What is your strongest reason for believing in Christianity?

[bluegreenearth]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Actually, you can go back to my original response in this regard and clarify the message I actually conveyed. I never admitted that your reasons, facts, evidence, and logic were very good; only that no amount of such support will ever demonstrate the truth of an unfalsifiable claim.

Well no! Let us again go back through our conversation. I gave you very good reasons to believe the claims made by the NT authors. You came back heavily armed with the arguments of the scholars. I dismantle these arguments, to the point you come back and admit,

Since I do not have reasonable access to the resources available to the consensus of scholars, I have no choice but to rely upon their best professional judgement and expertise in the same way that I rely upon the expertise and judgments of medical doctors in diagnosing and treating a variety of medical conditions.

This means, you have no idea as to whether they may be giving you good information or not, and you admit that you put your faith, hope, and trust in what they have to tell you.

However, when I go on to take these arguments head on, you have no rebuttal, because you seem to be admitting that you are not capable of defending what the scholars have to say. With this being the case, I can surely understand that you would really have no way of knowing whether my reasons would be good, or not. However, you did go on to say in a later post,

Although I am skeptical of the reasons, facts, logic, and evidence you provided in support of your belief, I can understand why you would find them acceptable from within the Christian worldview.

So here, you may not be saying my reasons are good, but you are saying they are understandable, and you have to say as much, when you admit you are not capable of defending the arguments of those you have placed your, faith, hope, and trust in.

The clear difference between us is, I do not put my faith, hope, and trust in what anyone has to say. My belief is not built upon faith, but rather upon the facts, reasons, and evidence. In other words, I do not simply accept what the Biblical writers have to say. Rather, I examine all the evidence I can get my hands on, and attempt to determine what all would have to be involved in order for these men to be reporting the truth, as opposed to what they report being false. One of us relies upon faith, while the other relies on the facts involved.

I also mentioned the fact that the least supported unfalsifiable claim has the same chance at being true (or false).

Well, I am sorry to inform you that this would be a false assumption. Because you see, Christianity is either true, or it is false, which means there is no chance involved.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that this "unfalsifiable claim" argument wins the day, when this is not the case at all. Allow me to give you some, "falsifiable claims" which are really not "falsifiable".

If I say, "we have the letters contained in the NT", then you would agree that this would be a, "falsifiable claim", but in reality it is not, because we do in fact have these letters, and there is no way this fact can be "falsified". It would also be a fact, which cannot be "falsified" that there is indeed a reason we have these letters. Either, these letters were reporting fact, or they were reporting falsehood. Therefore, if I stay right here, (which I do) then I am not imposing anything, on anyone, and allowing them to use their own mind to examine the facts for themselves.

However, I understand why you may have unintentionally taken my statement out of context as those sorts of misunderstandings are common among people who submit to confirmation bias.

Allow me to ask you this. Would this statement of yours be a "falsifiable claim"? In other words, you seem to be making the claim that I, "submit to confirmation bias" as if this would be a fact?

However, the fact is, I am constantly aware of the fact that I am very capable of succumbing to this sort of thing, and I constantly battle against it. Are you under the impression this would be impossible for you?

I really do not see how you could make such an argument, when you have demonstrated that you put your, faith, hope, and trust in those who agree with you, even in the face of the fact that I have put those arguments to rest, and you cannot defend them.

So who is it really, who is guilty of, "confirmation bias"?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 138 by Tcg]

Allow me now to tell the real story. You see, Butterfield wrote this book to Christians, in order to demonstrate how we should treat those who may be opposed to our views. Notice carefully, that in none of the quotes you cite does she ever say, this couple shared the Gospel with her, nor does she say they ever once invited her to Church.

Can you imagine why she does not mention this? Well, because according to her, this never happened. In other words, this couple never attempted to convert her, never shared the Gospel with her, and never once invited her to Church. In fact, from the very quote you cite,

And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.

The fact of the matter is, if you will notice real carefully, from what you actually cite yourself, she never gives credit to this "nice couple" at all,

Rosaria explores how God used a humble couple’s simple invitation to dinner to draw her—a radical, committed unbeliever—to himself.

