Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[For_The_Kingdom]

But resurrection was something Jesus didn't invent. Asclepius raised people from the dead. Theseus returned from the dead, Dionysus did these as well.

Jesus is simply Dionysus inflicted on the Jews as their savior myth.

Dude, anyone can make up any story...that is why we are to examine these things on a case by case basis, and the historical evidence for Jesus surpasses any story stemmed from Greek mythology.

[Zzyzx]

.

the historical evidence for Jesus surpasses any story stemmed from Greek mythology.

Is this to say "My favorite myth is better than your myth?"



"Dude" is considered a derogatory term by many and is best avoided. In fact, all terms of familiarity are best avoided in reasoned debate.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I have facts concerning religious believers.. they do exist. I have overwhelming evidence that they do.. I am CONVINCED that they do.

I have NO objective facts that what they believe IN is true.

The same thing a believer like myself can say about atheism and their naturalism.

I take a fact as something that is verifiably true.

Or, as the online edition of Oxford Dictionary has it:

"A thing that is known or proved to be true."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact

Beliefs that are based on subjective feelings are not facts about the world, but facts about the believer.

Yeah, but as I'm sure you know, history inquiries cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt...so we base our historical "facts" based upon the preponderance of evidence.

And believers believe that based on the preponderance of the evidence, the truth value of Christianity is more probable than not.

Now, me personally, I believe the evidence for God (in general) is overwhelming and is 100% true. That being said, since the evidence for Christ is based upon history, I don't believe that it can be proven 100% based on historical inquiry, but I will give the probability of Christianity being true is about a good 75%.

And that is enough for me, considering all other religions don't come even CLOSE to that percentage.

So, if a believer has MORE than just subjective opinions, then there might be verifiable "objective" facts to go on. I'd like to know what they are as I have never been given any of that kind.

All I GET are expressions of beliefs based on subjective feelings, and opinions, and very bad arguments to support them.

But objective facts about the world?

No.

I have those subjective feelings, and opinions, but I can also make a pretty damn good case for everything that I believe in. Now, it may not be good enough for YOU, but it is good enough for me.

Perhaps this is due to a disagreement between atheists and theists as to what FACTS might be.. or the truth, or reality, or any NUMBER of concepts. But somehow, theists cannot give an outsider what that outsider might consider FACTS. The word "fact" doesn't seem to mean the same for a theist as it does for an atheist.. Isn't that language difficulty odd?

Bro, I can give you facts regarding the existence of God (theism in general). We are talking 100% facts. But when it comes to history, it isn't that simple.

Please try your best. I think this is a crucial question that seems to be somewhat.. controversial. What are the objective FACTS concerning any particular religious conviction?

The facts that I can give you is the truth value of the following arguments that I advocate for..

1. Kalam Cosmlolgical argument
2. Modal Ontological argument
3. Argument from Consciousness
4. Argument from Entropy
5. Argument from Language
6. Resurrection of Jesus (preponderance of evidence)

Based on the TOTALITY of all 6 of those arguments and the case that can be made for their truth value, I am convinced that God exists, and he has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

I fully understand that people have subjective experiences. I have those as well.
But my subjective experiences say something about ME... and my reactions. Not about objective reality out there... but my feelings about it IN HERE. I'm looking for the truth of Christianity OUT THERE.. and not IN HERE. Hope that clarifies a bit as to what I'm looking for.

You haven't specified what constitutes as compelling evidence for you, personally.

I need to have objective facts in order to believe something objective exists.
If I want to know about subjective truth, then subjective "facts" are acceptable.

Then we need to have a serious sit-down discussion about the issues. PM me, I have the perfect platform.

Subjective talks about the PERSON...
Objective talks about outside the person, and I am interested now in the OUTSIDE truth ( the objective truth ) of Christianity. Not the interior, personal, subjective truth that people have formed INSIDE.

Word.

I don't CARE what someone's favorite color happens to be.. I don't CARE what kind of a god they might happen to believe in. Are colors REAL, is their god REAL is what I want to know.

I got you.

Is your favorite color true for EVERYONE, or just you?
Is your favorite god true for EVERYONE, or just you?

Because, I have no problem with you liking one color over an other.. go for it.
Also, enjoy your god beliefs.

That is NOT a problem.
I only have a problem when theists insist that their subjective preferences are TRUE in an objective sense. That's why I keep asking about the truth of their beliefs.

True beliefs vs. beliefs.

There is nothing subjective about the existence of God.

If that is so, it would be a problem for the truth of Christianity.
I don't understand how one comes to BELIEVE and therefore DESIRE something like ... live eternity with the heavenly father and so on... BEFORE one knows that any of these beings and places are TRUE.

We believe based on the evidence for the Resurrection. This is no longer blind faith, you know, what Christians were accused of having for hundreds of years.

