Fundamental Fallacies

[StuartJ]

Christians typically dodge giving direct honest answers to three fundamental questions:

1) Can Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost be shown to exist anywhere other than in their imaginations ...?

2) Can a single verse of "scripture" be shown to have come from Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost ...?

3) Can the Jesus character be shown to have been sired by either Jehovah or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin ...?

Question for debate: Why do Christians still believe - or pretend to believe - these things ...?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 40 by Tart]

Another excuse for your failure. It's obvious that at this point you have abandoned any attempt to support your three claims.

They still remain unsupported and worthless.

[Jagella]

i am not opposed to say, aliens existing, having better technology then us, and perhaps being able to visit the Earth.. Even though i never experienced an encounter, and i believe probably the vast majority, if not 100%, of the claims are false.. But that is the thing. I am not opposed to it being true.

Again, you think much like I do. I don't "oppose " anything being true. That includes the claims made by Christians. I am skeptical, though, that many claims made by Christians are true. So just like you doubting the claims that aliens have visited the earth, I doubt that your "alien having visited the earth," Jesus, was a visitor from some realm in the sky. We are only different by doubt in one alien, Jesus. Like all the other aliens, I'm skeptical that Jesus was ever real while you make an exception for his being real.

In fact, I think assuming the position that only the things you experience can be true, or to assume that reality cant have these unexplainable phenomenon that go beyond your knowledge, is a bad position to assume. You are ruling out things that very well might exist, and be true, buy presupposition.

I agree that it's not necessarily logical to rule out the existence of things I may not have experienced. I never experienced a black hole, for example, but they seem likely to exist. What I am saying, however, is that without experience I cannot be sure something exists. That's why I doubt the resurrection of Christ: I have never experienced anybody rising from the dead, and until I see solid evidence for Jesus living again, I'm not sure he was raised from the dead.

Why not instead withhold judgement that any of these things, beyond the scientifically explained, and beyond your knowledge, could be true? (which includes but is not limited to, miracles and divine acts, spirits, mind over matter, etc...)... Why not withhold judgement, instead of claiming knowledge that they are not true? I think withholding judgement it a much more reasonable position to take.

I suppose I judge resurrection claims to be untrue because it seems more likely to me that the claims are untrue than that a dead person was raised back to life.

And do you not judge many miracle claims to be untrue? Do you entertain the possibility that the gods of religions not your own really performed magical feats? If you don't consider such possibilities, then you and I only differ by belief in one god doing magic: the Christian god.

And you equivalating Jesus to your Dad, is just a false equivalent... For example, we have not only the disciples telling us a story of Jesus, they are giving their reasoning of why they believe what they believe. They are showing evidence, like the prophecies. They are demonstrating why they believe its true, and why we should believe its true, and show genuine and authentic beliefs on the matter. They themselves demonstrate that they believe these things...

So if I had some "disciples" claiming that they saw my Dad risen from the dead, would you believe it? Many religions make such miracle claims and make prophecies they claim came to pass, but you don't believe them.

That isnt equivalent to you creating a lie, in a debate, to counter an argument... That was the intent of your comment...

Great--again we're making progress. You've judged my resurrection claim to be false by assessing my possible motives for lying about it. You can see that people often lie to try to attain an advantage of some sort. Now, apply that same logic to the claims made that Jesus rose from the dead. Note that the early Christians did have a motive to lie: they were creating a new religion centered on a risen Christ. So in the very same way you judged my claim to be a lie, you should judge the claims of Jesus raised from the dead to be a lie.

Do you believe the Disciples created the story of Jesus's Resurrection, as to counter a debate they had as to make a point that miracles can be false lies? Of course not... We should all agree that isnt their motive at all. This isnt equivalent...

Oh sure--the early Christians obviously had a different motive to lie than I did; there are no doubt may reasons people might lie. But my point remains that if there is an apparent motive for lying--and in the case of the early Christians there is a motive to lie about Jesus resurrected from the dead--then it makes good sense to be skeptical about that claim.

Where are you getting you standards for judging whether someone (or something) is a God?

Is this created in your imagination? Or some kind of objective standards?

Well, there are no "objective" standards for judging the reality of gods--all standards are created by people and therefore are subjective. We are forced to use our imaginations. But it seems reasonable to me that a real god would not have the limitations of a human being. The Bible god has many such human limitations at least in practice. So the logical conclusion to arrive at is that he was created by humans.

