anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[crazy-tiger]

a: no evidence for any god there, let alone biblegod.

 

KH> I am offering the lines of evidence. The beginning of the universe is one evidence for God and especially the God of the Bible. I am offering a cumulative case.

 

b: still no evidence... life adapts to the environment, so there is no need for the fine-tuning.

 

KH> I am referring to the cosmological constants found in the Big Bang itself. The biological systems which adapt result from it.

 

c: there is no sense of objective morality... even the morality of Christianity has changed as conditions change. It's all subjective.

 

KH> How morality is applied may change (and even be corrupted). You have commited the Is/Ought Fallacy. That fallacy is conflating what IS with what OUGHT to be. You cannot deny objective moral values without positing what OUGHT to be.

Sorry, but that fallacy only applies if I'm trying to make a case for objective morality... subjective morality doesn't say what it ought to be, so no fallacy.

 

On the other hand, you managed to commit that fallacy yourself...

d: goodness knows what you're on about here as you've not made it clear what meaning you give to "contingency" and "non-contingent" I'm guessing that you mean it to be the non-predictability of the universe leading to something that's not subject to chance... if so, reality shows it to be wrong.

 

KH> Look up Argument from Contingency. Then we can discuss.

Ah... that debunked argument...

 

The Argument from Contingency

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.

(2) The universe exists contingently.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.

(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

 

#2 is a simple guess, and since the universe (by definition) is everything, it's saying that everything exists contingently.

#5 is the conclusion that something exists that does NOT exist contingently, which shows that #2 is wrong.

 

The conclusion shows that one of it's premises is wrong, so the argument fails.

e: there's no evidence that someone called Jesus Christ lived, let alone died or was ressurected.

 

KH> Really? You're saying there is no evidence for Jesus from the ancient world? Do you know the lines of evidence for Jesus' resurrection? (there are four lines of evidence that the majority of NT scholars -Christian, non-Christian, liberal, conservative, etc. accept).

If there's evidence, show it...

That set of "proofs" is wishful thinking modulated by faith.

 

KH> And your definition of "faith" is...?

Belief based on conviction as opposed to evidence

a: NT documents were not written until 40-120 years after he died,

 

KH> Even if that were true it would still be early. Most ancient works are 500 to 1000 years after the events they report. But it gets better! The New Testament was written 20 to 60 years after the events and complied into sources even earlier. The trend in NT scholarship is dating the NT earlier and earlier, mostly based on the recent work on Acts by Colin Hemer.

The Gospels were unheard of before 150CE. Since they are the core of the NT, the NT could not have been written until 120 years after the events.

 

Pauls letters are dated to ~15 years after the events, but they make no mention of those events...

NT itself didn't become finalized until around 400 years after he died, the churh admitted that there were fakes in amongst the NT documents and they COULDN'T TELL THEM APART!

 

KH> Actually, that is what canonization did, ie. discover what was authentic and what was not. There were basically five criteria used to discover (not determine) the Canon.

There were 3 seperate attempts to canonize the NT... after the second one, it was admitted that there were fakes in there.

The list between the second and third attempts shows only one change... the addition of Revelations.

 

Guess those fakes are still in there...

b: Mohammed is having the same unprecidented impact on human history... that makes it evidence that HE is who he said he was. (and that his words are the words of God... making Jesus just a prophet)

 

KH> Hitler also made an impact. But I am offering Christ's impact as a line of evidence, remember? BTW, Christ's impact is incomparable.

Prove it...

c: He managed to fulfill very few of the Messanic Prophecies. Those that he did fulfill, were re-written to make sure he fulfilled them.

 

KH> What is your evidence they were re-written to facilitate fulfillment?

Have you read the original Messianic prophecies? Have you compared them to the "prophecies" that Jesus fulfilled? You should try it some time...

d: Since the accounts were written so long after his death, there's nothing to coroborate such accounts. In other words... they're rumours.

 

KH> See above. And please tell me how historians determine rumour from fact in the ancient world.

If the second, third, fourth, whatever-hand evidence disagrees with the first-hand evidence... especially when the whatever-hand evidence contradicts itself.

Not exactly very good evidence, is it?

 

KH> Yes it is! And you have erected some of the best straw men I have ever encountered!