Thanks to the work of guys like Habermas and Bill Craig, now, we don't have blind faith, we have reasonable faith.

You seem to say that one has to simply ACCEPT that they are true BEFORE being able to accept that they are true.

Not at all. Research the evidence for the Resurrection. There have been debates on the subject, books written, scholarly journals and articles, too. And have a sit-down with someone like me, who is willing to drop some gems on you if you have the patience and willingness to listen.

If I believe that something is true, then I already believe that something is true.
What I want to know is how to ARRIVE at the conclusion that Christianity is true in the first place. THEN and ONLY THEN can I believe that Christianity is true, and NOT BEFORE..

Fair enough.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 121 by For_The_Kingdom]

The same thing a believer like myself can say about atheism and their naturalism.

So you disbelieve the claim "nature exists"?

I know that is not what you meant, but look at how you worded your response to Blastcat. He says he has evidence that theists exist, but no evidence to support what the theists believe. Then here you are apparently saying that likewise, you too have no evidence for what an atheist believes.
Where you're going wrong is that an atheist is NOT saying "There is no god". The atheist is saying "I don't believe your god claims" (with your meaning whoever that atheist is talking to at the time). There is a distinct difference. You yourself are an atheist with respect to Hindus. You would say (I presume) "I don't believe your Hindu gods exist".

Now, me personally, I believe the evidence for God (in general) is overwhelming and is 100% true.

Now that is strange, since you are a human, are you not? How is it that as a human, as a flawed human with an imperfect understanding of reality, you can somehow calculate something as being 100% true? How is it you have managed to defeat hard solipsism?

The facts that I can give you is the truth value of the following arguments that I advocate for..

1. Kalam Cosmlolgical argument

You promised us several MONTHS ago to create a thread about the KCA. Where is it? You said you were waiting on something, I recall, but you never divulged what.

2. Modal Ontological argument

I take it you don't remember the dozens of ways your MOA was shredded?

3. Argument from Consciousness
4. Argument from Entropy
5. Argument from Language

Perhaps you could create threads on each of these, but since you have yet to do your promised KCA, they would have to go into a queue.

Based on the TOTALITY of all 6 of those arguments and the case that can be made for their truth value, I am convinced that God exists, and he has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

As a sceptical atheist, I don't care at all what it is you are convinced of. A person saying to me "I am convinced of X" doesn't mean anything to me. At all. I am not exaggerating.
I want to know your reasons. They are what interest me. You just gave a list of 6, but of those 6, you have only gone into detail on one (the MOA, and as I said, that was shredded six ways from Sunday).

There is nothing subjective about the existence of God.

Then please, explain to me why it is I hear from many a Christian that they believe due to evidence that convinces them, but that their 'evidence' simply wouldn't work for me. i.e. they speak subjectively about God.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 122 by rikuoamero]

!

[center]What about the agnostic atheist's naturalism?[/center]

The same thing a believer like myself can say about atheism and their naturalism.

So you disbelieve the claim "nature exists"?

I know that is not what you meant, but look at how you worded your response to Blastcat. He says he has evidence that theists exist, but no evidence to support what the theists believe. Then here you are apparently saying that likewise, you too have no evidence for what an atheist believes.

I'd go further than that about our "atheistic" naturalism, though..

"Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws."

I wonder if For_The_Kingdom subscribes to that or not?

Maybe he is a naturalist in that sense too.
Or, maybe he doesn't believe in natural laws at all. Maybe he believes that god is making everything happen at every turn in our universe. By some god magic ( miracles ) ?

But I think that naturalism goes a bit further than just stating that there ARE natural laws.. and that's where my agnosticism is important.

"In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world.""

It's the word "only" here that separates me from a die hard naturalist. Since I have NO evidence for or against any supernatural entity of any kind, I cannot rule out the possibility of the supernatural COMPLETELY... I reserve some doubt.

I only have 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certainty that there is no supernatural. So, you see, I cannot be a 100% naturalist.

I'm an agnostic atheist, you see.

( all the quotes are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) )

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 121 by For_The_Kingdom]

!

[center]
True beliefs vs. beliefs round 3
Atheist naturalism red herring[/center]

I have facts concerning religious believers.. they do exist. I have overwhelming evidence that they do.. I am CONVINCED that they do.

I have NO objective facts that what they believe IN is true.

The same thing a believer like myself can say about atheism and their naturalism.

It's great that you can change the subject like that. It would be greater if you actually addressed the QUESTION. But in any case, why don't I pursue that red herring?

I've always been a bit easy to distract, after all.

Naturalism distraction:

Does one have to subscribe to naturalism in order to be an atheist?
I don't define myself as a "naturalist".

I'm an agnostic atheist, to be precise... so, I would be an agnostic naturalist at best.

