anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[Vulgaris Prime]

Burden of Proof Shift #24

 

 

KH> All views make a truth claim. All truth claims bear the burden of proof.

 

Wrong.

 

Negatives usually cannot be proven except by directly proving tre positive to be false, and even then it's still up in the air. Furthermore, proof of the positive is required to establish the case before the positive can be disproven, usually establishing the negative.

 

In other words, prove your god exists rather than shifting the burden of proof.

[Mythra]

Kevin H

 

My brain functions at this time. (to one degree or another.)

I possess consciousness. As proved by my ability to type this post.

 

Prove that I will possess similar consciousness after I die and my brain ceases to function.

 

(hint for you)... Don't waste a lot of time on this one.

[MQTA]

 

 

KH> But there are different categories of evidence. There is forensic evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, empirical evidence, textual evidence, etc. Distinguishing these helps us see the difference between Harry Potter and the Bible, metaphor from literal, Hercules from Christ, etc.

 

 

 

 

Kevin H

 

 

"

 

Hercules

 

This god was the son of Zeus and the virgin Alcmeni. His mother, like the mother of Jesus, retained her virginity after the birth of her child. The Greek babe, like the Jewish babe, had an enemy. Hera attempted to destroy the former, just as Herod afterward attempted to destroy the latter. Like Christ he died a death of agony. When his labors were finished, he closed his earthly career by mounting a funeral pyre from which, surrounded by a dark cloud, amid thunder and lightning, he ascended to heaven.

 

The Tyrian Hercules was worshiped by the Jews, and Jason, the Jewish high-priest, sent a religious embassy with an offering of 300 drachms of silver to this god.

 

Prof. Meinhold, of the University of Bonn, says: "The transfiguration and ascension of Christ may be compared to the heathen apotheosis of such heroes as Hercules, while the story of the descent into Hades is modeled after such narratives as those describing the visit of Hercules and Theseus to the lower world."

 

Max Mueller pronounces Hercules a solar god. His twelve labors, like the twelve apostles of Christ, correspond to the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Christians have admitted the resemblance of this god to Christ. Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon says: "The labors of Hercules seem to have had a still higher view and to have been originally designed as emblematical memorials of what the real son of God and savior of the world was to do and suffer for our sakes."

 

The Rev. Heinrich Rower says: "We are all acquainted with the fact that in their mythological legends the Greeks and the Romans and other nations of antiquity speak of certain persons as the sons of the gods. An example of this is Hercules, the Greek hero who is the son of Jupiter and an earthly mother.... All those men who performed greater deeds than those which human beings usually do are regarded by antiquity as of divine origin. This Greek and heathen notion has been applied to the New Testament and churchly conception of the person of Jesus. We must remember that at the time when Christianity sprang into evidence, Greek culture and Greek religion spread over the whole world. It is accordingly nothing remarkable that the Christians took from the heathens the highest religious conceptions that they possessed, and transferred them to Jesus. They accordingly called him the son of God, and declared that he had been supernaturally born of a virgin. This is the Greek and heathen influence which has determined the character of the account given by Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Jesus."

 

"

 

 

 

 

and a whole lot more comparisons to Christ

[Kevin H]

KH> I am not a presup as relates to apologetics and theology. I fall more in the camp of classical or evidentialist. For this reason: all of us have presuppositions. The question is, are our presuppositions warranted? The Presuppositionalist apologist says, "yes, my presups are warranted, here's why..." and they're back to giving evidence.

 

So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one.

 

Kevin H

I don't belong to any particular camp or have any label that I know of, except that I think what I have already experienced will probably happen again if I do the same things that made it happen in the first place.

Are you saying that because I believe if I jump in the air that I will soon come down, I have presuppositional beliefs? I admit that I presuppose that when I push the button on my keyboard that has a circle on it, an "o" will magically appear on my TV screen thingy. Does that make me a man of faith??

I just want to know how badly you need to force everyone into a faith-based worldview so that you can level the field.

 

 

KH> You and I and everyone else operates from the perspective of a worldview. If asked why we presuppose our worldview we can hopefully give evidence and reasons. And by the way, all worldviews have elements of faith.

 

 

So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one.

 

Kevin H

 

Slippery debating tactics Kev. You don't want truth, you want us to play by your rules and draw us into the defensive when you are the one making claims here. Lloyd called you out on it and you still try and slip it in.

 

 

 

KH> If you hold a view, you are making claims. You are scrutinizing my view, I am scrutinizing yours. Truth dares to be questioned.

 

 

Kevin H

[Kevin H]

And there's #25.

 

I am not a presup as relates to apologetics and theology. I fall more in the camp of classical or evidentialist. For this reason: all of us have presuppositions. The question is, are our presuppositions warranted? The Presuppositionalist apologist says, "yes, my presups are warranted, here's why..." and they're back to giving evidence.

 

So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one.