 

 

To bed... I can refute those in my sleep.

KH> I suggest you wake up.

I suggest you join us in reality...

[Kevin H]

Do you require 100% proof? What sort of evidence do you require?

 

K

 

Hi Kevin.

 

Personally, yes, I require 100% proof.

 

KH> Prove 100% you are not a brain in a vat being stimulated by an alien scientist to have these experiences.

 

The (christian) bible is roughly 1500 years old and can easily be proven to be full of shit.

 

So if biblegod is real, I require him to show himself to me personally just like he did for Moses, Abraham, etc.

If he did it then, why can't he do it now?

 

KH> This is the philosophical question of Divine Hiddeness. Why isn't God more "obvious", etc.? I have several suggestions:

 

1). If God exists, he knows how and when to reveal himself.

 

2). The Scriptures show that big flashy miracles have limited effect. They serve mostly an immediate revelational support. Jesus said there are those who would not believe "even if someone returned from the dead".

 

3). God wants more than mere acknowledgement of his existence. The devil believes God exists, so...

 

4). God has revealed himself in ways that promote a filial relationship with him. Therefore, we see more of an internalization of God's revelation progressively in Scripture. Which leads to...

 

5). God reveals himself in ways that can't be easily "faked". The beginning of the universe, fine-tuning in the universe, intuitional awareness of God, irreducible complexity in biosystems, and the phenomena that go with Christ can hardly be compared to "parlor tricks".

 

Sagan suggested God put a "glowing cross" in the sky so we would all believe. Simple right? No. It could always be written of as natural phenomena, NASA experiment, hoax, elaborate marketing, or even aliens!

 

6). God has revealed himself in such a way as to not overwhelm the free will. Jesus said if you faithfully seek you will get more. And if you blow off what you have even that will be taken from you.

 

So God has revealed himself in General Revelation (nature, cosmos, intuition, etc). And Special Revelation (Christ, the Bible, etc.).

 

How about divinely stopping a hurricane or a tsunami before thousands of people are killed?

How about one of his true believers walking into a children's hospital and healing all the kids like the bible says they can?

 

If god really wants to "save" everyone, why doesn't he show himself to all of us? Why should we have to rely on an ancient book filled with contradictions and inconsistensies?

 

Peruse this site for awhile, and you'll understand the position of the ex-christian a little better.

 

 

KH> I think my points basically address your last paragraph, but would only add I don't think any proven contradictions exist in the Bible, and that is a major strength.

[Asimov]

KH> Prove 100% you are not a brain in a vat being stimulated by an alien scientist to have these experiences.

 

Unfortunately, what he requested was 100% proof that something was true, not that something was not true, therefore your retort is irrelevant.

 

5). God reveals himself in ways that can't be easily "faked". The beginning of the universe, fine-tuning in the universe, intuitional awareness of God, irreducible complexity in biosystems, and the phenomena that go with Christ can hardly be compared to "parlor tricks".

 

Yes, they can be compared to "mythology". Christ isn't special, Kevin. And this just shows the utter failing of God, because your arguments are all appeals to emotion.

 

The Beginning of the Universe: God of the Gaps

Fine-tuning, intuitional awareness (?), IC systems: Appeals to emotion.

Stories that go with Christ: non sequiter.

 

We can just as easily use those arguments to apply to any God.

 

Simple right? No. It could always be written of as natural phenomena, NASA experiment, hoax, elaborate marketing, or even aliens!

 

Thus shows the utter failing of God to prove himself.

 

6). God has revealed himself in such a way as to not overwhelm the free will. Jesus said if you faithfully seek you will get more. And if you blow off what you have even that will be taken from you.

 

No he hasn't.

 

So God has revealed himself in General Revelation (nature, cosmos, intuition, etc). And Special Revelation (Christ, the Bible, etc.).

 

No he hasn't.

 

KH> I think my points basically address your last paragraph, but would only add I don't think any proven contradictions exist in the Bible, and that is a major strength.

 

No it isn't. It just shows the ability of the compilers to make a story, and the ability of you to "hand-wave".

[crazy-tiger]

5). God reveals himself in ways that can't be easily "faked". The beginning of the universe, fine-tuning in the universe, intuitional awareness of God, irreducible complexity in biosystems, and the phenomena that go with Christ can hardly be compared to "parlor tricks".

