Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

.

[Replying to post 1634 by Goose]
Why are you ignoring this?

Isn't it obvious? It's because he doesn't have an answer!

He can't even tell us whether he claims the resurrection was supernatural, while debating on a thread about the supernatural!

He is backed into a corner. Honesty is not an option because it would require him to admit his belief system is flawed. Obfuscation and changing the subject will not work because we're calling him on it every time. His only option is silence.

Bye bye Goose.

Should I assume that your silence means that you don't have an answer either.

I suspect that you don't understand the moral argument, and if you don't understand it, how can you say it is not evidence? So I asked you to explain to the forum how the moral argument works, but you were unable to do so. So if you don't understand the evidence how can you say it is not evidence? Here is the proof...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 880#573880

If you did respond to the post, I missed it, (not hard to do given how long this thread is) would you link to it?

I apologize Olavisjo. As you can see there is a lot of activity on this thread, and it's possible that I accidentally overlooked replying to something you wrote, or that I did reply, but you didn't see my response.

Please concisely and clearly present your moral argument for why donkeys can talk and zombies are real (or whatever it is), and I'll do my best to understand it and reply to it.

This goes for anyone: If at any point I fail to reply to one of your posts, please don't hesitate to repost, or contact me by IM.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

Danmark wrote:
Are you dismissing a cut and paste argument from Wikipedia, simply because it was a 'cut and paste?'

Goose wrote:
Yep.

Danmark wrote:
Whether the argument is original or copied from another source, don't you have the same obligation to attack the argument?

Goose wrote:
Nope.

Danmark Quote:
Is your criticism the lack of originality?

Goose wrote:
That's part of it, but not all of it.

Danmark wrote:
Isn't the key here that we deal with the arguments themselves and the facts they are based upon, rather than to get sidetracked by whether or not the debater is original?

Goose wrote:
I guess if all one can do is use Google and the cut and paste feature then I guess that's all they can do.

On this forum one is expected to provide evidence for their assertions. This NECESSARILY requires that the evidence be provided in the form of direct quotes copied from reference books, or that such evidence be cut and pasted from other reference sources. As opposed to "it's true because I say so!" Because you see, an "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." At which point you say, "No it isn't!"

[olavisjo]

.

[Replying to post 1634 by Goose]
Why are you ignoring this?

Isn't it obvious? It's because he doesn't have an answer!

He can't even tell us whether he claims the resurrection was supernatural, while debating on a thread about the supernatural!

He is backed into a corner. Honesty is not an option because it would require him to admit his belief system is flawed. Obfuscation and changing the subject will not work because we're calling him on it every time. His only option is silence.

Bye bye Goose.

Should I assume that your silence means that you don't have an answer either.

I suspect that you don't understand the moral argument, and if you don't understand it, how can you say it is not evidence? So I asked you to explain to the forum how the moral argument works, but you were unable to do so. So if you don't understand the evidence how can you say it is not evidence? Here is the proof...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 880#573880

If you did respond to the post, I missed it, (not hard to do given how long this thread is) would you link to it?

I apologize Olavisjo. As you can see there is a lot of activity on this thread, and it's possible that I accidentally overlooked replying to something you wrote, or that I did reply, but you didn't see my response.

Please concisely and clearly present your moral argument for why donkeys can talk and zombies are real (or whatever it is), and I'll do my best to understand it and reply to it.

This goes for anyone: If at any point I fail to reply to one of your posts, please don't hesitate to repost, or contact me by IM.

[no evidence no belief]

Now, what this essentially boils down to is whether or not the Christian is standing on strong enough historical evidence to justify the belief that our observation that usually dead people stay dead did not hold in the case of Jesus. Of course, I believe the Christian is standing on solid enough historical evidence – you no doubt disagree as you’ve stated."[/i]

But since you refuse to actually discuss the historical evidence we are at an impasse. Let me know when you are ready.

I will be ready to discuss the historical evidence for X, and try to determine whether it's sufficient to determine if X happened.... when you tell me what X is!

If you want me to consider the evidence for something you want to prove, you have to tell me what it is you're trying to prove! Come on, man!

Are you trying to prove that something happened that violates the laws of physics or not???

Is the observation "usually dead people stay dead and don't fly into the sky, but not in the case of Jesus" an observation along the lines of "Usually people who play the Lotto don't become millionaires, but not in the case of John Smith", or is it an observation along the lines of "usually reindeer don't fly, but not in the case of Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer"?

Please, please, please try to understand. It's a really simple concept.

Before we can discuss the evidence for X, we have to define what X is.

Let me try to make this really easy. Follow carefully, please.

Here is the evidence: There are some footprints in a playground. There are some fingerprints on a beer mug. There is a text message sent to Maggie Jones from a prepaid phone. The neighbor heard some screaming at 11pm.

Is this evidence that Steve Greene did it?

Well, is it?

Is this sufficient evidence to determine that Steve did it?

What's the problem with what I wrote above? Are you able to discuss intelligently whether "Steve did it"? Or is something missing from the equation?

Before we can discuss whether the evidence that Steve did "it" is sufficient, we have to understand what "it" is, right?

If "it" is "Steve getting drunk at a playground, sending Maggie a drunk text and then yelling in the street", then maybe the evidence is sufficient.

If "it" is "Steve killing Maggie" then maybe the evidence is not sufficient. I don't know. We'd need to discuss the evidence in more detail.

