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?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 475 by Divine Insight]
Being outside or without time and space is often connected to God because that happens to be two attributes of His nature..

Happens to be... two attributes.. of a nature... belonging to an immaterial...belief of an... agency... that can't be demonstrated to exist....

Every time I hear this from Dr Craig or some apologist I want to club a baby kitten.

If you get to define attributes into existence for an agency to support arguing the agency's existence... well, any reasonable conversation is over.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 480 by Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 475 by Divine Insight]
Being outside or without time and space is often connected to God because that happens to be two attributes of His nature..

Happens to be... two attributes.. of a nature... belonging to an immaterial...belief of an... agency... that can't be demonstrated to exist....

Every time I hear this from Dr Craig or some apologist I want to club a baby kitten.

If you get to define attributes into existence for an agency to support arguing the agency's existence... well, any reasonable conversation is over.

There are many dead kittens found after Craig talks. People are warned in advance, but do they LISTEN?.. OH no ..

Keep atheists away from the kittens, people.. HONEST.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 480 by Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 475 by Divine Insight]
Being outside or without time and space is often connected to God because that happens to be two attributes of His nature..

Happens to be... two attributes.. of a nature... belonging to an immaterial...belief of an... agency... that can't be demonstrated to exist....

Every time I hear this from Dr Craig or some apologist I want to club a baby kitten.

If you get to define attributes into existence for an agency to support arguing the agency's existence... well, any reasonable conversation is over.

There are many dead and very cute baby kittens found after Craig talks. People are warned in advance, but do they LISTEN?.. OH no ..

Hide the baby kittens, people.. Craig is gonna make a speech.

[Divine Insight]

[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.

The concept of whether or not our reality needs to be logical is a deep topic to be sure. However, arguments based on logical reasoning that claim there must be an illogical God in order to satisfy our need for a logical answer to this question is as nonsensical as anything can possibly be.

Moreover, even a reality that isn't logical does not mean that it needs to then be a jealous egotistical Godhead who takes temper tantrums over every little thing that humans do. Including having sex.

It might be interesting to note also that it could never be claimed that an illogical God could be "Trustworthy". How could a God who isn't even logical be trusted?

There are extreme problems with the idea of an anthropomorphic jealous illogical godhead.

If the foundation of all reality is ultimately "illogical" then there most likely is no God at all.

Besides, our very notion of "logic" is based upon our common sense experience. And that experience could be wrong. So we could potentially have logic wrong as well. In which case no arguments we could make would have any merit, be they for or against an imaginary God.

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.

I will be the first to confess that I am not at all pleased with the haphazard way that the scientific community used the term "Theory". They should be a shamed of themselves in this regard.

String Theory, for example, does not truly qualify as a "Theory" as it has not yet explained anything. It hasn't even solved the incompatibilities between Quantum Physics and General Relativity that it has been promising to do since it began.

Technically it should be called "String Hypothesis", not "String Theory".

No one in science is claiming that "String Theory" is true! But there are many supporters of "String Theory" who argue that there are many reasons to believe that it's on the right track.

I personally don't agree. I have my own arguments why I feel that String Theory is totally misguided, and I'm not alone, there are actually other prominent physicists who feel this way as well, Lee Smolin being one of the most outspoken on this topic.

The multiple dimensions of reality is also currently just a "hypothesis". It hasn't been demonstrated to be true via observational science.

And no scientist worth his salt would claim that it is true. At best they might claim to believe that it's a very likely hypothesis.

I'm not sold on the multidimensional hypothesis myself. Moreover, from my experience with electronics and the reality of "Imaginary numbers" representing actual physical phenomenon, I have come to the realization that there could actually be "extra dimensions" of reality that aren't spacial. They don't need to be spacial. They could be some other phenomenon just as we see in electronics when we need to use imaginary number to represent different types of actual physical phenomenon.

So I wouldn't rule out yet undetected "extra dimensions" of reality, but I see no reason why these extra dimensions would necessarily need to be spacial.

In any case, anything more than four dimensions is currently just a hypothesis. Unless I've missed some breaking news lately in physics, which is quite possible since I haven't been keeping an eye physics lately. I'm getting lazy lately, and kind of tired that it's taking so long for scientists to discover anything new. Finding the Higgs was kind of cool though. I do have to congratulate Peter Higgs on that one. That was brilliant.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 483 by Divine Insight]

That was good post. Thanks.