Descriptions are available if requested.
These are my own categories.. for me. ( subjective )

End of the distracting non sequitur.

Yeah, but as I'm sure you know, history inquiries cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt...so we base our historical "facts" based upon the preponderance of evidence.

So, you say we cannot prove the historicity of Jesus with 100% certainty, and I would have to agree. IF you say that history can't give you 100% certainty of your religious beliefs, what DOES?

And believers believe that based on the preponderance of the evidence, the truth value of Christianity is more probable than not.

How did you establish that probability?
I didn't arrive at the same likelihood, oddly enough.

Now, me personally, I believe the evidence for God (in general) is overwhelming and is 100% true.

That's an absolute certainty, isn't it?
Not a shred of a reasonable doubt possible?

That evidence is overwhelming to you.. got that.
So far, all the evidence I have been given for any gods at all has NOT been overwhelming to moi.. ( French for "me" oh yes, I'm a world traveler )

I'd say it's almost NON-EXISTENT.

That being said, since the evidence for Christ is based upon history, I don't believe that it can be proven 100% based on historical inquiry, but I will give the probability of Christianity being true is about a good 75%.

Ok, I guess my figure would be lower than 50%... a fail, in my estimation.
But so far, your certainty should not be MORE than 75%. Right?

And that is enough for me, considering all other religions don't come even CLOSE to that percentage.

Would that be in your unbiased OPINION , or theirs or of some outsider to both?

I give all other religions historical claims about the same probability as yours.. less than 50%.

I give their supernatural god claims even less. I give all supernatural claims a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability of being true until further notice. If there are any FACTS about the supernatural, I will revise that estimate way UP.

( I don't put an outright ZERO probability, because I don't believe in absolutes, I think it's important to keep an open mind about serious matters )

I have those subjective feelings, and opinions, but I can also make a pretty damn good case for everything that I believe in.

I don't question the validity of your subjective feelings or opinions. I DO question the validity of any OBJECTIVE claim about your god beliefs. You can make a good case... again, it would be good in whose estimation, your own. I have listened to a lot of God cases.. I don't arrive at the same likelihood for gods or the supernatural anything.

Odd, don't you think?
Kinda makes of me an atheist.

Now, it may not be good enough for YOU, but it is good enough for me.

It's good for YOU.

Right, that yummy subjective goodness IS good for you, isn't it? No dispute there.
That's what I was talking about.

Your evidence is NOT objective for everyone. but subjective to the PERSON in this case, for YOU.. it's good enough for YOU, no question. I agree completely.

Its good enough for you, it's great for you, it's 100% for you, it's absolutely CONVINCING to you. And you can rest assured of that. So can I. I feel very confident about your confidence.

But are your beliefs based on evidence that is good enough for OTHERS? That's a rather pertinent question, in my skeptical way of thinking. In my skeptical way of thinking, you are saying that your favorite ice cream might not be the best ice cream for ME.. but it sure is for YOU. Subjectively. And I have to agree with subjective reality. You have yours, I have mine.. both perfectly valid. Nothing at all to debate.

The best you can do is to say that you like chocolate or vanilla.. and then the best I could do is say "Uh huh, ok, super, cool. "

I don't question at all IF people believe... I question WHAT they believe.
I question if what they believe is in any way TRUE.

If it's ONLY true in a subjective way, then it's like your preference for ice cream flavors. I don't really CARE if you prefer one flavor over another.. but one thing I DO care about is.. IS THE ICE CREAM REALLY THERE?

When it comes to god beliefs, not only do we have to pick one over the other, like ice cream flavors, but we also have to concern ourselves about IF the GOD exists in the first place.

I see theists pointing to an empty, unplugged ice cream cooler saying "I like that invisible ice cream better than all the other invisible ice creams".

Picture me with my mouth wide open in shock, trying to remain calm.. backing away slowly. With NO ice cream of any kind.. "Ok buddy, ok... you love your ice cream, don't you?"

Perhaps this is due to a disagreement between atheists and theists as to what FACTS might be.. or the truth, or reality, or any NUMBER of concepts. But somehow, theists cannot give an outsider what that outsider might consider FACTS. The word "fact" doesn't seem to mean the same for a theist as it does for an atheist.. Isn't that language difficulty odd?

Bro, I can give you facts regarding the existence of God (theism in general). We are talking 100% facts. But when it comes to history, it isn't that simple.

FORGET HISTORY THEN.

Give me your BEST 100% facts.. start with the best 100% factual evidence for God,not the worst.

How about you start there.. best foot forward.

Please try your best. I think this is a crucial question that seems to be somewhat.. controversial. What are the objective FACTS concerning any particular religious conviction?

The facts that I can give you is the truth value of the following arguments that I advocate for..