So then, since they never once attempted to convert her, and since they never shared to Gospel with her, and since they never invited her to Church, how could they possibly get credit for any sort of "influence" over her decision, when she makes it clear that this happened by her reading the Bible for herself?

In fact, if there was anyone with any sort of motive, that would have been Butterfield, when she admits,

My motives at the time were straightforward: Surely this will be good for my research.

So then, if you have any argument, it is not with me, but rather with Butterfield, because she clearly seems to be saying, "this nice couple had no influence on her decision. Rather, according to her, it was God, and her own reading of the Bible".

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Actually, you can go back to my original response in this regard and clarify the message I actually conveyed. I never admitted that your reasons, facts, evidence, and logic were very good; only that no amount of such support will ever demonstrate the truth of an unfalsifiable claim.

Well no! Let us again go back through our conversation. I gave you very good reasons to believe the claims made by the NT authors. You came back heavily armed with the arguments of the scholars. I dismantle these arguments, to the point you come back and admit,

Since I do not have reasonable access to the resources available to the consensus of scholars, I have no choice but to rely upon their best professional judgement and expertise in the same way that I rely upon the expertise and judgments of medical doctors in diagnosing and treating a variety of medical conditions.

This means, you have no idea as to whether they may be giving you good information or not, and you admit that you put your faith, hope, and trust in what they have to tell you.

However, when I go on to take these arguments head on, you have no rebuttal, because you seem to be admitting that you are not capable of defending what the scholars have to say. With this being the case, I can surely understand that you would really have no way of knowing whether my reasons would be good, or not. However, you did go on to say in a later post,

Although I am skeptical of the reasons, facts, logic, and evidence you provided in support of your belief, I can understand why you would find them acceptable from within the Christian worldview.

So here, you may not be saying my reasons are good, but you are saying they are understandable, and you have to say as much, when you admit you are not capable of defending the arguments of those you have placed your, faith, hope, and trust in.

I do not need to defend the experts' arguments because they provide their own defense. The experts present falsifiable claims, attempt to falsify them, and fail to demonstrate the claims are false. Your objections to the expert arguments do no falsify them either. This means it is reasonable and justifiable to provisionally accept the experts' conclusions.

The clear difference between us is, I do not put my faith, hope, and trust in what anyone has to say. My belief is not built upon faith, but rather upon the facts, reasons, and evidence. In other words, I do not simply accept what the Biblical writers have to say. Rather, I examine all the evidence I can get my hands on, and attempt to determine what all would have to be involved in order for these men to be reporting the truth, as opposed to what they report being false. One of us relies upon faith, while the other relies on the facts involved.

You are ignoring the fact that "faith" is not required to believe a falsifiable claim is true when it has been demonstrated to survive every test designed to falsify it. For all the facts and evidence you've examined, the claim you believe to be true is still unfalsifiable. Once you've proposed a falsifiable claim we can both examine, you can assess if my conclusion is based on faith.

Well, I am sorry to inform you that this would be a false assumption. Because you see, Christianity is either true, or it is false, which means there is no chance involved.

Until Christianity is demonstrated to be true or false, its validity remains uncertain. If you prefer a different term than "chance" to describe that reality, then propose something better.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that this "unfalsifiable claim" argument wins the day, when this is not the case at all. Allow me to give you some, "falsifiable claims" which are really not "falsifiable".

If I say, "we have the letters contained in the NT", then you would agree that this would be a, "falsifiable claim", but in reality it is not, because we do in fact have these letters, and there is no way this fact can be "falsified". It would also be a fact, which cannot be "falsified" that there is indeed a reason we have these letters. Either, these letters were reporting fact, or they were reporting falsehood. Therefore, if I stay right here, (which I do) then I am not imposing anything, on anyone, and allowing them to use their own mind to examine the facts for themselves.

The claim about the letters in the NT has the potential to be falsified until it is tested. If I never before investigated the contents of the NT, I could go observe its contents to see if the letters existed there or not. If the letters were not there when I went to go find them, that outcome would falsify the claim. Since I observe the letters in the NT, the claim survives the test designed to falsify it. That is how the principle of falsification works.

