anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[dr_funkenstein]

Jesus Christ man, learn to use the effing quote tag already!

[white_raven23]

KH> You are free to take me up on my offer, but as I said, I am not interested in a grudge match. That is what you apparently prefer.

 

Nope.

 

And I don't see any evidence one way or the other that would lead you to know any of my preferences. So I don't see anything "apparent" regarding my debate style at all.

 

2). The New Testament documents are reliable.

 

Still haven't seen evidence of the reliability of the NT yet either. Stating something doesn't make it true. Please provide evidence for this line.

[scotter]

KH> You are free to take me up on my offer, but as I said, I am not interested in a grudge match. That is what you apparently prefer.

 

So slick, Kevin H. You had not responded back to equivalent challenges to your points (are you able to?) e.g. pritishd's Bible's scientific error about thunder corresponding to your pointing out "sperm is from human lung" in Quran.

 

And now you said let's go to the Arena - don't take us as sheeps and lead us on. I suspect once you are in Arena, you will play something else - and that, is how you can debate online for ten years.

 

First show us one thing or two by responding to members' equivalent challenges to your points.

[Mr. Neil]

Hmmm...

 

Was the life of Jesus historical? Was Jesus a real guy walking around in the first century CE? Or is a myth just like all of the other savior figures of the same period?

 

Unfortunately, Kevin has done an extraordinary bad job at justifying his belief here. And it's about to get a whole lot worse, because I'm here. Up until now, I've resisted jumping into this, just laughing at Kevin's circularities. Now it's time to show Kevin that his little quibblings are for naught, because he worships a false prophet. Reap the whirlwind!!!

 

First, let's go back to the very first thing mentioned in the New Testament, the genealogy of Jesus. This happens in both Luke and Matthew, actually, and I could make a point out of the differences between these two accounts, but I really don't have to. It's not necessary. The point I'm going to be making is far more fatal to your theology.

 

Hmm, so why is the New Testament doing this? Well that's easy enough to explain. The Messiah has to be linked by blood to David, or else he's not the Messiah.

 

But wait! It can't just be any kind of blood relation! There are rules to these things. This is aparently before the days of mitochondrial DNA. Being as such, tribal status among God's chosen can only be inherited from one's fathers, including Messiahship. Especially Messiahship.

 

Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.

He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

And lo and behold, that's what Matthew is trying to show here. A series of male progenetors from David all the way to Joseph, Jesus' father.

 

But wait! Joseph isn't Jesus' father! He has no connection to Joseph at all! The line is broken at the most crucial point. Oops! Jesus isn't the Messiah. Kevin worships a false prophet.

 

So the usual way for apologists to go is to insist that one of the two genealogies is actually Mary's. But this is desperation at it's finest, because in order to make that work, the apologist has to read interpretations into the Bible that don't exist. In other words, the apologist is just making it up to spare him the embarrassment. But as it turns out, the harmonization is even more embarrassing than the original problem.

 

Don't forget, the only way Jesus can be the Messiah is if he is linked to the house of David, and the rules say that Jesus is not of the house of David.

 

And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.

Oh dayumn! Sorry, but if Jesus is supposed to have a line to David, then it has to be through Joseph. It's not through Joseph, so therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah.

 

You lose.

[LloydDobler]

I have been debating for nearly 10 years online.

You mean you've been dodging questions for 10 years.

I teach and lecture on Christian apologetics, theology, and philosophy.

You're terrible at apologetics. You simply try to command the discussion and lead people down a pre-prepared path. And here you go again, pulling a change of venue without ever backing up one of your statements. You just repeat it over and over, as if maybe we'll start to believe it once we've heard it enough. If this were a sport you'd be penalized for delay of game.

 

Well that crap doesn't work here man. We know where your path leads and already walked back. None of your arguments mean a thing to a former believer. They're only effective on fence sitters and weak believers. People who, like you, already believe in god.

 

I'm not going to debate you in the arena because I've spent enough time discussing these things with you in the chat room and quite frankly it tires and bores me. All your evidence and reason only makes sense when colored by faith. I find you to be dishonest and disingenuous. You are a master of strawmen arguments as well (mandatory when you want to lead someone in a discussion).