1. Kalam Cosmlolgical argument
2. Modal Ontological argument
3. Argument from Consciousness
4. Argument from Entropy
5. Argument from Language
6. Resurrection of Jesus (preponderance of evidence)

Well, first off, I'm sorry to say that arguments are not FACTS.
And the conclusions to these arguments are hotly CONTESTED.

Facts are not so hotly contested... that's why we call them facts.

The "truth value" of these fine arguments are DEBATABLE.. and not facts that everyone agrees is true.

Remember that my definition for FACT is "A thing that is known or proved to be true."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact

Let me know if you have a better definition than that one.. I'm not claiming definitional perfection.

( By the way, I am not aware of the 5th argument. It doesn't seem that it's a biggy, so, I'm thinking it's not a goody )

Based on the TOTALITY of all 6 of those arguments and the case that can be made for their truth value, I am convinced that God exists, and he has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

I would NEVER dispute your conviction.. that belongs to you and only you.
I can only dispute the validity of your facts.

ARE they actually facts, or something else.. ?
That's skepticism 101

I would dispute the reasoning that leads you to your conviction... and dispute that you have facts that support the reasoning. I would ask you how are your beliefs TRUE ones, and not just beliefs.

I fully understand that people have subjective experiences. I have those as well.
But my subjective experiences say something about ME... and my reactions. Not about objective reality out there... but my feelings about it IN HERE. I'm looking for the truth of Christianity OUT THERE.. and not IN HERE. Hope that clarifies a bit as to what I'm looking for.

You haven't specified what constitutes as compelling evidence for you, personally.

PERSONALLY?

You mean subjectively compelling to me personally? Who cares about my personal tastes? My taste is inconsequential.

Facts are facts.

I said I need OBJECTIVE evidence, that would be TRUE for most people, and not just the believers, and NOT JUST the non-believers. True for ALL people.. like all people think that "the wind blows" is a true proposition.. or that "birds fly" is true.

That's the kind of OBJECTIVE facts that I am asking for.

Not PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE REACTIONS, like "I love the wind on a hot summer night", or "Geese flying in formation moves me".

But observable facts. I don't question that people have feelings. I DO question when someone has feelings about something for which I have NO evidence for. I look at what they look at and don't SEE what they claim to be seeing.

On what observable facts are you basing your subjective beliefs?
I don't doubt for a MINUTE that you believe.. I doubt that what you believe is TRUE.

Do you see the difference?

So, I know that trees are true things.. I know that.. the sky is real... and so on.
Now.. the question is.. how can I know that your GOD is real?

How can anyone know if what you believe in is TRUE?

I need to have objective facts in order to believe something objective exists.
If I want to know about subjective truth, then subjective "facts" are acceptable.

Then we need to have a serious sit-down discussion about the issues. PM me, I have the perfect platform.

( by the way, I am MUCH better with a one-on-one, face to face discussion than I am in writing ) It's sad because around here.. there are few Christians or other kinds of theists willing to debate their lovely beliefs. )

Profess, yes, all the time, debate... hardly ever.

We tried to have a serious debate about "What is truth?".. remember the outcome of that? I think that I gave up trying TO debate with you. I called it an abject failure on your part, if I recall... didn't work out as I had hoped, and I think that I suggested a bit more practice for you in these forums before I would attempt another private debate with you.

There were just too many PROBLEMS for me to keep up. I ran out of steam.

If you want a debate with me about something off topic, I suggest that you create a new thread. And we can discuss it in PUBLIC.

So, private no at this time, public yes. On to the actual topic at hand:


I don't question people's SUBJECTIVE reality... that's their own.
I question OBJECTIVE reality... that I can CHECK. Objective reality is PUBLIC.. and doesn't belong to one person or one group of people, it belongs to ALL of us.

And we should ALL be concerned that what we PROFESS is objectively true IS ACTUALLY true.

IF you say that I cannot check your god beliefs.. then I'm really not interested in them. If you say that I CAN check your god beliefs, debate is ON.

Subjective talks about the PERSON...
Objective talks about outside the person, and I am interested now in the OUTSIDE truth ( the objective truth ) of Christianity. Not the interior, personal, subjective truth that people have formed INSIDE.

Word.

I take it that you agree.
So.. please, facts OUTSIDE, in reality.... not INSIDE in your thoughts and feelings, word?

I don't CARE what someone's favorite color happens to be.. I don't CARE what kind of a god they might happen to believe in. Are colors REAL, is their god REAL is what I want to know.

I got you.

Then you will focus on facts that everyone can verify and not JUST the believers who WANT what you believe in. But EVERYONE.. believers and NON believers, too.

Facts are facts. Beliefs may not be about facts.

There is nothing subjective about the existence of God.