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.

Zzyzx,

And your conclusion of the verifiable historical fact from disconnected sources that a god figure has made contact with humans is?...

[Danmark]

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.

This is a good example of "just making things up." Inigo put it well when he referred to defining attributes to fit the definition. You take an idea, like 'God,' then you define this God as you choose, then make up attributes and qualities that by your definitions only this god can meet. How is this different from simple make believe that children play?

When to this is added the concession this does not make sense or is illogical from a human perspective [as if we are capable of some other POV] why bother arguing at all?

[rikuoamero]

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.

This is a good example of "just making things up." Inigo put it well when he referred to defining attributes to fit the definition. You take an idea, like 'God,' then you define this God as you choose, then make up attributes and qualities that by your definitions only this god can meet. How is this different from simple make believe that children play?

When to this is added the concession this does not make sense or is illogical from a human perspective [as if we are capable of some other POV] why bother arguing at all?

Going by this logic, I can argue there is indeed a leprechaun standing beside me right this very minute. However, the reason I don't see him is because he's invisible. Invisibility is an attribute of his nature. Sure, it's not logical by our standards, invisibility as we understand it requires technology, but hey, just believe it all the same?

[Zzyzx]

.

And your conclusion of the verifiable historical fact from disconnected sources that a god figure has made contact with humans is?...

I have encountered NO verifiable evidence from disconnected sources that a “god figure has made contact with humans�.

If evidence can be presented for a god figure contact with humans that is as strong and as disconnected as that for the Normandy invasion I will become a believer.

Notice that the OP does NOT deal with “god figure making contact with humans�

To refresh failing memories

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 [or that a god figure made contact]– 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

I understand a hesitation to address the questions asked because doing so openly and honestly acknowledges that Christianity is based on information that CANNOT be verified as being anything more than folklore, myth, fable, fantasy (made into “sacred� form for believers).


If you (generic term) cannot or will not answer the OP questions, why not just say so openly and honestly? Dancing and changing the subject doesn't qualify as an answer -- as I trust readers understand.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 451 by Blastcat]

Hello Blastcat,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express what I think. I will therefore express not only what I think, but mostly what I know.

You said,

You have your belief that the god you worship is infallible, and have prevented any questioning as to whether he actually IS infallible. You declare it such and that is that. End of discussion.

What should one believe other than the actual truth that settles debates? Only this is what I intend to share. Pictures from the Mariner spacecraft showing Mars to be a lifeless planet settled the issue whether Mars had civilizations or not. The Biblical gospel truth is like the Mariner when it comes to conflicting belief issues.

A lady was told in response to a question she ask about worship: “The hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. … the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him (St. John 420-24).�

If the title of this leg is, "Debating Christianity and Religion Why no Straight Answers?", my purpose then is to provide the proven straight answers. Debates are meant to fill in gaps in truth not fully revealed. But when the truth is made known in its fullness, what's the need for further debate?

In response to my statement, “Thanks for your very helpful admission that we are all fallible. With that the case, why shouldn't we seek and trust a superior infallible being?�

You said,

How could we know that someone is infallible if we are judging that person with our fallible minds? Sorry, that's a rhetorical question. I should avoid those.. they are very boring to read. I should say instead that if we are fallible, we can not expect to KNOW anything infallibly. So, what we may THINK is infallible might NOT be. We might have FAILED in our judgment.

We learn of Infallible God that's Sovereign over sovereigns from gospel messengers sent by God called ministers or preachers. The Bible that's preached was given us by a people of a nation that God brought into existence called the Jews. Gospel truth is yet continually proclaimed throughout the world. Although children know their parents as superior, man too often needs to be made aware of his Superior Creator by announcement. But for too many, there's a bottleneck called rejection.

You are correct in saying, “So, what we may THINK is infallible might NOT be. We might have FAILED in our judgment.� This scenario you cautioned against occurs repeatedly. Fallible man tends to promote himself into the seat of the infallible while demoting God (or any representative authority) as fallible only to reap disastrous results every time. As a child may be brought to the realization of his fallibility by correction, so is it true with man versus God. What's sowed is reaped. Human nature thus learns too often who is fallible and infallible the HARD way!