The beginning of the universe is not a revelation of anything supernatural... Ditto fine-tuning of the universe, (it just seems fine-tuned from a human point of view... we've no proof that it has to be like that for life/existence) Intuitional awareness of God fails since not everyone has this... in fact, most people don't have it, they're just trained to believe they have... IC in biosystems is based on an inability to understand the mechanics of evolution and biology, and the phenomena relating to Christ are conspicuous in their absence in historical accounts.

 

 

Tell you what though... why don't you throw some of these IC biosystems at us? It might even convince us that you've got an idea about what you're trying to argue.

[Mythra]

KH> The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. They are sources for Jesus. Kevin H

 

Umm. Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

 

Matthew and Luke both copied and dressed up Mark, and made an attempt to correct the errors found in Mark. (with additional material derived from the Q1 and Q2 sayings)

 

John was primarily an attempt to discredit the Gospel of Thomas, which preceded all of them.

 

In the Gospel of Thomas we find not that Jesus is the answer, but that the answer is to be found within a person.

 

Eyewitness accounts of contemporaries.

 

Good one.

[Kevin H]

KH> The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. They are sources for Jesus. Kevin H

 

Umm. Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

 

Matthew and Luke both copied and dressed up Mark, and made an attempt to correct the errors found in Mark. (with additional material derived from the Q1 and Q2 sayings)

 

John was primarily an attempt to discredit the Gospel of Thomas, which preceded all of them.

 

In the Gospel of Thomas we find not that Jesus is the answer, but that the answer is to be found within a person.

 

Eyewitness accounts of contemporaries.

 

Good one.

 

 

KH> Please present some evidence for your assertions. The only thing here to laugh at is your statement about the Gospel of Thomas!

 

 

Kevin H

[white_raven23]

Kevin,

 

You are pretty adamant about demanding proof and sources from US......

 

How about giving us some proof yourself.

 

Without using circular logic.....using the bible to prove the bible, or surrogate circular logic.....using an essay which uses the bible as it's source of evidence.....

 

Would you kindly provide proof that the bible is the word of god to begin with?

 

Thanks much.

[Mythra]

KH> Please present some evidence for your assertions. The only thing here to laugh at is your statement about the Gospel of Thomas!Kevin H

 

To what are referring? The early dating, or the evidence that the writer of John's gospel made an attempt at refutation of Thomas' gospel? I can support either one.

 

Or, are you saying that Thomas' gospel did indeed point to christ as the savior of the world and god incarnate?

[NotBlinded]

 

1). If God exists, he knows how and when to reveal himself.

 

2). The Scriptures show that big flashy miracles have limited effect. They serve mostly an immediate revelational support. Jesus said there are those who would not believe "even if someone returned from the dead".

 

3). God wants more than mere acknowledgement of his existence. The devil believes God exists, so...

 

4). God has revealed himself in ways that promote a filial relationship with him. Therefore, we see more of an internalization of God's revelation progressively in Scripture. Which leads to...

 

5). God reveals himself in ways that can't be easily "faked". The beginning of the universe, fine-tuning in the universe, intuitional awareness of God, irreducible complexity in biosystems, and the phenomena that go with Christ can hardly be compared to "parlor tricks".

 

6). God has revealed himself in such a way as to not overwhelm the free will. Jesus said if you faithfully seek you will get more. And if you blow off what you have even that will be taken from you.

Allegory Alert!

 

1) Look inside yourself

2) That's because the ones that 'returned from the dead' (egoic mind) are less likely to be recognized.

3) Totally silly

4) You have to reveal god

5) That says nothing about what god is

6) Once again, look inside yourself

[Kevin H]

KH> Please present some evidence for your assertions. The only thing here to laugh at is your statement about the Gospel of Thomas!Kevin H

 

To what are referring? The early dating, or the evidence that the writer of John's gospel made an attempt at refutation of Thomas' gospel? I can support either one.

 

Or, are you saying that Thomas' gospel did indeed point to christ as the savior of the world and god incarnate?

 

 

KH> the Gospel of Thomas is a late, second century gnostic writing. If you can support an early date for GofT and evidence John knew of it, I'd like to see it.