Now, when we consider the extraordinary supernatural claims contained within the letters of the NT, there is no such tests we could conduct whose outcomes would prove or disprove them. Therefore, those claims are unfalsifiable.

Allow me to ask you this. Would this statement of yours be a "falsifiable claim"? In other words, you seem to be making the claim that I, "submit to confirmation bias" as if this would be a fact?

However, the fact is, I am constantly aware of the fact that I am very capable of succumbing to this sort of thing, and I constantly battle against it. Are you under the impression this would be impossible for you?

Everyone, including me, is susceptible to influence from confirmation bias. This is especially the case for belief in unfalsifiable claims. If you've come to believe that an unfalsifiable claim is true (or false), then confirmation bias must have influenced your decision since there is no logical or rational method for demonstrating an unfalsifiable claim is true (or false). If you had mitigated for confirmation bias, the only conclusion you could have arrived at is that agnosticism is required with regards to the validity of an unfalsifiable claim.

I really do not see how you could make such an argument, when you have demonstrated that you put your, faith, hope, and trust in those who agree with you, even in the face of the fact that I have put those arguments to rest, and you cannot defend them.

So who is it really, who is guilty of, "confirmation bias"?

I've previously explained the distinction between reliance upon experts who've demonstrated a falsifiable claim has survived every attempt to disprove it and the futility of relying upon facts and evidence to support belief in an unfalsifiable claim. In fact, seeking out facts and evidence to support an unfalsifiable claim is a hallmark characteristic of confirmation bias. Also, as previously explained, none of your objections put the arguments to rest. The only way to do that is to falsify the experts' falsifiable claims. The only required defense on my part has already been demonstrated by the experts who were unable to disprove their own falsifiable claims despite every attempt to do so.

So, I don't see where I've submitted to confirmation bias because I'm not only open to someone disproving any proposed falsifiable claims but welcome the possibility. This concept of falsifiability and confirmation bias is really not complicated at all. I fail to understand why you object to it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 141 by bluegreenearth]

I do not need to defend the experts' arguments because they provide their own defense.

So why don't you explain to us, exactly what that defense would be? You cannot, because you admit that you are not capable of doing so, which means you have no idea if they would have a defense at all.

Again let's go back through this. You came out with the arguments of the scholars. I refute what they have to say, using the facts, and evidence. You admit that you cannot defend the argument of the scholars, but you are confident they have a defense? How exactly does that work?

The experts present falsifiable claims, attempt to falsify them, and fail to demonstrate the claims are false.

Well, isn't that convenient? And by your own admission, you are left at the mercy of these scholars, that they have spoken the truth. Well, how about try this out? These scholars you speak of, have not been able to falsify the claims made by the NT authors, and believe me, they have tried.

However, this does not count in your mind, because it is not the position you agree with. In other words, it only counts when they attempt to falsify their own claims. It does not count when they attempt to falsify other claims. Again, exactly how does that work? I have an idea how it works, and we will get to it momentarily.

In the meantime, can you share with us exactly what test they used in an attempt to "falsify" their own claims? In other words, do you know exactly how they attempted to falsify their own claims? Are you certain they even attempted to do this at all? Or, are you simply placing your "faith" in them, because those who agree with you could not possibly slant the evidence, and this would happen only with those with whom you are opposed?

Your objections to the expert arguments do no falsify them either.

My objections clearly demonstrate the argument of the "experts" goes against the overwhelming evidence, and demonstrates some sort of bias, since they fail to even acknowledge this evidence that would be clearly against the arguments they make.

I will be more than happy to go through all these arguments, because I can assure you I know them very well. However, it will take up a lot of time, thinking, and space, and this usually does not work so well for those who are simply looking for easy answers.

This means it is reasonable and justifiable to provisionally accept the experts' conclusions.

pro·vi·sion·al·ly
/prəˈviZH(ə)n(ə)lē/

adverb
subject to further confirmation; for the time being.

Well, if you can make sense of this in your mind then go right ahead. However, this would not be a fact, but rather an opinion, and not a very good, as far as I am concerned.