Nothing whatsoever subjective about the existence of God.....then give us your OBJECTIVE data, please. And forget the subjective kind.

You know, like objective data about other things we take as TRUE.
DO NOT, now, attempt to give us any SUBJECTIVE data of any kind.

Not after that magnificently certain statement.

If that is so, it would be a problem for the truth of Christianity.
I don't understand how one comes to BELIEVE and therefore DESIRE something like ... live eternity with the heavenly father and so on... BEFORE one knows that any of these beings and places are TRUE.

We believe based on the evidence for the Resurrection. This is no longer blind faith, you know, what Christians were accused of having for hundreds of years.

Is it the EVIDENCE of the evidence for the Resurrection, or the PROBABLE evidence for the Resurrection... I thought you gave historical evidence for Jesus a 75% probability? How did you go from 75% to 100% certainty on a historical claim?

I don't right now see how you are being consistent.

Thanks to the work of guys like Habermas and Bill Craig, now, we don't have blind faith, we have reasonable faith.

I don't care about blind faith or reasonable faith.
I am wondering how you can say that your beliefs are TRUE beliefs.

You seem to say that one has to simply ACCEPT that they are true BEFORE being able to accept that they are true.

Not at all.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be equivocating.
I was replying to what you said here:

"These "facts" are only acceptable to those that want to live eternity with the heavenly father and his son, Jesus Christ. "

You seem to imply that I would have to WANT something that I don't even know is TRUE.. how could I possibly accomplish THAT feat of mental gymnastic?

I've been wishing for a Maserati most of my adult life. I really want it. I also know that Maserati makes REAL CARS. However, I can wish for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.... maybe that pot isn't real. How does WISHING make something REAL?

How does WANTING something to be TRUE.. make it TRUE?

How you can go from saying that ""These "facts" are only acceptable to those that want to live eternity with the heavenly father and his son, Jesus Christ. "" to "There is nothing subjective about the existence of God. " is beyond me.

I could interpret all of that to mean "If I want to believe enough I will believe enough so what I believe enough in is going to be true FOR ME, but not for others, necessarily", and that is NOT subjective, but OBJECTIVE meaning "true for everyone".

I am NOT convinced that you fully understand that concepts that you are trying to explain. In particular, I can plainly see that you are confused about what "subjective" and "objective" mean.

You say that your belief in god is not subjective, but you describe a subjective belief.

Bit of a problem there... maybe a language difficulty.

Research the evidence for the Resurrection. There have been debates on the subject, books written, scholarly journals and articles, too. And have a sit-down with someone like me, who is willing to drop some gems on you if you have the patience and willingness to listen.

I wonder what you imagine that I am DOING in here?
Sit down with a theist and ask them QUESTIONS? .... yeah.. never thought of that.

I've listened to a lot of "gems" already.
I am QUITE sure that I will listen to many more.

These GEMS do not seem to convince me that Christian beliefs are TRUE beliefs.

If I believe that something is true, then I already believe that something is true.
What I want to know is how to ARRIVE at the conclusion that Christianity is true in the first place. THEN and ONLY THEN can I believe that Christianity is true, and NOT BEFORE..

Fair enough.

So, how have you arrived at the conclusion that your god beliefs are true beliefs?
I don't really care about any other kind of belief.

I only care about the TRUE beliefs.

WHAT facts are we talking about here?

[Willum]

Um, who said anything about worship, honor, or divinity? The question was in reference to whether or not one should pay TAXES to Caesar.

Neither Jesus, nor the context of what was said says ANYTHING about honor. So where you got that from; I don't know.

I know you need it to say what you understand as "taxes," but in Latin, tax and tithe are the same word.
But the problem is: Paying taxes to a god who isn't Yahweh is blasphemy. You are supporting this god for the gifts he bestows. What were those gifts? Caesar was the vicar of the gods for Irrigation and sewage, war/protection, the head of the totem, and many other things you pay gods for.
I DID mention Jews couldn't even TOUCH the coins without it being a sin?
Yet Jesus advocated supporting the divine monarchy of Rome.
Except to do so is blasphemy.

In Paul you are advocated to obey this divine monarchy. That is to obey Zeus and his vicar Caesar. Yet that is blasphemy as well. Obey another god?

So, you want it to be about taxes so Jesus, whose name even means "hail Zeus," someone you have probably believed in all your life, isn't about the Romans usurping the Jewish savior story for their own ends. I can understand that, but the Romans even re-wrote the prophesies of Isaiah so that they correspond to Augustus Caesar and Tiberius Caesar. (Or they were written that way to begin with...)

But resurrection was something Jesus didn't invent. Asclepius raised people from the dead. Theseus returned from the dead, Dionysus did these as well.

Jesus is simply Dionysus inflicted on the Jews as their savior myth.