 

 

Kevin H

[Asimov]

KH> the Gospel of Thomas is a late, second century gnostic writing. If you can support an early date for GofT and evidence John knew of it, I'd like to see it.

 

 

Kevin H

 

Ron Cameron - (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, op. cit., p. 536)

 

"Determining a plausible date of composition is speculative and depends on a delicate weighing of critical judgments about the history of the transmission of the sayings-of-Jesus tradition and the process of the formation of the written gospel texts. The earliest possible date would be in the middle of the 1st century, when sayings collections such as the Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q first began to be compiled. The latest possible date would be toward the end of the 2d century, prior to the copying of P. Oxy. 1 and the first reference to the text by Hippolytus. If Gos. Thom. is a sayings collection based on an autonomous tradition, and not a gospel harmony conflated from the NT, then a date of composition in, say, the last decades of the 1st century would be more likely than a mid-to-late-2d-century date."

 

 

Patterson writes on the dating and provenance of Thomas (The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, op. cit., p. 120):

 

"While the cumulative nature of the sayings collection understandably makes the Gospel of Thomas difficult to date with precision, several factors weigh in favor of a date well before the end of the first century: the way in which Thomas appeals to the authority of particular prominent figures (Thomas, James) against the competing claims of others (Peter, Matthew); in genre, the sayings collection, which seems to have declined in importance after the emergence of the more biographical and dialogical forms near the end of the first century; and its primitive christology, which seems to presuppose a theological climate even more primitive than the later stages of the synoptic sayings gospel, Q. Together these factors suggest a date for Thomas in the vicinity of 70-80 C.E. As for its provenance, while it is possible, even likely, that an early version of this collection associated with James circulated in the environs of Jerusalem, the Gospel of Thomas in more or less its present state comes from eastern Syria, where the popularity of the apostle Thomas (Judas Didymos Thomas) is well attested."

[willybilly30]

That is not what you said in your very first post. However, the Bible is a major proof of Christianity. Why should one ignore the New Testament documents when considering the truth of Christianity?

 

Because theirs no proof outside the bible that the events happened

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think there are no sources outside the New Testament for Jesus. Are you sure?

 

I am sure I have done research on this. Look up historical Jesus on google.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you know what Alexander the Great looked like? Philo? Tacitus? Homer?

 

Theirs plenty of proof they existed but none for jesus

 

 

 

Finally, "talking snake" is rather simplistic and not what the Bible says,

 

 

Have you read the bible? The talking snake is in genesis.

By the way genesis is as unscientifically correct as you can get

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there is no evidence Jesus was "borrowed" from pagan mythological gods (another topic), and if Naturalism is true, then God does not exist and divine miracles do not happen. Please prove to me Naturalism/Materialism is true.

 

 

No one besides bible people have been able to have a baby being a virgin, walk on water, or any of that stuff. Iv done research and no cases have been found of virgin births.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God did make us as he wanted but by free will we choose to change that.

 

oh yes freewill. follow me or burn in hell thats freewill.

 

 

 

 

 

that is your topic i have already done the prove god topic.

 

Now I am not trying to prove that my god is right, right now. We are still on the topic of seeing if we can prove that there may be a god. I answered these questions in good faith. but we can't get ahead of ourselves b/c that is why "religion" can be confusing and down right irritating.(even to me. LOL)

[Asimov]

if Naturalism is true, then God does not exist and divine miracles do not happen. Please prove to me Naturalism/Materialism is true.

 

Definitions:

 

Miracle -

An event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the

simple volition of God, operating without the use of means capable of being

discerned by the senses, and designed to authenticate the divine commission of

a religious teacher and the truth of his message (John 2:18; Matt. 12:38). It

is an occurrence at once above nature and above man. It shows the intervention

of a power that is not limited by the laws either of matter or of mind, a power

interrupting the fixed laws which govern their movements, a supernatural power.

 

God - A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

 

Naturalism - The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

 

Premises:

 

P1 - A miracle is a supernatural occurance.

P2 - In order for a miracle to happen one would have to presuppose that a God exists.

P3 - In order to demonstrate that a miracle has happened, one would have to prove that God exists.

P4 - It is not demonstrated that anything supernatural exists.