Because you see, I simply do not take the word of others, no matter who they may be. My friends, and wife will tell you that I do not believe much of anything at all, until, or unless the evidence is overwhelming.

I am very careful when I talk to folks to explain to them, "when this is something I may have heard", even if it comes from a close friend, or even my wife, because although I do not believe that my friends, or my wife would report to me something that they know would be false, I also understand they could be in error. Therefore, I do not simply accept what others have to say, no matter who they may be.

But hey! You do you, my friend. But, please do not be offended, if I do not follow suit.

For all the facts and evidence you've examined, the claim you believe to be true is still unfalsifiable.

No, I am afraid not my friend. The fact of the matter is, the claims made by the NT writers would not fall under the category of, "unfalsifiable claims". "Unfalsifiable claims" would be claims that would be made in such a way as to be impossible to falsify.

As an example, if I were to tell you, "there is a dragon in my backyard", and when you came by to verify, and saw no dragon, then I simply say, "the dragon is invisible", this would be an example of an "unfalsifiable claim".

However, Christianity is certainly, falsifiable. Simply because it has not been falsified, does not mean that it would be, "unfalsifiable".

As an example, Christianity would be falsified, if it were demonstrated that the authors in the NT were lying. Simply because this has not occurred, would not in any way mean, that the claims are "unfalsifiable".

Another example would be, the resurrection. If it were demonstrated that Jesus did not raise from death, or if the body of Jesus would have been, or the bones of Jesus were to be presented today, this would indeed falsify Christianity.

Your other problem is the fact that those who actually came up with the idea of, "unfalsifiable claims" (because it was not you) do not agree with you. In fact, they emphasized, just as I am doing, "it is simply an error to suppose that all rationally justifiable claims have to be empirically falsifiable". In other words, simply because a claim has no been falsified, would not in any way make the claim, "unfalsifiable", and this would include the claims of the resurrection.

The reason why they understood this is because they understood there may in fact be solid reasons, and evidence to support a claim, which may not have been demonstrated one way or the other as of yet, but this would not cause the claim to be, "unfalsifiable", in the exact same way as you say below, "until Christianity is demonstrated to be true, or false".

The fact that you are admitting that Christianity may in fact be demonstrated to be true or false, clearly demonstrates that it cannot possibly be an "unfalsifiable claim", otherwise this would not even be a possibility.

You are ignoring the fact that "faith" is not required to believe a falsifiable claim is true when it has been demonstrated to survive every test designed to falsify it.

Exactly! Which means, since Christianity is a falsifiable claim, and since there have been many down through the past 2000 years who have done all they can to falsify the claim of a resurrection, but have failed, on top of the fact that there is indeed solid facts, and evidence to support the claims, then it requires no faith at all, for me to believe these claims, since the facts, and evidence support these claims.

However, it does in fact require "faith" for one to place their trust in what others have to say, like you would with your doctor, which is exactly the way you describe the trust you place in these "scholars" of yours.

Until Christianity is demonstrated to be true or false, its validity remains uncertain.

Whoa???? Wait a minute???? According to your logic, Christianity can neither be demonstrated to be true, or false, because according to your logic, it is an "unfalsifiable claim"?

However, you have the correct logic now, because Christianity can indeed be falsified, and there have been those who have tried, and the fact is your wording seems to clearly demonstrate that you are indeed quite aware of the fact that Christianity is not an "unfalsifiable" claim".

No! It is you who is "uncertain", because I am absolutely certain, that there are indeed facts, and evidence to support the claims in the NT. I am also certain, that there is no facts, or evidence that would suggest these claims to be false, even though there have been many throughout 2000 years who have done all they could possibly do to demonstrate Christianity to be false.

So you see, I would say these are very good reasons to believe these things are indeed true. So why don't you give us some sort of reasons there may be to doubt these claims. What would be the evidence that these reports would be false? I'll be waiting!

If you prefer a different term than "chance" to describe that reality, then propose something better.

I already have. Christianity is either true, or it is false, and chance would not enter into the equation. That is the "reality".

Once you've proposed a falsifiable claim we can both examine, you can assess if my conclusion is based on faith.

