The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

---The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source
---As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other. Source
---The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. Source

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

---The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. Source
---It is this extraordinary instance of apparent “fine tuning�, and others, which has brought the world’s most respected cosmologists, including Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, & Andrei Linde, to recognize not only the legitimacy of the phenomenon, but the necessity to explain it. Source

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. Source

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Source
---An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Source

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts. For the sake of intellectual honesty (a virtue that is desperately needed on this forum) theists need to admit that these facts do not decisively prove God's existence. They only lend support to the proposition of God and the God hypothesis is only one of many explanations that accounts for these facts. In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

Question: Are the four items listed above facts? If so, how much credibility do they give the God hypothesis and Christian theism?

[Danmark]

A-unicornists need to be a bit more careful before making such amateur mistakes like assuming such a simplistic assessment of the unicorn's properties is sufficient to dismiss its existence. Perhaps to the laywomen the invisible pink unicorn is self-contradictory but there is some nuance that you are missing.For example, Jesus, god, and the holy spirit are "different" but of the same 'substance" (trinity). Yet no one argues that these things can't exist because it's contradictory to have "one god in three persons". Likewise, the invisible pink unicorn is both invisible and pink in one unicorn! Unicorn scholars call this "uni-stasis". The elegance of this logic is further proof of the perfection and beauty of our hoofed creator.

I'm shocked, shocked to see a reference to our 'hoofed creator.' Everyone knows creation came from the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, MHPBP.

You are risking leading the little ones astray.

[WinePusher]

No. Not 'hilarious.' You are continuing to engage in equivocation.

How? I listed five negative propositions spanning across five different academic disciplines. The one that is most relevant to this discussion is the claim that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Are you saying that this claim is somehow improvable simply because it is a negative? Here are a few more negative claims in the field of history:

1. The Declaration of Independence was not written by Napoleon Bonaparte.
2. Australia was not part of the axis forces in WWII
3. Bill Clinton was not the first black President of the United States

All of these claims are negatives, and they can be proven. Similarly, the claim that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses can also be proven.

Many claims can be restated using a negative.

Yes, and many negative claims can be restated using a positive.

That is not the same concept most people intend when they talk about not proving a negative. The author you cite as authority makes the same admission.

Yes, I already agreed that it is impossible to prove or disprove concepts such as God beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because we do not possess an adequate amount of knowledge concerning this matter. Therefore, the claims 'God does exist' and 'God does not exist' cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All one can do is offer reasons for why these claims might be true.

[Goat]

I'm shocked, shocked to see a reference to our 'hoofed creator.' Everyone knows creation came from the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, MHPBP.

You are risking leading the little ones astray.

I can understand it. He was lead astray by the anti-pasta

[Haven]

Are you saying that this claim is somehow improvable simply because it is a negative? Here are a few more negative claims in the field of history:

1. The Declaration of Independence was not written by Napoleon Bonaparte.
2. Australia was not part of the axis forces in WWII
3. Bill Clinton was not the first black President of the United States

All of these claims are negatives, and they can be proven. Similarly, the claim that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses can also be proven.

These are rare examples, and this level of proof (which is not absolute; very few things can be proven absolutely) isn't available to the ancient historian. All one can say is that, based on the evidence, it is more likely than not that the canonical gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.