C - Naturalism is demonstrably a true position to hold.

[LloydDobler]

his prediction and accomplishment of his own resurrection from the dead.

Demonstrate to me that resurrection from 3 days of being dead is possible. Otherwise your book is as much of a fantasy as harry potter is.

 

In fact, until you raise someone from the dead I think you ought to refrain from purporting to know what the truth is.

[Mythra]

As I'm sure you are aware, scholarship varies widely with respect to the dating of the Gospel of Thomas. What I find interesting is the same scholars who support very early dates for Mark and Matthew (some as early as 60 CE) - are generally the same scholars who support a late second century date for Thomas. (using a different standard of evidence for each)

 

There is considerable evidence for early dating similar to Q1. (as early as 50 CE). Rather that bore everyone with the details, I'll just cite one article which gives both sides of the argument. Here. As you can see, there are some valid arguments for an early dating. (such as a lack of dependency on the other gospels, and being proto-gnostic in nature)

 

NT scholarship most definitely is not universal on, as you claim, a late second century dating. Only the extreme sectarian conservatives would place it this late.

[Eponymic]

Hi Eponymic,

 

Will all respect, it is you have not done your research. I know that immediately puts you on the defensive but consider: The New Testament documents are primary sources for the life of Christ. When considering ancient events and characters one examines the best available sources and evidence.

 

Thank you kindly for telling me exactly how to think and feel.

Very Christian of you. (and that's not a joke.)

 

You just completely glossed right over my point. I wonder if I should even continue since you are already ignoring, not addressing, or just not catching my meaning.

 

What you mean to say is, just because something is written or preserved in manuscripts does not make it true. That is correct. But the first step is to consider whether the sources have been accurately preserved then we can check for historicity and truthfulness.

 

Golly, glad once again that you know what I'm saying better than I do.

 

You sure are good at appealing to the emotions without giving much substance.

And there's no sense in me going into more detail until you bother to actually refute my initial statements with something other than emotional arguments. Besides, plenty of people have already been addressing this since I've been gone.

 

Thirdly, we have non-New Testament corroboration for Christ, but please answer these questions: what tests do you think historians use to determine events and characters from the ancient world? What tests do historians use to determine the accuracy of ancient documents? Why do you penalize the New Testament? How you answer will show me how you determine historicity, interpolation, and alteration, etc.

 

I'll answer some of these, but frankly, what's the point in answering them all, it's just giving you fuel to redirect your arguments away from the facts and towards emotional arguments that you've shown you're much better at.

 

Why do you penalize the New Testament?

 

1. It contains a vast number of contradictions

2. It contains many geographical, historical & chronological errors.

3. Historians have shown that it contains many interpolated & plagurized sections.

 

Fourthly, you are not very accurate on canonicity but we need to consider your answers to my three questions before we can proceed.

 

Personally, I think canonizing should be defined as follows:

 

Canonizing (v) -

1. The act of a group of fallible, mortal, self-serving men picking & choosing what they believe to be the infallible word of God. 2. Men playing God 3. Shaping an object(s) to look like a canon.

 

The fact that it took all this time for men to set the Bible only helps to prove that it's mythology, not factual.

 

I just don't want to go into anything more with you considering that what I already talked about above. Have a good one eh.

[Mythra]

Now, for the correlation between John's gospel and Thomas:

 

Elaine Pagels received her doctorate from Harvard in 1970. She chaired the Department of Religion at Columbia University. She is currently a professor of religion at Princeton.

 

In her book "Beyond Belief" she has the following to say about this:

 

"I was amazed when I went back to the Gospel of John after reading Thomas, for Thomas and John clearly draw upon similar language and images, and both, apparently, begin with similar "secret teaching". But John takes this teaching to mean something so different from Thomas that I wondered whether John could have written his gospel to refute what Thomas teaches. For months, I investigated this possibility, and explored the work of other scholars, who also have compared these sources, and I was finally convinced that this is what happened. As the scholar Gregory Riley points out, John - and only John - presents a challenging and critical portrait of the disciple he calls "Thomas, the one called Didymus", and, as Riley suggests, it is John who invented the character we call Doubting Thomas, perhaps as a way of caricaturing those who revered a teacher - and a version of Jesus' teaching - that he regarded as faithless and false."

