Believers... this is your chance!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Put up, or pack it in.

Earlier today I created the topic, "Why is the Resurrection Version of Events Plausible?" This represents the perfect opportunity for Christian believers to establish once and for all why their claims and their version of reality is at least plausible. I'm not even asking any of you to "prove" that your beliefs are true. I am simply asking you to establish that they even reach some minimum level of plausibility. A perfectly reasonable expectation, it seems to me, for anyone attempting to debate the truth of Christian claims with non believers on a Christian apologetics debate forum. And the perfect opportunity for Christians to make the case that your beliefs are at least well grounded and viable. And if you are not able to even achieve even some minimum standard of establishing why your beliefs and your claims are at the very least plausible, then what is the point of making them at all? I am not going so far as to suggest that, in the name of reason, anyone should stop believing whatever it is that gives them personal satisfaction to believe in simply because their beliefs appear to be the definition of foolish and silly. I am asking how, if you cannot even meet some minimum standard of establishing that your claims have even some slight level of plausibility, can you reasonably expect to convince others?

My experience throughout life has been that everything which occurs, does so for perfectly natural reasons. The heart and soul of Christian claims is that a supernatural event occurred 2,000 years ago. If this cannot be established to be undeniably and unequivocally true, then the entire claim is without foundation. Supernatural claims which cannot be established to have foundation are simple make believe. Why would anyone expect anyone else to subscribe to their make believe?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 7 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Historians do not stand alone. They work within the parameters of common modern knowledge. There is in fact massive "unequivocal evidence" that a corpse cannot come back to life and fly away.

Incorrect.

There is in fact massive "unequivocal evidence" that corpses DO NOT TYPICALLY come back to life and fly away. Science has nothing to say about absolute possibilities.

Please note, I am not saying this in itself proves or even supports that a body came back to life. I am only saying we need to choose our words carefully. Science ultimately talks about what "does" and "does not" happen; not about what "can" happen. AFterall, modern science is destroying many of our assumptions about what can and can't happen.

[ttruscott]

... an omnipotent God could make its creation blemish free.

We contend HE did make HIS creation blemish free. And your favourite straw horse is still dead, no matter how often you beat it.*

But HE did create us with a free will so that the loving relationship HE wanted with us could be real (love can't be forced)...and WE BROUGHT THE BLEMISH TO THE APPLE AS IT WERE by our free will! The only way to create without any possibility of blemish is to create us without a free will, robots or puppets if you prefer.

* Isn't it supposed to be a sign of abject failure in debate to operate from a false position about the opposition, not granting them the premises they operate from but twisting them so you have something to grip onto?

[Zzyzx]

.

There is in fact massive "unequivocal evidence" that corpses DO NOT TYPICALLY come back to life and fly away. Science has nothing to say about absolute possibilities.

Please note, I am not saying this in itself proves or even supports that a body came back to life. I am only saying we need to choose our words carefully. Science ultimately talks about what "does" and "does not" happen; not about what "can" happen. AFterall, modern science is destroying many of our assumptions about what can and can't happen.

Okay, after 'establishing' that there is no absolute evidence that long-dead bodies don't come back to life and fly away: Is there evidence of any kind other than unverifiable stories to support claims that long-dead bodies DO come back to life and fly away?

Is it rational to base beliefs on such stories if (since) there is no supporting evidence?

How is the 'resurrection' story any more credible than equally unsupported tales of magic flying carpets or genies in lamps or flying winged horses?

[Zzyzx]

.

We contend HE did make HIS creation blemish free.

What you CONTEND is meaningless in debate unless you can support that speculation with evidence sufficient to convince readers that you speak truthfully and accurately.

But HE did create us with a free will so that the loving relationship HE wanted with us could be real (love can't be forced)...and WE BROUGHT THE BLEMISH TO THE APPLE AS IT WERE by our free will! The only way to create without any possibility of blemish is to create us without a free will, robots or puppets if you prefer.

This is all nothing more than CONTENTION and speculation. That you and others may believe it is true is meaningless in debate.

Isn't it supposed to be a sign of abject failure in debate to operate from a false position about the opposition, not granting them the premises they operate from but twisting them so you have something to grip onto?

Do Apologists claim knowledge of 'God'? When claims are made in debate they are subject to challenge. If they cannot be supported with evidence beyond speculation and contention, they are invalid and are to be retracted.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by ttruscott]

If it was blemish free it wouldn't or couldn't make the wrong choice that you contend. Even with taking free will into account. Unless you contend that everything we do is right and just in the eyes of God either in the previous or current existence. If that is the case again it negates the need for a "savior".

You can try and square your circle all you want but it can't be done. Your belief system is a paradox.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 13 by Zzyzx]

I think that a person who is driven not by any desire to refute something, but rather by an innocent and healthy curiosity, who fully delves into the historical research, and requires a satisfactory, systematic explanation for the early Christian movement, he will find no natural explanation that satisfies: I don't mean they are C- material (to use a metaphor); I mean F-.

At that point, what a person does is greatly up to numerous factors, psychological and philosophical:

I am not interested in that later stage. Just the historical stage.