I have already done this. Christianity is a "falsifiable" claim, which has facts, and evidence to support these claims. I have given you some of these facts, and evidence, and all you have done is admitted that you must have "faith" in those whom you consider to be "experts".

The claim about the letters in the NT has the potential to be falsified until it is tested. If I never before investigated the contents of the NT, I could go observe its contents to see if the letters existed there or not. If the letters were not there when I went to go find them, that outcome would falsify the claim. Since I observe the letters in the NT, the claim survives the test designed to falsify it. That is how the principle of falsification works.

The thing here is, let's imagine you do not have access to the NT, and you have no way in which to verify if what I am saying is true, or not. Would this make my claim, "unfalsifiable"? No, it would not.

But this is missing the whole point, which is the fact that it is indeed an "unfalsifiable claim" that we do indeed have these letters, because this fact cannot be "falsified". It is also a fact, that there is a reason we have these letters. It would also be a fact, that these letters give us a reason. Simply because you cannot demonstrate these reasons to be false, would not in any way mean that the claims would be, "unfalsifiable" in the way you define, "unfalsifiable".

All I am really wanting from you, is any reason at all, with the facts, and evidence involved, that may even suggest these reports may be false, and thus far, you have given us no reason at all, to doubt these letters.

Now, when we consider the extraordinary supernatural claims contained within the letters of the NT, there is no such tests we could conduct whose outcomes would prove or disprove them. Therefore, those claims are unfalsifiable.

Again, this would be false. The resurrection is certainly an extraordinary claim. However, if the bones of Jesus were to be presented, this would indeed demonstrate the resurrection never occurred.

Now you may complain that presenting the bones of Jesus would be an unlikely task today, but that would be beside the point, and would be no different than if you did not have access to the NT, in order to determine if the letters were indeed contained in the NT. The point would be, this demonstrates that this claim is not an "unfalsifiable" claim as you want to describe it.

Moreover, there were those at the time who wanted to demonstrate these claims were not true, and the life of Paul certainly demonstrates this. This man was out doing all he could do to demonstrate this claim would be false, and not only did he fail at doing so, he actually converted, to become Christianity's biggest champion, giving a defense for it's truth.

The fact of the matter is, the "unfalsifiable claim" argument (which again you did not come up with) pertains to science, and would have nothing to do with any, and all claims, and those who came up with this argument, actually disagree with you.

In fact, according to your logic, full blown evolution, (one species evolving into another species) would be an "unfalsifiable claim" because there would be no way in which to test this theory at all. However, many scientists hold to this theory, based on the facts, and evidence involved.

Therefore, an "unfalsifiable claim" would be one that would be based upon very little, if any evidence at all. Ergo, since there is facts, and evidence to support the claim of a resurrection, this claim would not be what you define as an, "unfalsifiable claim". And as I have said, those who came up with this idea, do not agree with you.

Everyone, including me, is susceptible to influence from confirmation bias. This is especially the case for belief in unfalsifiable claims.

As far as I am aware, I have no belief in any "unfalsifiable claim" as you describe it. However, I do have beliefs in "unfalsifiable claims" such as, we have the letters which are contained in the NT.

You see, this claim is not "unfalsifiable" in the way in which you describe. However, it is indeed "unfalsifiable" in the fact, that it can be demonstrated, and cannot be denied.

If you've come to believe that an unfalsifiable claim is true (or false), then confirmation bias must have influenced your decision since there is no logical or rational method for demonstrating an unfalsifiable claim is true (or false).

Well no, because when the evidence overwhelming points to the fact that something is true, and there is no evidence to support the fact that it would be false, then it is legitimate to believe it to be true.

Again, give me some reason.........? any reason to doubt the claims, supported with facts, and evidence?

Now, when we consider the extraordinary supernatural claims contained within the letters of the NT, there is no such tests we could conduct whose outcomes would prove or disprove them. Therefore, those claims are unfalsifiable.