[Tcg]

Also, your objections are irrational...

How could I have overlooked this chestnut? Please support this claim with, well... you know, something rational.

[Tart]

Also, your objections are irrational...

How could I have overlooked this chestnut? Please support this claim with, well... you know, something rational.

Ya so i say that because of the "was" comment you made... The fact of the matter is, is if Jesus really was the Messiah sent by the Christian God.. Then the answer for number 1 is "yes"... Jesus showed us that He existed, He established the Truth of God, followed by the Holy Spirit...

Oh but it happened in the past, therefor it doesnt answer the question...

I dont see this as a rational objection. But ill allow you to elaborate if you want. Or maybe we should just accept this is the kind of objections you have...

[Tart]

i am not opposed to say, aliens existing, having better technology then us, and perhaps being able to visit the Earth.. Even though i never experienced an encounter, and i believe probably the vast majority, if not 100%, of the claims are false.. But that is the thing. I am not opposed to it being true.

Again, you think much like I do. I don't "oppose " anything being true. That includes the claims made by Christians. I am skeptical, though, that many claims made by Christians are true. So just like you doubting the claims that aliens have visited the earth, I doubt that your "alien having visited the earth," Jesus, was a visitor from some realm in the sky. We are only different by doubt in one alien, Jesus. Like all the other aliens, I'm skeptical that Jesus was ever real while you make an exception for his being real.

In fact, I think assuming the position that only the things you experience can be true, or to assume that reality cant have these unexplainable phenomenon that go beyond your knowledge, is a bad position to assume. You are ruling out things that very well might exist, and be true, buy presupposition.

I agree that it's not necessarily logical to rule out the existence of things I may not have experienced. I never experienced a black hole, for example, but they seem likely to exist. What I am saying, however, is that without experience I cannot be sure something exists. That's why I doubt the resurrection of Christ: I have never experienced anybody rising from the dead, and until I see solid evidence for Jesus living again, I'm not sure he was raised from the dead.

Why not instead withhold judgement that any of these things, beyond the scientifically explained, and beyond your knowledge, could be true? (which includes but is not limited to, miracles and divine acts, spirits, mind over matter, etc...)... Why not withhold judgement, instead of claiming knowledge that they are not true? I think withholding judgement it a much more reasonable position to take.

I suppose I judge resurrection claims to be untrue because it seems more likely to me that the claims are untrue than that a dead person was raised back to life.

And do you not judge many miracle claims to be untrue? Do you entertain the possibility that the gods of religions not your own really performed magical feats? If you don't consider such possibilities, then you and I only differ by belief in one god doing magic: the Christian god.

And you equivalating Jesus to your Dad, is just a false equivalent... For example, we have not only the disciples telling us a story of Jesus, they are giving their reasoning of why they believe what they believe. They are showing evidence, like the prophecies. They are demonstrating why they believe its true, and why we should believe its true, and show genuine and authentic beliefs on the matter. They themselves demonstrate that they believe these things...

So if I had some "disciples" claiming that they saw my Dad risen from the dead, would you believe it? Many religions make such miracle claims and make prophecies they claim came to pass, but you don't believe them.

That isnt equivalent to you creating a lie, in a debate, to counter an argument... That was the intent of your comment...

Great--again we're making progress. You've judged my resurrection claim to be false by assessing my possible motives for lying about it. You can see that people often lie to try to attain an advantage of some sort. Now, apply that same logic to the claims made that Jesus rose from the dead. Note that the early Christians did have a motive to lie: they were creating a new religion centered on a risen Christ. So in the very same way you judged my claim to be a lie, you should judge the claims of Jesus raised from the dead to be a lie.

Do you believe the Disciples created the story of Jesus's Resurrection, as to counter a debate they had as to make a point that miracles can be false lies? Of course not... We should all agree that isnt their motive at all. This isnt equivalent...

Oh sure--the early Christians obviously had a different motive to lie than I did; there are no doubt may reasons people might lie. But my point remains that if there is an apparent motive for lying--and in the case of the early Christians there is a motive to lie about Jesus resurrected from the dead--then it makes good sense to be skeptical about that claim.

Where are you getting you standards for judging whether someone (or something) is a God?

