Fundamental Fallacies

[StuartJ]

Christians typically dodge giving direct honest answers to three fundamental questions:

1) Can Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost be shown to exist anywhere other than in their imaginations ...?

2) Can a single verse of "scripture" be shown to have come from Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost ...?

3) Can the Jesus character be shown to have been sired by either Jehovah or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin ...?

Question for debate: Why do Christians still believe - or pretend to believe - these things ...?

[Jagella]

Christians typically dodge giving direct honest answers to three fundamental questions...

They will dodge any question that if answered sensibly and honestly will expose their beliefs as untrue.

Can Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost be shown to exist anywhere other than in their imaginations ...?

I suppose many Christians might argue here that you presumably cannot show that Socrates doesn't exist either. In other words, their logic is that although the evidence for people like Socrates is as weak or even weaker than the evidence for Jesus, we accept their existence. So why not believe in Christian figures?

The fallacy in this argument is that pointing out that other claims have even weaker evidence to support them does nothing to strengthen the evidence for one's own pet claims. No matter how poor the evidence for Socrates might be, such does not make the evidence for Jesus any better.

Can a single verse of "scripture" be shown to have come from Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost ...?

It depends on what you want to believe. Some Christians argue that the Bible contains knowledge that its writers could not have had without a god revealing it to them. They cite prophecies that they say have come to pass. Mere humans, they insist, cannot predict the future this way.

Of course, it's debatable if any Bible prophecies ever really predicted the future. Prophecy in the Bible is often vague and is easily twisted to make it appear to predict some later event. Moreover, dating can make prophecies "vanish" by revealing that a supposed prophecy actually postdates the event it is believed to have predicted.

Can the Jesus character be shown to have been sired by either Jehovah or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin ...?

Of course not. Magical sperm has always been in short supply.

Question for debate: Why do Christians still believe - or pretend to believe - these things ...?

Most Christians are looking for an eternal reward in heaven. The Bible god is a means to that end. So they work hard to come up with reasons to believe the Bible's outlandish claims.

[Tart]

Christians typically dodge giving direct honest answers to three fundamental questions:

1) Can Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost be shown to exist anywhere other than in their imaginations ...?

2) Can a single verse of "scripture" be shown to have come from Jehovah, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost ...?

3) Can the Jesus character be shown to have been sired by either Jehovah or the Holy Ghost on a human virgin ...?

Question for debate: Why do Christians still believe - or pretend to believe - these things ...?

1) yes... As i didnt create Jesus, Jehovah, or the Holy Ghost in my imagination, and it also doesn't reside in my imagination alone.... That is just a fact.

Although I suppose you are simply questioning if Jesus, God, and the Spirit really exist. Objectively...

Id say yes, although I dont think showing it to you, (convincing you), is dependent on Christianity being true... In fact, i think Christianity can be objectively true without you believing it at all...

so for 1, 2, and 3... It doesnt come down to me showing you anything. You, and anyone else could hold on to biases and never believe it, even if its true..

It comes to what is the best explanation of the evidence? Who has the best explanation of the evidence? And what is objectively true about Christianity?

In which case, i think the best explanation of the evidence, is Jesus is the Messiah as revealed from an All Knowing All Powerful God... He came in the fulfillment of prophecy, from dozens of prophets and hundreds of prophecies, all converging to one man... And testified by the first disciples, who died for their beliefs... The Christian explanation is a coherent explanation for the evidence... It gives a explanation that makes sense out of all of the evidence, and i think it isnt only the best explanation of the evidence, its the only reasonable one...

But if you feel there is a better coherent and comprehensive explanation, id encourage you to show it... How do you make sense of the evidence?

[Tcg]

so for 1, 2, and 3... It doesnt come down to me showing you anything.

Of course it doesn't given that you haven't shown anything.

You, and anyone else could hold on to biases and never believe it, even if its true..

Pure speculation. Not a great thing for one to build an argument on, but when it's all one has, I suppose that's what one will fall back on.

[Jagella]

if you feel there is a better coherent and comprehensive explanation, id encourage you to show it... How do you make sense of the evidence?

The problem with your explanation for Christianity is that it assumes the existence of unknowns like a god and miracles. A much better explanation of Christianity is that it is a man-made belief system that makes claims that are lies or at least mistakes. We know that people make up stories and lie. We know people create gods and fake miracles. We know people believe that outrageous fabrications are real. These are facts that can make for a very good explanation of the Christian religion.

So my explanation for Christianity is far better than yours because my explanation is based on what we know to be true while your explanation relies on unknowns.

[Jagella]

You, and anyone else could hold on to biases and never believe it, even if its true..

Pure speculation. Not a great thing for one to build an argument on, but when it's all one has, I suppose that's what one will fall back on.

Come, now, Tcg, everybody knows that Christians are not biased at all and readily open their minds to the truth no matter what it might be!

[Tcg]

You, and anyone else could hold on to biases and never believe it, even if its true..

Pure speculation. Not a great thing for one to build an argument on, but when it's all one has, I suppose that's what one will fall back on.

Come, now, Tcg, everybody knows that Christians are not biased at all and readily open their minds to the truth no matter what it might be!

Of course you must be right, Jagella. I'm simply confused by the fact that I've never met these elusive Christians you are testifying of.

[Tart]

if you feel there is a better coherent and comprehensive explanation, id encourage you to show it... How do you make sense of the evidence?

The problem with your explanation for Christianity is that it assumes the existence of unknowns like a god and miracles. A much better explanation of Christianity is that it is a man-made belief system that makes claims that are lies or at least mistakes. We know that people make up stories and lie. We know people create gods and fake miracles. We know people believe that outrageous fabrications are real. These are facts that can make for a very good explanation of the Christian religion.

So my explanation for Christianity is far better than yours because my explanation is based on what we know to be true while your explanation relies on unknowns.

Well you'd have to show it is built on lies, or mistakes (even if just reasonably shown).. I mean i am really, honestly, seeking to get a good explanation for Christianity from anyone. I think we should be critical on the matter... Did the Disciples mistake Jesus as the Messiah? Did they lie about its fulfillment? How so? In what ways? How do you make sense of the evidence?

[Jagella]

Of course you must be right, Jagella. I'm simply confused by the fact that I've never met these elusive Christians you are testifying of.

Well, apologists talk about such Christians all the time--or at least they imply such Christians exist considering that apologists criticize anybody who doesn't believe them as running from the truth. So if people who don't believe apologists run from the truth, then it's safe to say that those who believe apologists (Christians) never run from the truth. If Christians did run from the truth, then, well, apologists would look awfully hypocritical accusing unbelievers of running from the truth.

Understand?

Anyway, where are these Christians who absolutely respect the truth? I'd try looking in Loch Nesse. They've been reported as living right next to the dinosaur living there.

[Tart]

Well just to be clear, because this side conversation was sparked by my comment, i believe everyone has biases. I believe Christian can be just as wrong as anyone else... I even think I have biases, and id be willing to admit that I could be wrong about my beliefs in Christianity... So... When you guys are done with this like, mock discussion... Feel free to discuss the matter at hand