My friend, it is not as though you would have to disprove each, and every supernatural claim in the Bible. Rather, just one would do, and that would be the resurrection. The resurrection as we have demonstrated would not be an "unfalsifiable claim" because it can in fact be demonstrated to be false. Simply because a claim has not been falsified, even though many have tried, does not cause a claim to be an "unfalsifiable claim". However, what would cause a claim to be "unfalsifiable" is if the claim were actually true.

If you had mitigated for confirmation bias, the only conclusion you could have arrived at is that agnosticism is required with regards to the validity of an unfalsifiable claim.

I am afraid not. Again, if we look at the example of Butterfield, she would certainly be one who would admit to "confirmation bias" before she really began to study the evidence for herself. It was because of the evidence that she was able to let go of her "confirmation bias" because the evidence overwhelmed her.

In the same way, a Christian can be guilty of "confirmation bias" but simply because one may be guilty of "confirmation bias" would have nothing to do with what they have a bias toward being true, or false.

This also would demonstrate, unbelievers could be guilty of "confirmation bias" as well. Of course those who "claim" to remain agnostic, can say they have no "confirmation bias", but would this really be true?

Let us take you for example. You seem to "claim" to be agnostic. So, does this truly mean that you acknowledge that Christianity may indeed be true? Because you see, this would mean that you are acknowledging the fact that there is good evidence to support the claims. If there were no good reasons to support the claims, then there would be no reason to remain agnostic.

Of course you will attempt to argue that you are agnostic, simply because the claims are "unfalsifiable"? However, for a claim to actually be, "unfalsifiable" it would have to be a claim where you could not even imagine what could possibly make the claim falsifiable, and as we have demonstrated, we can imagine what would make the claims of a resurrection falsifiable.

In other words, a claim is not an "unfalsifiable claim" simply because it has not been falsified, but rather because there is nothing we can imagine that would falsify the claim.

Moreover, those who came up with the idea of "unfalsifiable claims" acknowledged that there very well could be "unfalsifiable claims" which would be very rational to believe, based upon the facts, and evidence available.

So then, even if the resurrection were to be an "unfalsifiable claim" would not necessarily mean that we should all remain agnostic about such claims, if there is very good facts, and evidence to support the claims.

My point is, it could absolutely be a "confirmation bias" which causes one to remain agnostic.

I've previously explained the distinction between reliance upon experts who've demonstrated a falsifiable claim has survived every attempt to disprove it and the futility of relying upon facts and evidence to support belief in an unfalsifiable claim.

The only thing you have explained is, you are willing to put your faith in the word of others, while ignoring all the evidence that would be against what they have told you.

In fact, seeking out facts and evidence to support an unfalsifiable claim is a hallmark characteristic of confirmation bias.

You really do not have to seek very long at all the find evidence in support of the claims in the NT. So then, what would actually be "confirmation bias" would be to simply accept what others have to say, simply because this is what you would like to believe, when the evidence is clearly against what you would like to believe.

Moreover, and again, those who came up with the idea of, "unfalsifiable claims" would not agree with you here, because as I have said, they acknowledged that even if a claim may be "unfalsifiable" would not mean that there would be no rational reason to believe the claim.

Also, as previously explained, none of your objections put the arguments to rest.

One can only come to this conclusion if they hold "confirmation bias" since these experts have no facts, and will clearly tell you they are giving an opinion, all the while the facts, and evidence support something very different than the opinion they are sharing.

Again, I know the arguments of the scholars very well, and will be more than happy to work through them with you.

The only way to do that is to falsify the experts' falsifiable claims. The only required defense on my part has already been demonstrated by the experts who were unable to disprove their own falsifiable claims despite every attempt to do so.

What I am waiting on here is for you to explain to us, exactly what test they used in order to attempt to falsify their own claims? Because as far as I know, there were no such tests. Rather, they are simply giving an opinion.

Next, how is their claim that the 2 letters to Theophilus would have been written in the 80s-90s, a falsifiable claim, but my claim that they would have been written in the late 50s, early 60s an "unfalsifiable claim?"

The only way to do that is to falsify the experts' falsifiable claims.

Exactly what "falsifiable claims" are you speaking of? They make the claim that the 2 letters to Theophilus would have been authored in the 80s-90s, so how is that a "falsifiable claim?"