If "it" is "Steve reading Maggie's mind, teleporting to Mars, raping a martian, teleporting back to earth and then yell at 11pm", then the evidence is definitely not sufficient.

What is it you're trying to prove, buddy? That something happened which violates the laws of physics, or that something happened which doesn't violate the laws of physics? It's truly absurd that you refuse to tell me, and that you insist that you submitted evidence for something you have yet to define.

[no evidence no belief]

3) He can pick any answer he likes: yes, no, i don't know, etc. But right now he's dodging answering it altogether. I don't know why its so hard for him to tell us what his honest belief on the matter is.

Oh brother. I answered this question back on page 127. And again, on this page.

Here I'll give it to you one more time since you apparently missed it as well.

On page 127 I wrote:

"Now, what this essentially boils down to is whether or not the Christian is standing on strong enough historical evidence to justify the belief that our observation that usually dead people stay dead did not hold in the case of Jesus. Of course, I believe the Christian is standing on solid enough historical evidence – you no doubt disagree as you’ve stated."


Are you guys done chasing me around on this rabbit trail? Are you ready to discuss my argument and the evidence yet? Let me know when you are.

I see you are unwilling or unable to answer the question directly. For example, "yes i believe Jesus's resurrection was a violation of the laws of physics as we know them".

I've answered the question multiple times now. That I didn't answer precisely how you wanted me to is irrelevant and not grounds for you claim I'm unwilling or unable to answer. I've answered.

No you haven't.

You have given a lot of evidence for the "resurrection" but you haven't specified what the "resurrection" is!

Is it an event that violates the laws of physics?

You have to tell us what it is you're trying to prove, before we can determine if the evidence you provided was sufficient.

Hey, do you agree that this is the best movie ever made? I have to specify what movie I'm talking about before you can even begin to answer that, right? I could be talking about "Citizen Kane" or about "Legally Blonde".

Hey, do you think Mike Tyson is the best?? I have to specify what Mike Tyson skill I'm talking about before you can even begin to answer that, right? I could be referring to his boxing skills or to his ability to manage his money.

Hey, is this sufficient evidence that Jesus came back to life?" I have to specify what kind of phenomenon I'm talking about before we can answer that, right? I could be referring to a perfectly natural, albeit extraordinarily rare, resuscitation a la Lazarus Syndrome, or I could be talking about a fully decomposing brain-dead and heart-dead corpse with fully clotted blood, completely failed kidneys, pancreas and liver, totally collapsed lungs, oozing goo from its wounds and infested by maggots, coming back to life with full restoration of organs and cognitive functions, and then flying into the clouds like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

Do you understand that how you define "Resurrection" determines the type and amount of evidence required to demonstrate it?

Please specify: Did Jesus's resurrection violate the laws of physics as we know them?

[olavisjo]

.

Please concisely and clearly present your moral argument for why donkeys can talk and zombies are real (or whatever it is), and I'll do my best to understand it and reply to it.

The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?

[JohnA]

.

Please concisely and clearly present your moral argument for why donkeys can talk and zombies are real (or whatever it is), and I'll do my best to understand it and reply to it.

The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?

Am asking again. What is objective morals?

[Danmark]

The classic proof of god from morality goes something like:
It appears to human beings that moral norms exist.
The best explanation for these moral norms or laws is that they are grounded in God.
Therefore God exists.

Setting aside the huge assumption that god is the best explanation or that these morals must have authority and that must come from god there are problems with this argument.

In addition to the classic refutations of this argument, such as the problem of evil, there is a new argument based on animal studies the past 50 years or so that show conclusively that animals have a sense of morality similar to humans. There is an innate sense of fairness and reciprocity shown by primates and other mammals. This is exactly what we would predict via natural selection; the species and tribes that cooperated by caring for each other survived more often than the ones that did not demonstrate this normative behavior.

The overwhelming evidence of natural selection eliminates the need for god as an explanation for both the physical aspects of the diversity of species as well as the behavioral aspects. It also provides an answer to the problem of 'evil.' Natural selection does not require perfection. The god hypothesis does.

Not only does the resurrection demand we believe the laws of nature were suspended on this occasion, but the necessity of it as a way to 'wash away sins' via complicated Pauline theology evaporates with our increased understanding of nature.

[instantc]

The classic proof of god from morality goes something like:
It appears to human beings that moral norms exist.
The best explanation for these moral norms or laws is that they are grounded in God.
Therefore God exists.

This would be an honest version of the argument, I have usually seen it in the following form.

1. Objective moral rules exist
2. Objective moral rules cannot exist in a universe without God
3. God exists

The trick is to first have everyone agree with (1), as it seems to stand to reason, and then argue for (2) with a very specific definition of objective morality that the audience didn't have in mind at all when they agreed with (1).

[Danmark]

The classic proof of god from morality goes something like:
It appears to human beings that moral norms exist.
The best explanation for these moral norms or laws is that they are grounded in God.
Therefore God exists.

This would be an honest version of the argument, I have usually seen it in the following form.

1. Objective moral rules exist
2. Objective moral rules cannot exist in a universe without God
3. God exists

The trick is to first have everyone agree with (1), as it seems to stand to reason, and then argue for (2) with a very specific definition of objective morality that the audience didn't have in mind at all when they agreed with (1).

I'm not sure I see a significant difference between the first 3 and the 2d 3. Either works.

Don't we have consensus that objective morality consists in treating others the way we think we should be treated? Or to be more specific, that we should not steal?

That we should not steal another's goods, or services; his good name; his life?