On the other hand, God's greatest display of infallibility is His unfailing grace and mercy that daily lifts fallible man above the prison of fallibility if fallible man accepts.

In response to my question, “Don't we live by someone's final word?�

You said,

Some people seem to think that. I suppose by "someone", you mean "God"?
Atheists don't live by "God's" anything.

The “someone� I'm speaking of in this instance refers to anyone in authority at the moment such as parents, boss, police, etc., whose positions were appointed by God. For example, the state has the final word as to how we should conduct ourselves on the state's roads to assure maximum safety (thus assuring God's command not to kill).

I find it better to say that the atheist thinks that he lives by nothing that's Gods. I would ask an atheist where did he find the ability to think, create, love, judge, make decisions, laugh, etc.? Where did he get his unique character and abilities and his good potentials? Although an atheist claims to see nothing in existence beyond the natural, what natural object produced the qualities and abilities I listed?

The atheist is only able to claim that he doesn't recognize God's existence. But what's the need to be an atheist? What's the advantage? Would you advise a child to ignore the fact that he has parents and depart from them and be proud? If God is truly non-existent, why so much effort to hold up the supposed “fact� that He doesn't exist?

You would have authority over me the moment I step into your house. How would you feel if I pretend you were non-existent and ignore your authority? I would be afraid of flying out of your front door with a sore behind if I did so. One must exit himself from the universe and also walk out of his body in order to escape God's sovereign authority. Is that possible?

What's the use for looking under the hood of a $500,000 fine car only to say that it has no maker to be appreciated with gratitude? What joy would there be in driving it with no object for appreciation for its magnificent performance? What should prevent temptation to abuse it? Our bodies deserve far greater appreciation toward its maker than any sports car. If a loss of a bodily function is experienced, who is usually blamed?

Official removal of God's final word of authority in government is what brought things like abortion on demand and marriage between other than a man and a woman. How may we but live by someone's final authoritative word? Are laws anything but final?

You said,

But then again, I have no idea what authority you are talking about.. the law? Yes, everyone has to obey the law or suffer consequences. But human laws do not imply any kind of god. You are correct. Good laws of the land are derived from the laws of God.

Thank you. I say again that I'm speaking about whatever authority we may happen to be under at the moment including the law. An example of a human law that doesn't imply God is a segregation law. Such a “law� has no place in society and was abolished. I know that you are happy that Ridda laws are none of God's! Otherwise I would be very, very sorry for all atheists!� God desires your cooperation in His development of your great potentials, not chop chop!

In response to my statement, "Is it final or debatable that one should never commit murder?�

You said,

I fail to see what this has to do with being fallible.

The finality of the command not to murder keeps fallible man cognizant of a limit that he may otherwise exceed and end up punished.


In response to my statement, "Who or what else should we trust for resolving ever present conflicts among us?"

You said,

Us.

But can "Us" always be trusted? Are we all always honest and willing to abide if a decision is made that wont allow us to have our selfish way? Are we not all in some way selfish? Why do children need help of their parents in the decision process? Regardless how old and how high a position we may attain, don't we face ever increasing challenges that make us increasingly susceptible to temptations?


In response to my statement, "As fallible beings, how do we know that what we know as truth is indeed the truth unless we know that it originated from a higher infallible Source?"

You said,

That's circular. The same question could be asked about the knowledge of that so called "higher infallible Source". How do we know what we know about that?

How does anyone know anything right or wrong unless originally communicated from He that knows All that's right and wrong (God)? Robbing ourselves of God only robs ourselves of the Foundation of knowledge.

The fact that we are fallible implies that we have limits. Who do children go to when at their limits?

History is full of instances where only God was obviously credited for victory and survival in otherwise impossible circumstances because limits in human ability were exceeded. George Washington's army won the battle at Valley Forge despite the fact that they were so badly equipped that victory against the British was practically impossible. In another case a dense, unusual fog saved his army from the British. He warned us later in his life that failure to acknowledge Providence (God) is unpatriotic. My mention of George Washington was only a drop in the historical bucket. I Can refer you to the historian whose broadcasts taught me the above if you want.