Is this created in your imagination? Or some kind of objective standards?

Well, there are no "objective" standards for judging the reality of gods--all standards are created by people and therefore are subjective. We are forced to use our imaginations. But it seems reasonable to me that a real god would not have the limitations of a human being. The Bible god has many such human limitations at least in practice. So the logical conclusion to arrive at is that he was created by humans.

The point i was making is that the presupposition that divine acts cant happen, is unjustified. It is far more reasonable to withhold judgement... So if we withhold judgement, what valid objections do you have? We dont have to accept your presupposition that miracles dont happen, or arguments that are established on that foundation...

Likewise, saying "people lie, therefor the Disciples might had lied" isnt actually determining whether or not the Disciple actually lied.. It is just saying its possible... In which case, who cares... Its also possible they didnt lie, becuase sometimes people tell the truth...

Id suggest actually coming to conclusions based of the evidence...

[Jagella]

The point i was making is that the presupposition that divine acts cant happen, is unjustified.

Who's arguing that "divine acts" can't happen? But now that you mention it, I'd say that the probability that any of the thousands of gods people have created and believed in actually doing something beyond the tall tales of myth and legend is so low that it isn't worth considering.

You know--it's exactly how you judge all the divine acts of any god except for your own as having a probability so low that you don't waste your time considering those alleged acts.

It is far more reasonable to withhold judgement... So if we withhold judgement, what valid objections do you have? We dont have to accept your presupposition that miracles dont happen, or arguments that are established on that foundation...

My objections are almost exactly like your own; we both do judge nonsense and scams for what they are--except you believe the nonsense of your own religion. You every bit as much as I don't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. Neither one of us withhold judgment on them immediately concluding that they have no basis in reality. You just make one special exception to this kind of common sense for your religion.

Likewise, saying "people lie, therefor the Disciples might had lied" isnt actually determining whether or not the Disciple actually lied.. It is just saying its possible... In which case, who cares... Its also possible they didnt lie, becuase sometimes people tell the truth...

Again, use the common sense you use in every other part of your life. You like I know better than to believe almost all wild claims. Since we both know people lie, we won't believe that email in our spam box congratulating us on winning the Nigerian lottery! But unlike I you'll believe fanatical religious propagandists who claim that dead Jesus rose from his grave--a claim far less likely to be true than winning the Nigerian lottery.

Id suggest actually coming to conclusions based of the evidence...

OK, so let me see that resurrected Jesus so I can conclude that he was raised from the grave. What other wild claims like the miracle claims of the Bible would you believe without that kind of strong evidence? I can say with confidence that you wouldn't believe any such preposterous claims except the claims of your own religion.

So the main point of this post is that you cannot consistently criticize my logic because it is essentially the same logic you use. We only differ on how we judge the miracle claims of Christianity. I continue to use the same logic to judge Christian claims while you abandon that logic and resort to blind faith.

[Tcg]

Oh but it happened in the past, therefor it doesnt answer the question...

That's correct, it doesn't. You aren't the first poster to make this mistake. If you paid attention to the discussion you would know this.

Here is the question:

"1) Can Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost be shown to exist anywhere other than in their imaginations ...?"

Present tense, Tart.

If the question was, "Can you make unsupported claims about the past?", your reply would apply. That isn't the question however.

Additionally you didn't even attempt to address Jehovah or the Holy Spirit.

Your reply fails on every count.

[Tart]

Oh but it happened in the past, therefor it doesnt answer the question...

That's correct, it doesn't. You aren't the first poster to make this mistake. If you paid attention to the discussion you would know this.

Here is the question:

"1) Can Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost be shown to exist anywhere other than in their imaginations ...?"

Present tense, Tart.

If the question was, "Can you make unsupported claims about the past?", your reply would apply. That isn't the question however.

Additionally you didn't even attempt to address Jehovah or the Holy Spirit.

Your reply fails on every count.

Ok, so if Jesus was truly the Messiah of God, it is irrelevant to the question...?

[Tcg]

Ok, so if Jesus was truly the Messiah of God, it is irrelevant to the question...?

That's correct. I'm glad you finally got it.

[Tart]

Ok, so if Jesus was truly the Messiah of God, it is irrelevant to the question...?

That's correct. I'm glad you finally got it.

Ok well i think these discussions with you are totally irrational...