Dude, anyone can make up any story...that is why we are to examine these things on a case by case basis, and the historical evidence for Jesus surpasses any story stemmed from Greek mythology.

Yes, anyone can make up a story, and when a governing body makes up a story, as policy, it is a very powerful story that can take on a life of its own. Like th "Jesus story:"

I am afraid this is what happened to the savior story. When Rome invaded, they used it as a medium to pacify the Jews.

You will notice it didn't work very well, hence the insurrection of 70 AD. Where Jews refused to pay a blasphemous tax.

I understand it is hard, But imagine, the Romans sent envoys to make people BELIEVE, like yourself. These people sincerely BELIEVED, and converted others. As religion was perfected, the bars of this cage got finer and finer.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'd go further than that about our "atheistic" naturalism, though..

"Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws."

I wonder if For_The_Kingdom subscribes to that or not?

I was under the impression that the naturalistic worldview was that of "The physical world is all that exist; and there is nothing beyond it", and that is what you alluded to in the latter part of your post.

That was my impression, because after all, on the definition that you gave (above), theists believe that, too. We also believe that "natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe".

Yeah, no shit.

Maybe he is a naturalist in that sense too.
Or, maybe he doesn't believe in natural laws at all. Maybe he believes that god is making everything happen at every turn in our universe. By some god magic ( miracles ) ?

I believe in miracles, yes...but when God isn't intervening, he lets nature take its course.

It's the word "only" here that separates me from a die hard naturalist. Since I have NO evidence for or against any supernatural entity of any kind, I cannot rule out the possibility of the supernatural COMPLETELY... I reserve some doubt.

I only have 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certainty that there is no supernatural.

The problem is, you have no justification for your probability percentage. None whatsoever.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 126 by For_The_Kingdom]

!

[center]
Blastcat clarifies his position on naturalism
and elaborates his justification for a low probability of the supernatural.
[/center]

I'd go further than that about our "atheistic" naturalism, though..

"Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws."

I wonder if For_The_Kingdom subscribes to that or not?

I was under the impression that the naturalistic worldview was that of "The physical world is all that exist; and there is nothing beyond it", and that is what you alluded to in the latter part of your post.

I don't think that naturalism is a world view. It's a position on what can be said to exist.. Ontology, I believe. A world view would encompass more factors than just ontology.

I broke down the naturalistic position into two parts. I wanted to know if you agreed with the first part or not. The... mechanistic part, I suppose.

I think the main point of of naturalism is to categorically deny existence of the supernatural.

That's why I can't BE a naturalist all the way.

At best, I would describe myself as some kind of "agnostic naturalist". I don't KNOW if nature is all there is... so I don't pretend to know.

That was my impression, because after all, on the definition that you gave (above), theists believe that, too. We also believe that "natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe".

I am not asking all theists, I was wondering about your position. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah, no shit.

How can one argue with a statement like that?

Maybe he is a naturalist in that sense too.
Or, maybe he doesn't believe in natural laws at all. Maybe he believes that god is making everything happen at every turn in our universe. By some god magic ( miracles ) ?

I believe in miracles, yes...but when God isn't intervening, he lets nature take its course.

How does one tell the difference between when ( your ) God is intervening, and when it's just nature doing it's thing?

What are the signs of a miracle?

It's the word "only" here that separates me from a die hard naturalist. Since I have NO evidence for or against any supernatural entity of any kind, I cannot rule out the possibility of the supernatural COMPLETELY... I reserve some doubt.

I only have 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certainty that there is no supernatural.

The problem is, you have no justification for your probability percentage. None whatsoever.

Maybe the problem is that you didn't notice my justification.
Allow me to elaborate:

You don't think that "I have NO evidence for or against any supernatural entity of any kind" is reason enough to place a low probability on the truth of a claimed phenomenon? You assume that because I didn't GIVE one, that I don't HAVE one. ( or that I don't have MANY )

One justification for my lack of belief in the supernatural is because I am not given any evidence for the supernatural. That would be zero evidence.

If I had ANY evidence ( any at all ) that the supernatural DOES exist, my assessment of it's probability would sky-rocket.

The only evidence is anecdotal and/or spurious, which can only serve to DECREASE the likelihood of the MANY supernatural claims.

What FACTS do you propose to advance as evidence for the supernatural?

I thought that I had already explained that before... no?
In any case, I am looking for facts.

I don't have any.. HENCE my low probability.

Here is my reasoning concerning the justification for a low probability of the supernatural:

P1. The more facts are advanced for a proposition, the more LIKELY it is a true proposition.
P2. The less facts, the less likely it is true.
P3. I have NO facts concerning the supernatural.

C. Therefore, the likelihood of the supernatural being a TRUE phenomenon is low.

Two questions:

1. Will that serve as an initial justification for the low probability I give to the existence of the supernatural?
2. If not, why not?