When we believe the Genesis creation account we know from it that man had fellowship with infallible God from millisecond #1 and that man broke fellowship because of breakage of the first sovereign command. You have only expressed in your statement our need to trust God that He is who He is to deliver ourselves from circular arguments. Lack of trust to the trustworthy only causes one to miss out on the good that the trustworthy has to offer.

You continued,

Of course, we do NOT know about that. The debates in here are to give an opportunity for theists to PROVE that such a "Source" exists other than in the imagination of the believers.

What would you do if you had the proof to your satisfaction?

In a world full idolatry, the gospel believer is instructed simply to inform and the hearer is simply to believe. If proof given is still not to your satisfaction, may I ask if you would trust and submit to God the moment you are satisfied with what's given? May I please caution that people do not generally turn from God because of a lack of proof, but because they were enticed away by lust? Even if not physically, they turn from God in His face in their conscience.

In response to my statement, "Even if unknown, wouldn't there be a collective cry for such?"

You said,

Crying for something isn't proof of it.
But crying for something represents desire.

OK. Maybe I should have said, “Even if unknown, wouldn't there be a collective desire for such?�
It is natural to desire someone more powerful than we are for our protection?

Erexsaur wrote
Did the laws of physics originate with any of us that are fallible?


You said,

Yes.

OK. You, a fallible person originated the infallible law of physics! (Note I said “originate,� not “discover.�) You are thus “greater� than even Darwin! Who decided that the earth, according to your physical laws should be at a certain mass and travel around the sun at a certain distance at a certain orbital period (24 hours)? What individual tuned all the variables for the earth to be at the right temperatures for life? Was it you?

In response to my statement, "Why shouldn't we acknowledge and trust Him that's revealed to us?�

You said,

Because there is no good reason to think that it exists.

Are you infallible to the point that you are absolutely sure about this statement? Hmm! It's not good to think that God that gave you your mind exists?


For the remainder of yous statements, get ready! I'm about to REALLY, REALLY, REALLY make you guys bored!

One thing that helps me as a person to know that God is real is the very large amount of effort put forth not to believe by those that don't believe. Since you guys like to believe the knowledge of God I share as fantasy and His word a collection of myths, I have a myth for you that I shared sometime before that I think would make you happy!

Suppose I tell an atheist one of two things; one is that (A.) a stolen piece of wood placed in the bow of a ship causes the ship to sail faster at night. This is the myth that has no scientific support whatsoever. The other would be (B.) truth supported by the Bible backed up by much science and much that surrounds us. An atheist would think that both are myths. Which would the atheist resist most vehemently? Would it be “A� or “B?� If I were a science teacher in a university that taught one of the above as a fact to my students, which do you think would get me into the most trouble? “A� or “B?� For which would I only be laughed at and let go and for which would I find myself in major trouble with the university and probably criminalized? Which? I ask you guys that you not tell me you don't know where I'm coming from with these questions because you know!

I learned of this myth on a bubble gum card sold for a penny back in the 50's called, "Rails and Sails." That was my first exposure to the word, "myth."

Take care,
Earl

[Zzyzx]

.

We learn of Infallible God that's Sovereign over sovereigns from gospel messengers sent by God called ministers or preachers.

Are all ministers or preachers “sent by God�? Do all of them correctly relay actual “messages� from an “infallible God�?

If some are caught doing very “ungodly� things, were their messages before being exposed actual “messages� from an “infallible God�?

The Bible that's preached was given us by a people of a nation that God brought into existence called the Jews.

Correction: The Christian Bible was compiled in a nation / empire known as The Roman Empire. There is no assurance that any gods were involved. Its stories were written by fallible men, collected and selected by fallible men, promoted as official state religion by fallible men.

Gospel truth is yet continually proclaimed throughout the world.

The “truth� of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc is proclaimed throughout the world. Does that indicate that the messages are from gods? That the messages are correct?

Although children know their parents as superior, man too often needs to be made aware of his Superior Creator by announcement.

It does not appear as though any “superior creator� has made any announcement (except perhaps in the imagination of believers).

But for too many, there's a bottleneck called rejection.

The “bottleneck� for many of us is absence of evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision which, if any, of the thousands of proposed gods is more than the product of human imagination.


Thus, unless one accepts the fallible Bible as infallible, the whole "argument" falls on its face. Notice that the Bible is not considered authoritative or proof of truth in these debates.