 

Pagels goes on in this book to support this idea with references too numerous and detailed to list here.

[SkepticOfBible]

KH> The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. They are sources for Jesus.

 

First and second century non-New Testament writings by Greek and Roman writers mention either Jesus or New Testament characters and events. They are sources for Jesus.

 

 

As far as preservation of the NT text goes, the NIV Bible has a footnote that says the most reliable early manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20. How are we to know that other NT text have not been altered.

 

Where are the originals books of the bible?

 

Secondly would you mind addressing the following questions

 

KH> Actually, that is what canonization did, ie. discover what was authentic and what was not. There were basically five criteria used to discover (not determine) the Canon.

 

 

1) Who and what determine which writings are inspired by "God"?Which canon is the correct one?

2)Why should we believe your version and translation of the bible over the other? How do we ensure that we are reading the abosolute correct and complete word of god, since there are so many differences in the books between the many sects of christianity?

3)Could you give the list of authors of the various books of your bible? Please don't include church tradiotion or speculation

4)What is your opinion about Catholism as being the true faith?After protestants came from catholics? So who is right about christiantiy?

5)Could give the name of any first hand witnesses?

 

If you are sure about the inerrancy, please go to the colloseum and resolve the atleast the three threads in there

 

A Christian's inerrancy challenge

Geneology

a discussion on Jesus as the Messiah

 

The last christian who tried to resolve the issus ran away and never came back

 

 

1). What sort of evidence do we have for Alexander the Great?

 

2). How far removed from Alexander the Great are the first writings about him?

 

3). How many manuscripts survive for Homer's [i[illiad[/i]?

 

The difference between the historical data about these other characters is that they knowledge so far is always considered fallible, ie if new imformation is discovered then after careful scrutiny it is passed off as fact, eg the most you can get out Homer Illiad is that there was city of troy that's it. The very existance of city of troy was still debated untill the actual site was found. Would you fmind telling me which Historian has proclaimed as fact, that archilles was born of a greek goddess and that his mother dipped him in the river of immortality?

 

However with the bible you have double standard, cause you would believe a certain fact if it goes against the bible

[Kevin H]

if Naturalism is true, then God does not exist and divine miracles do not happen. Please prove to me Naturalism/Materialism is true.

 

Definitions:

 

Miracle -

An event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the

simple volition of God, operating without the use of means capable of being

discerned by the senses, and designed to authenticate the divine commission of

a religious teacher and the truth of his message (John 2:18; Matt. 12:38). It

is an occurrence at once above nature and above man. It shows the intervention

of a power that is not limited by the laws either of matter or of mind, a power

interrupting the fixed laws which govern their movements, a supernatural power.

 

KH> I can hang with that.

 

God - A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

 

KH> That falls rather short of the God of Christian Theism, but some of that definition applies.

 

Naturalism - The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

 

KH> Yes. That being the case. The origin of nature cannot be accounted for by nature itself. That would mean it would have to exist prior to itself in order to create itself. Therefore, we are led to something beyond nature to ground or account for the natural, material world. This is especially acute in Big Bang cosmology which grows stronger every day.

 

Premises:

 

P1 - A miracle is a supernatural occurance.

 

KH> Agreed.

 

P2 - In order for a miracle to happen one would have to presuppose that a God exists.

 

KH> False. In order for a miracle to happen a supernatural agent (God) must exist.

 

P3 - In order to demonstrate that a miracle has happened, one would have to prove that God exists.

 

KH> False. If a miracle is demonstrated to have occured that is a proof of God.

 

P4 - It is not demonstrated that anything supernatural exists.

 

KH> Vague. It depends on what you mean by "demonstrated". It is difficult to demonstrate something 100% but I think the evidence for theism outweighs atheistic naturalism. Naturalism hits the wall at the Big Bang.

 

C - Naturalism is demonstrably a true position to hold.

 

 

KH> If the premises are false the conclusion does not follow.

 

 

Kevin H

[crazy-tiger]

Premises:

 

P1 - A miracle is a supernatural occurance.

 

KH> Agreed.

 

P2 - In order for a miracle to happen one would have to presuppose that a God exists.