[For_The_Kingdom]

It's great that you can change the subject like that. It would be greater if you actually addressed the QUESTION. But in any case, why don't I pursue that red herring?

It isn't a red herring, I was just drawing a parallel between the atheist/naturalist position towards my belief which is equivalent to my position towards their position.

I've always been a bit easy to distract, after all.

Naturalism distraction:

Does one have to subscribe to naturalism in order to be an atheist?
I don't define myself as a "naturalist".

If naturalism is the view that "nature is all there is and there is nothing beyond it", and atheism is the view that "God/supernaturalism doesn't exist".

Then yeah, one does have to subscribe in naturalism in order to be an atheist. But even the definition of atheism has changed over the years. The definition changes every time a believer calls them out on their bs.

End of the distracting non sequitur.

It wasn't a non sequitur, because I specifically said "atheist/naturalist", and you already admitted that you are an atheist, so instead of focusing on the "naturalist" part, your focus SHOULD be on the term that applies DIRECTLY to you and your worldview, which is atheism.

What I said applies to both worldviews, even if you distinguish the two.

So, you say we cannot prove the historicity of Jesus with 100% certainty, and I would have to agree. IF you say that history can't give you 100% certainty of your religious beliefs, what DOES?

That is why I made a distinction between my theism (belief in God in general), and my Christian theism (belief in Christ). Even if I wasn't a Christian, I would still be a theist...because as I said, I believe with 100% certainty that there is an intelligent designer of the cosmos.

It isn't until I examine the historical record of Jesus that I am lead to who/which intelligent designer it is. In other words, the historical record for Jesus actually puts a face to the intelligent designer.

How did you establish that probability?
I didn't arrive at the same likelihood, oddly enough.

Well, the flat agnostic approach would be a 50/50 (maybe the Resurrection is true, maybe it isn't) approach.

But since I am well beyond the maybe/maybe not approach, I will estimate my certainty to be around the 75% -80%, with any arguments against the Resurrection given a fair 20%-25% of being true.

I base my 75%-80% certainty on the totality of everything that has to do with Christianity...from the history, the doctrine, the Bible, and personal experience.

I give the probability of it being false a fair 20%-25% based on a few decent arguments against all of the things that were previously mentioned in FAVOR of Christianity.

So, I think that is a fair/honest approach to it all.

That's an absolute certainty, isn't it?
Not a shred of a reasonable doubt possible?

Sure, coming from a guy who, in a previously post stated he was 99.999999999 % convinced of his atheism. LOL.

But no, no shred of doubt.

That evidence is overwhelming to you.. got that.
So far, all the evidence I have been given for any gods at all has NOT been overwhelming to moi.. ( French for "me" oh yes, I'm a world traveler )

I'd say it's almost NON-EXISTENT.

Then that is to ignore the evidence.

Ok, I guess my figure would be lower than 50%... a fail, in my estimation.
But so far, your certainty should not be MORE than 75%. Right?

Between 75-80 %....

Would that be in your unbiased OPINION , or theirs or of some outsider to both?

I guess we all have our biases.

I give all other religions historical claims about the same probability as yours.. less than 50%.

I give their supernatural god claims even less. I give all supernatural claims a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability of being true until further notice. If there are any FACTS about the supernatural, I will revise that estimate way UP.

( I don't put an outright ZERO probability, because I don't believe in absolutes, I think it's important to keep an open mind about serious matters )

You call 0.0000000000000-->1% an open mind? LOLLLL.

I don't question the validity of your subjective feelings or opinions. I DO question the validity of any OBJECTIVE claim about your god beliefs. You can make a good case... again, it would be good in whose estimation, your own. I have listened to a lot of God cases.. I don't arrive at the same likelihood for gods or the supernatural anything.

Odd, don't you think?
Kinda makes of me an atheist.

Well, my belief that Jesus is the Messiah and redeemed mankind from the wrath of God, and by believing in him we have eternal life....kinda makes me a Christian.

Right, that yummy subjective goodness IS good for you, isn't it? No dispute there.
That's what I was talking about.

Your evidence is NOT objective for everyone. but subjective to the PERSON in this case, for YOU.. it's good enough for YOU, no question. I agree completely.

Actually, no, it isn't subjective. The argument that I can make for a first cause is objective, with no possible way to be otherwise. Despite this, there are those that still won't believe....but the evidence itself is objective and cannot be disputed by any reasonable person.

Now, the belief in Christianity, sure, is subjective.

But are your beliefs based on evidence that is good enough for OTHERS?

The belief in theism SHOULD be good enough for others. I am convinced that it isn't about the evidence, or lack of evidence...some people just don't want/like the idea of a God...point blank, period.