But I recognize in a debate that the atheist has one trick up his sleeve: the very nature of historical studies. Because by its very nature it cannot provide "unequivocal" knowledge about the past, the atheist can always resort to that "weak spot". It is in fact not really a "weak spot". I have not met a single historical argument on this forum launched at the typical christian documents which an atheist would never dream of launching at his mundane historical beliefs.

In other words, when dealing with mundane details dealing with mundane events, they act like historians; when dealing with even mundane details that approach the topic of miraculous events, they act like mathematicians. Its a genre violation; a double standard.

I really don't want to convert anyone; but I think consistency is respectable.

[liamconnor]

Put up, or pack it in.

Earlier today I created the topic, "Why is the Resurrection Version of Events Plausible?" This represents the perfect opportunity for Christian believers to establish once and for all why their claims and their version of reality is at least plausible. I'm not even asking any of you to "prove" that your beliefs are true. I am simply asking you to establish that they even reach some minimum level of plausibility. A perfectly reasonable expectation, it seems to me, for anyone attempting to debate the truth of Christian claims with non believers on a Christian apologetics debate forum. And the perfect opportunity for Christians to make the case that your beliefs are at least well grounded and viable. And if you are not able to even achieve even some minimum standard of establishing why your beliefs and your claims are at the very least plausible, then what is the point of making them at all? I am not going so far as to suggest that, in the name of reason, anyone should stop believing whatever it is that gives them personal satisfaction to believe in simply because their beliefs appear to be the definition of foolish and silly. I am asking how, if you cannot even meet some minimum standard of establishing that your claims have even some slight level of plausibility, can you reasonably expect to convince others?

My experience throughout life has been that everything which occurs, does so for perfectly natural reasons. The heart and soul of Christian claims is that a supernatural event occurred 2,000 years ago. If this cannot be established to be undeniably and unequivocally true, then the entire claim is without foundation. Supernatural claims which cannot be established to have foundation are simple make believe. Why would anyone expect anyone else to subscribe to their make believe?

Just to get back to our original exchange.

Do you agree that historical research into any subject matter cannot give mathematical certainty? Its a yes/no question.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 12 by ttruscott]

If it was blemish free it wouldn't or couldn't make the wrong choice that you contend.
... Your belief system is a paradox.

In what reality is having a free will a blemish? That would be a real paradox!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Put up, or pack it in.

Earlier today I created the topic, "Why is the Resurrection Version of Events Plausible?" This represents the perfect opportunity for Christian believers to establish once and for all why their claims and their version of reality is at least plausible. I'm not even asking any of you to "prove" that your beliefs are true. I am simply asking you to establish that they even reach some minimum level of plausibility. A perfectly reasonable expectation, it seems to me, for anyone attempting to debate the truth of Christian claims with non believers on a Christian apologetics debate forum. And the perfect opportunity for Christians to make the case that your beliefs are at least well grounded and viable. And if you are not able to even achieve even some minimum standard of establishing why your beliefs and your claims are at the very least plausible, then what is the point of making them at all? I am not going so far as to suggest that, in the name of reason, anyone should stop believing whatever it is that gives them personal satisfaction to believe in simply because their beliefs appear to be the definition of foolish and silly. I am asking how, if you cannot even meet some minimum standard of establishing that your claims have even some slight level of plausibility, can you reasonably expect to convince others?

My experience throughout life has been that everything which occurs, does so for perfectly natural reasons. The heart and soul of Christian claims is that a supernatural event occurred 2,000 years ago. If this cannot be established to be undeniably and unequivocally true, then the entire claim is without foundation. Supernatural claims which cannot be established to have foundation are simple make believe. Why would anyone expect anyone else to subscribe to their make believe?

Just to get back to our original exchange.

Do you agree that historical research into any subject matter cannot give mathematical certainty? Its a yes/no question.

The modern historical record is almost certainly wrong to some degree. The only question is to what degree? So the answer is yes.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 7 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Historians do not stand alone. They work within the parameters of common modern knowledge. There is in fact massive "unequivocal evidence" that a corpse cannot come back to life and fly away.

Incorrect.

There is in fact massive "unequivocal evidence" that corpses DO NOT TYPICALLY come back to life and fly away. Science has nothing to say about absolute possibilities.

Please note, I am not saying this in itself proves or even supports that a body came back to life. I am only saying we need to choose our words carefully. Science ultimately talks about what "does" and "does not" happen; not about what "can" happen. AFterall, modern science is destroying many of our assumptions about what can and can't happen.

Incorrect.

There is in fact massive "unequivocal evidence" that corpses DO NOT TYPICALLY come back to life and fly away. Science has nothing to say about absolute possibilities.

There is no "typically" about it. There is no unequivocal evidence that a corpse, fully and truly dead, has EVER come back to life. There are unsubstantiated stories aplenty however. All observation and and experience with a corpse fully and truly dead indicates that a corpse cannot come back to life. There are sound medical and scientific reasons to reach this conclusion. But of course there will always be the possibility of making something up and declaring it to be true. Which is called make believe.

Please note, I am not saying this in itself proves or even supports that a body came back to life. I am only saying we need to choose our words carefully. Science ultimately talks about what "does" and "does not" happen; not about what "can" happen. AFterall, modern science is destroying many of our assumptions about what can and can't happen.

This is called "learning." It's based on SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE. As opposed to unsubstantiated stories and imagined possibilities. In other words simply making things up and declaring them to be possible.