 

Kevin H

 

LD: Why even bother to say you're not a 'presuppositionalist as regards x y or z' when you clearly are in regards to your overall theology and faith? The next line about all of us presupposing things is straight out of the presuppositionalist handbook for crap's sake. Are you just trying to spin things? Or are you really being deceitful?

 

KH> I clearly said I don't belong in that camp, which is generally characterized by Van Til. I showed why I wasn't a presup - because eventually one gets back to giving evidence for the presups which lands one back in evidential land. I am reading Plantinga however and he makes a case for "properly basic beliefs" but I don't fully grasp it yet.

 

 

 

All of your apologetic arguments stem from the 'If there was a god and the bible described him, then (explanation of conflicting scripture or failed promise)'. The 'if' part you refer to repeatedly is only solved by presupposition, which really is just a fancy word for belief. You were pressed hard on that in the chat room and you dodged it there, too.

 

 

KH> You couldn't be more wrong. Notice, there are two aspects to a question: internal and external. When considering congency within a given belief system we examine it on its own merits, terms, claims, etc.

 

When considering whether a belief system is even basically plausible, we examine it externally. We can not even bother to examine the internal claims of Flat Earth believers in that it is externally refuted in advance.

 

Repeating here about beliefs, faith, and presuppositions: we all have them but are they warranted?

 

Just admit you're a presup and the only reason you believe any of this crap is because of your faith and we can end the discussion agreeing to disagree.

 

KH> You are fast becoming childish and immature. Multitudes of thoughtful people hold to the veracity of Christ's claims and you call it "crap".

 

 

Kevin H

[Mr. Neil]

Kevin!

 

Would you PLEASE use the post preview option before finalizing your posts to make sure you're not screwing up the quote tags!?

[Kevin H]

So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one.

 

Kevin H

This is actually a very subtle straw man. Being someone who observes that there have not been any reliable resurrection accounts in recorded history, and only a few unreliable ones in the realm of religion, does not make someone a presuppositional naturalist, it makes them an observer.

 

 

KH> It informs them on how to view the data. It informs the observations. The best explanation of the data is God raised Jesus from the dead. If one is a Naturalist or Materialist one cannot allow that as a live option. Defend your Naturalism please.

 

 

Kevin H

[Kuroikaze]

So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one.

 

Kevin H

This is actually a very subtle straw man. Being someone who observes that there have not been any reliable resurrection accounts in recorded history, and only a few unreliable ones in the realm of religion, does not make someone a presuppositional naturalist, it makes them an observer.

 

 

KH> It informs them on how to view the data. It informs the observations. The best explanation of the data is God raised Jesus from the dead. If one is a Naturalist or Materialist one cannot allow that as a live option. Defend your Naturalism please.

 

 

Kevin H

 

no one need defend naturalism because it is obvious that the physical world exists.

 

By the way the statement that Jesus being raised from the dead is the "best explanation" is clearly an assumption. In my opnion there are far better explanations.

 

But for the sake of argument. If the resurection is the best explanation for Jesus then why is it a poor explanation for Mirthas or any of the other mythological figures that died and were raised again?

[Jose]

KH - With all due respect...

 

 

And by the way, all worldviews have elements of faith.

 

Really? So my worldview has an element of faith? I guess if I didn't trust the evidence of my senses it would, but since I do, my question remains...

 

What evidence would cause you to stop believing?

 

I showed you mine...

[Vigile]

And by the way, all worldviews have elements of faith.

 

Not true. Observation of repeated events does not require faith, just alertness.

 

 

 

KH> If you hold a view, you are making claims. You are scrutinizing my view, I am scrutinizing yours. Truth dares to be questioned.

 

 

Kevin H

 

Curious. What are my views Kev?

 

Kev,

 

If you can't figure out the quote function at least highlight your responses so that your posts are easier to decifer. They are giving me a headache. Select the text you wish to highlight, click the symbol at the top of the field that looks like A, then click on a color to distinguish your response from ours.

 

Thanks

[LloydDobler]

It informs them on how to view the data. It informs the observations. The best explanation of the data is God raised Jesus from the dead.

Actually, given the other inconsistencies within the bible, and the known history of the world, and man's propensity to fabricate religions to suit their purposes, along with modern medical science, the best explanation is that it's a tall tale fabricated by men, just like every other religion with miracle claims.

 

I mean do you really expect us to believe that out of the thousands of religions men have created over the years, yours is the one that is 'OMG REAL!'? Especially after we've studied it and found it wanting?

 

You are fast becoming childish and immature. Multitudes of thoughtful people hold to the veracity of Christ's claims and you call it "crap".

Getting bent over one word choice is pretty childish and immature as well. It is crap. Multitudes of thoughtful people believe Joseph Smith talked to an angel. Multitudes of thoughtful people believe that There is no god but Allah, Allah is the one true god, and Mohammed is his prophet (peace be upon him). It's still crap, only you agree with me on the others. You may choose not to use the word crap, but hey, to each their own. I've called your religion bullshit to your face in the chat room, you didn't call me childish or immature then...