Again the point is, you need to give us one of these "falsifiable claims" you claim the experts make?

The only required defense on my part has already been demonstrated by the experts who were unable to disprove their own falsifiable claims despite every attempt to do so.

No, I don't think it has been demonstrated and it will not be demonstrated until you can demonstrate to us exactly what tests they conducted in order to disprove their own claims, and since you claim they "made EVERY attempt to do so", then it should not be difficult at all for you to share this with us.

So, I don't see where I've submitted to confirmation bias because I'm not only open to someone disproving any proposed falsifiable claims but welcome the possibility.

When you can share with us the exact "falsifiable claims" these experts are making, along with the attempts you claim they made to falsify these claims, then we may be able to free you from the idea that you may hold to some sort of "confirmation bias".

However, if you cannot supply us with these "falsifiable claims", along with the attempts you claim they made to falsify their own claims, then I cannot imagine that it would be anything but, "confirmation bias".

This concept of falsifiability and confirmation bias is really not complicated at all. I fail to understand why you object to it.

My objection is, you really do not seem to understand the idea behind "unfalsifiable claims", because those who came up with this idea, had a different idea than you are explaining. Next, for some reason you seem to believe that your position somehow frees you from any sort of "confirmation bias", however as we have seen, it clearly does not.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 142 by Realworldjack]

Therefore, I do not simply accept what others have to say, no matter who they may be.

Based on what you have repeatedly posted regarding evidence for the resurrection, that statement should be qualified by adding "with the exception of biblical authors".

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 142 by Realworldjack]

Therefore, I do not simply accept what others have to say, no matter who they may be.

Based on what you have repeatedly posted regarding evidence for the resurrection, that statement should be qualified by adding "with the exception of biblical authors".

I've given up on Realworldjack because he is obviously doxastically closed and intellectually dishonest. My recommendation is that you not waste any more of your time on him.

[otseng]

he is obviously doxastically closed and intellectually dishonest. My recommendation is that you not waste any more of your time on him.

Moderator Warning


The main purpose of this forum is to avoid uncivil comments such as this. Please do not make any comments about other posters.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 142 by Realworldjack]

Therefore, I do not simply accept what others have to say, no matter who they may be.

Based on what you have repeatedly posted regarding evidence for the resurrection, that statement should be qualified by adding "with the exception of biblical authors".

I've given up on Realworldjack because he is obviously doxastically closed and intellectually dishonest. My recommendation is that you not waste any more of your time on him.

Right! It is always those who are opposed to us who are, closed minded, and intellectually dishonest. It could never possibly be ourselves who may be guilty of this sort of thing.

Folks usually resort to attacking their opponent when they come to the realization they cannot deal with the facts as they are.

[sorrento]

[Replying to post 146 by Realworldjack]

Is your strongest reason for your faith based on what the NT has to say, or do you also take on board the contents of the OT?
I ask that question because, as an atheist, a reading of the bible would be all I would need to convince me to give Christianity a miss!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 146 by Realworldjack]

Is your strongest reason for your faith based on what the NT has to say, or do you also take on board the contents of the OT?
I ask that question because, as an atheist, a reading of the bible would be all I would need to convince me to give Christianity a miss!

You are coming in way late to the conversation, and I began by insisting that I certainly hope there is no one who would be able to give one single reason for either their belief, or unbelief, because I will assure you it would have to be way more involved than that.

With this being the case, I have demonstrated that there would indeed be good reasons to believe the reports contained in the NT, but I could certainly use the OT as well.

The whole point here is, if you claim to have read the Bible, and have come to doubt the content of the Bible based upon this reading, I am not insisting at this point, there would be no reasons for your doubt. Rather, what I am insisting, is that there are very good reasons to believe the content of the Bible, and simply because there may be those who have doubts, would not negate the fact that there would be good reasons to believe.

So then, if you are only claiming to have doubts about the content of the Bible, and not insisting that I would have no reasons to believe the content, then we have no problem at all. However, it is when one goes on to insist there would be no good reasons to believe the content, they then own the burden to demonstrate this to be the case, and thus far this has not occurred.