 

KH> False. In order for a miracle to happen a supernatural agent (God) must exist.

Minor point... supernatural agent doesn't equal God.

So, the premise is "In order for a miracle to happen one would have to presuppose that a supernatural agent exists."

P3 - In order to demonstrate that a miracle has happened, one would have to prove that God exists.

 

KH> False. If a miracle is demonstrated to have occured that is a proof of God.

False... that is only proof that the supernatural exists...

 

Of course, you then have to prove that the miracle couldn't have happened by any natural means before it's eligable to be proof of the supernatural.

P4 - It is not demonstrated that anything supernatural exists.

 

KH> Vague. It depends on what you mean by "demonstrated". It is difficult to demonstrate something 100% but I think the evidence for theism outweighs atheistic naturalism. Naturalism hits the wall at the Big Bang.

Is there any evidence at all that the supernatural exists? This evidence would have to show that there is no natural explaination for this evidence.

 

All current evidence for the supernatural is along the lines of "we don't know, so it must be supernatural."

This is also known as the "God of the Gaps" argument or "Argumentum ad ignoratum"... the argument from ignorance. Something you just used in your example of theism outweighing naturalism. "Naturalism can't explain what came before the Big Bang, therefore God"

 

Of course, that assumes there is a "before" the BB, which is kinda impossible since the BB is the start of time... Ergo, there is no "before" to explain.

C - Naturalism is demonstrably a true position to hold.

 

KH> If the premises are false the conclusion does not follow.

 

 

Kevin H

But since the premises are true, the conclusion follows...

 

Oh, and using an argument from ignorance results in an ignorant argument.

[Kevin H]

his prediction and accomplishment of his own resurrection from the dead.

Demonstrate to me that resurrection from 3 days of being dead is possible. Otherwise your book is as much of a fantasy as harry potter is.

 

 

KH> If God exists miracles are possible. Resurrection from biological death naturally is extremely improbable or impossible. But that is not the Christian hypothesis. The Christian hypothesis is "God raised Jesus from the dead".

 

BTW, note we are distinguishing biological death from clinical death.

 

 

 

In fact, until you raise someone from the dead I think you ought to refrain from purporting to know what the truth is.

 

 

KH> Really? That sword cuts both ways. Maybe you should refrain making any truth claims until you raise someone from the dead. Am I reading you right here? Are you saying I need to perform a resurrection in order to make a truth claim?

 

 

Kevin H

[crazy-tiger]

Demonstrate to me that resurrection from 3 days of being dead is possible. Otherwise your book is as much of a fantasy as harry potter is.

 

KH> If God exists miracles are possible. Resurrection from biological death naturally is extremely improbable or impossible. But that is not the Christian hypothesis. The Christian hypothesis is "God raised Jesus from the dead".

 

BTW, note we are distinguishing biological death from clinical death.

 

 

In fact, until you raise someone from the dead I think you ought to refrain from purporting to know what the truth is.

 

 

KH> Really? That sword cuts both ways. Maybe you should refrain making any truth claims until you raise someone from the dead. Am I reading you right here? Are you saying I need to perform a resurrection in order to make a truth claim?

 

 

Kevin H

Are you really that unable to understand simple English?

[Kevin H]

Are you really that unable to understand simple English?

 

 

KH> Your response is nothing more than an ad hom. But thanks anyway.

 

Kevin H

[Kuroikaze]

 

 

KH> Really? That sword cuts both ways. Maybe you should refrain making any truth claims until you raise someone from the dead. Am I reading you right here? Are you saying I need to perform a resurrection in order to make a truth claim?

 

 

Kevin H

 

Uh....maybe I'm just thinking to logicly here, but Lloyd never made the claim that people can be raised from the dead.

 

Kevin his statement only applys to you, not us, since you are the one making the claim of a resurection

[Kevin H]

Hi Eponymic,

 

Will all respect, it is you have not done your research. I know that immediately puts you on the defensive but consider: The New Testament documents are primary sources for the life of Christ. When considering ancient events and characters one examines the best available sources and evidence.

 

Thank you kindly for telling me exactly how to think and feel.

Very Christian of you. (and that's not a joke.)

 

KH> I guess I was right. I did not want to put you on the defensive and apparently I did.