 

You're doing what every other christian does when they fail to win us over, and that is descend into ad-homs to justify your exit before you ever have to admit that you're wrong.

 

Complaining about the word crap isn't going to make Jesus exist either. Jose nailed it - It's just another dodge.

[Jose]

KH> If you hold a view, you are making claims. You are scrutinizing my view, I am scrutinizing yours. Truth dares to be questioned.

 

Truth may dare to be questioned, but you certainly are adept at dodging them.

 

Simple question asked, simple answer not given. I'm not asking you about metaphysics. I'm not making an attack on you. I'm just asking a simple question...

 

What would it take for you to abandon your faith?

[Amethyst]

Truth dares to be questioned.

 

Then question it! Why do you not confront your own "truth?" Are you afraid? I bet you are, because when I was religious, I was afraid to question it.

 

But if something is really the truth, then it will hold up under even the most stringent questioning. Christianity does not, as you would see if you had the courage to question it even remotely. I strongly suspect you do not have that courage yet. Perhaps you will eventually.

[Ssel]

But if something is really the truth, then it will hold up under even the most stringent questioning.

I am an avid supporter of very serious scrutiny of ANYthing before it is seriously accepted, thus I find myself very alone. But I have to say that this quoted statement isn't really true. If the questioner has too many misunderstandings, then the questioning can easily appear to reveal a fallacy where there really wasn't one. This often happens in every organization. One can not expect every potential questioner to be of sound mind. Everyone thinks they are, but most have serious misunderstandings which make their questioning actually irrational but they can't see it.

 

By saying this, I am NOT saying that people should not question. Just question yourself FIRST. And when you can see a great deal of truth in the other subject, then you have earned the right to question the problem areas. NO religion has been created without a great deal of truth within it. If you can't see the true parts, then questioning the rest is futile.

[willybilly30]

kevin why havent you left for the arena yet?

you waiting on us to bawl like babies and beg for you to stay?

hold your breath til that happens ok.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one.

 

Kevin H

This is actually a very subtle straw man. Being someone who observes that there have not been any reliable resurrection accounts in recorded history, and only a few unreliable ones in the realm of religion, does not make someone a presuppositional naturalist, it makes them an observer.

 

 

KH> It informs them on how to view the data. It informs the observations. The best explanation of the data is God raised Jesus from the dead. If one is a Naturalist or Materialist one cannot allow that as a live option. Defend your Naturalism please.

 

 

Kevin H

[SkepticOfBible]

So Kevin, do you want me to start a thread in Colloseum or you'll just go around in circles in this thread?

[Poonis]

Kevin,

 

If you wish to ever pursuade someone to think as you do, it is best to work on pursuading them to their satisfaction; not yours.

 

This then makes it necessary for you to first understand that person, because, if you do not, you will never pursuade anyone but yourself.

[Amethyst]

But I have to say that this quoted statement isn't really true.

 

If the questioner has too many misunderstandings, then the questioning can easily appear to reveal a fallacy where there really wasn't one.

 

I'm assuming that there is evidence to prove something not true, like the case of the Bible. In that case, it can be proven untrue (and has been).

 

P.S. It should also be able to hold true for the vast majority of people who question it, which Christianity does not.

[NotBlinded]

...If the questioner has too many misunderstandings, then the questioning can easily appear to reveal a fallacy where there really wasn't one. This often happens in every organization. One can not expect every potential questioner to be of sound mind. Everyone thinks they are, but most have serious misunderstandings which make their questioning actually irrational but they can't see it.

 

By saying this, I am NOT saying that people should not question. Just question yourself FIRST. And when you can see a great deal of truth in the other subject, then you have earned the right to question the problem areas. NO religion has been created without a great deal of truth within it. If you can't see the true parts, then questioning the rest is futile.

Yes,

 

Things are usually not black or white, not 100% false, or 100% true. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. Even if the bible is entirely untrue and every person, place or thing it that it refers to are false, that doesn't mean there are not truths contained within it.

 

That is exactly what I did; I went from one extreme to the other and I am now comfortable playing in the middle. It really gets hot (or cold) on the extremes!

[Guest Guest]

dfdsafds

[crazy-tiger]

dfdsafds

Anyone got the gift of interpretation?

[NotBlinded]

dfdsafds

Anyone got the gift of interpretation?

I have no clue...

[Jose]

He said, "Praise da lawd! Kevin must've left!"

[Mythra]

dfdsafds

 

Defeated Fundies Denounce Sensibility And Find Dogmatic Solutions ?

[Kryten]

dfdsafds

 

Defeated Fundies Denounce Sensibility And Find Dogmatic Solutions ?

Wow! You have the gift!!