So, if you don't want/like the idea of a God, then of course no evidence would be good enough for you.



The best you can do is to say that you like chocolate or vanilla.. and then the best I could do is say "Uh huh, ok, super, cool. "

I don't question at all IF people believe... I question WHAT they believe.
I question if what they believe is in any way TRUE.

If it's ONLY true in a subjective way, then it's like your preference for ice cream flavors. I don't really CARE if you prefer one flavor over another.. but one thing I DO care about is.. IS THE ICE CREAM REALLY THERE?

I get your point about the ice cream...and yes, the ice cream is OBJECTIVELY there.

FORGET HISTORY THEN.

Give me your BEST 100% facts.. start with the best 100% factual evidence for God,not the worst.

How about you start there.. best foot forward.

I would rather do so in an IM (instant message) setting.

Well, first off, I'm sorry to say that arguments are not FACTS.
And the conclusions to these arguments are hotly CONTESTED.

Someone can contest anything. The question is; is there any objection(s) that will undermine any of the arguments. No, there isn't.

Facts are not so hotly contested... that's why we call them facts. The "truth value" of these fine arguments are DEBATABLE.. and not facts that everyone agrees is true.

Each premise of the argument are facts. The problem is, again; people can/will systematically reject anything.

Remember that my definition for FACT is "A thing that is known or proved to be true."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact

Let me know if you have a better definition than that one.. I'm not claiming definitional perfection.

Lets just say I can prove all premises of the arguments true, so based on what I can do and the actual REQUIREMENT of what I must do (by definition), I would call that a fact.

( By the way, I am not aware of the 5th argument. It doesn't seem that it's a biggy, so, I'm thinking it's not a goody )

No one heard of the kalam argument, until it was formulated LOL.

That's skepticism 101

I would dispute the reasoning that leads you to your conviction... and dispute that you have facts that support the reasoning. I would ask you how are your beliefs TRUE ones, and not just beliefs.

They are true. I told you, agree to have a one-on-one IM chat with me, and you will be a theists in no time.

PERSONALLY?

You mean subjectively compelling to me personally? Who cares about my personal tastes? My taste is inconsequential.

Facts are facts.

Bro, the entire genre of history is based completely on subjectivity.

I said I need OBJECTIVE evidence, that would be TRUE for most people, and not just the believers, and NOT JUST the non-believers. True for ALL people.. like all people think that "the wind blows" is a true proposition.. or that "birds fly" is true.

That's the kind of OBJECTIVE facts that I am asking for.

Ok, so do you subjectively believe that George Washington existed, or objectively believe that George Washington existed?

If you subjectively believe, then you have a believe based on history that you have no problem subjectively believing. So I would ask, what is the difference between that subjective belief, and the belief in Jesus? Is this a double standard?

If you objectively believe, then I will ask how do you know if the story of GW was concocted by or for whatever reasons (I could come up with anything).

My point is, you have subjective beliefs about a lot of things that you have absolutely no problem with believing...but once it comes to religion, oh, it is time to be a super-skeptic?

Not only that, but we do have objective reasons for believing in God, anyway.

But observable facts. I don't question that people have feelings. I DO question when someone has feelings about something for which I have NO evidence for. I look at what they look at and don't SEE what they claim to be seeing.

On what observable facts are you basing your subjective beliefs?
I don't doubt for a MINUTE that you believe.. I doubt that what you believe is TRUE.

Do you see the difference?

Do you need observable facts for abiogenesis?

( by the way, I am MUCH better with a one-on-one, face to face discussion than I am in writing ) It's sad because around here.. there are few Christians or other kinds of theists willing to debate their lovely beliefs. )

Profess, yes, all the time, debate... hardly ever.

This is what I do!!

We tried to have a serious debate about "What is truth?".. remember the outcome of that? I think that I gave up trying TO debate with you. I called it an abject failure on your part, if I recall... didn't work out as I had hoped, and I think that I suggested a bit more practice for you in these forums before I would attempt another private debate with you.

I think you got the wrong guy. The question of "what is truth" isn't exactly my cup of tea, so I doubt I would have ever agreed to such a thing.

If you want a debate with me about something off topic, I suggest that you create a new thread. And we can discuss it in PUBLIC.

What do you mean off topic? It will be about some of the same stuff we are talking about now.

So, private no at this time, public yes.

For once, I'd like to have a private/public one-on-one discussion with someone in REAL TIME. Above, you mentioned the fact that most Christians don't want to debate, at least in your experience.

Well, in my experience, most unbelievers don't want to have REAL time discussions. Why?

I want a real time discussion with someone, preferably via IM. We can do voice chat or video chat, whatever.

Now, I already told you that I wasn't the person that you had the unpleasant experience with, so it shouldn't be any excuses.