" you (generic term) can offer to support supernatural beliefs?

Now, what verifiable evidence of any kind can you cite to support 1 - 7 above. If there is none, just say so. No fancy dances required.