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're like a mormon or muslim to me. You know how you view them? That's how we all view you. One less religion.

[Vigile]

KH> My list constitutes lines of evidence. Like I said, I tested the waters to check the fishing. I'll debate at the Arena if there are any takers.

 

No they are not lines of evidence, they are claims. Sheesh!

[crazy-tiger]

You know... Kevin puts me in mind of a young kid out fishing in his little row boat, hoping to catch a minnow or two.

 

Such a shame that the only fish he's gonna catch will rip the bottom out of his boat and use his rod for a toothpick.

[Ssel]

Well sorry guys but I feel compelled to step into this.

 

In Kevin's defense, he has asked at least 3 times for what would be compelling evidence and has received no answer. He has presented initiating lines of argument so as to attempt to proceed. He can not proceed further, nor can any one else until the issue of what constitutes compelling evidence is answered.

 

It is a reasonable request. I was waiting for it to be answered myself. It would be pointless to present anything without an answer.

 

Now, having said this, I still don't expect the argument to get anywhere, but at least get on with it and allow evidence to be presented that would be agreeably acceptable for the sake of BOTH sides. Both sides would be expected to uphold the same standard. But state it already.

 

But now, Kevin, take it as friendly advice, you do not want to take this to the Arena unless you very seriously rewrite the forum rules for your debate. A short 3 round debate, will produce nothing. At very minimum, allow the debate, by your rules, to continue until no further NEW acceptable evidence can be presented. You may write the rules as you wish them to be.

 

If you doubt my word on this, I suggest you read (in entirety) the Arena debate on the existence of God.

[trashy]

Well sorry guys but I feel compelled to step into this.

 

In Kevin's defense, he has asked at least 3 times for what would be compelling evidence and has received no answer. He has presented initiating lines of argument so as to attempt to proceed. He can not proceed further, nor can any one else until the issue of what constitutes compelling evidence is answered.

 

You are making no sense. Kevin has presented fallacious statements. He has not yet engaged in any sort of debate or presented a framework for such. Why should any one debate him formally when all he has shows so far is the ability to obfuscate and dodge questions left and right?

[Ssel]

Why should any one debate him formally when all he has shows so far is the ability to obfuscate and dodge questions left and right?

Because he asked a perfectly valid premise question early, almost immediately, in the discussion. He hasn't said so, but it is obvious to me that he knows that presenting anything before what has been deemed "acceptable" is a pointless endeavor. He has taken up a few simple minded responses, but he is still waiting for that answer before he goes into anything serious. I can't blame him. - That's why.

 

Besides which, neither side can make any progress without that answer, so why not get it over with and prove him wrong?

[Kevin H]

[

quote name='Ssel' date='Dec 7 2005, 08:02 AM' post='115440]

Well sorry guys but I feel compelled to step into this.

 

In Kevin's defense, he has asked at least 3 times for what would be compelling evidence and has received no answer. He has presented initiating lines of argument so as to attempt to proceed. He can not proceed further, nor can any one else until the issue of what constitutes compelling evidence is answered.

 

It is a reasonable request. I was waiting for it to be answered myself. It would be pointless to present anything without an answer.

 

Now, having said this, I still don't expect the argument to get anywhere, but at least get on with it and allow evidence to be presented that would be agreeably acceptable for the sake of BOTH sides. Both sides would be expected to uphold the same standard. But state it already.

 

But now, Kevin, take it as friendly advice, you do not want to take this to the Arena unless you very seriously rewrite the forum rules for your debate. A short 3 round debate, will produce nothing. At very minimum, allow the debate, by your rules, to continue until no further NEW acceptable evidence can be presented. You may write the rules as you wish them to be.

 

If you doubt my word on this, I suggest you read (in entirety) the Arena debate on the existence of God.

 

 

KH> All I can say is AMEN! I have thrown a few things out to keep the dialogue going but I have mostly just uncovered burden of proof shifts and naturalistic presupposition. I figured the only way to really hash out the arguments was in the Arena. Thanks much!

 

Kevin H

[Amethyst]

At the very least, Kevin should not debate in the arena until he learns how to quote properly.

 

It really isn't that hard. Simply have the beginning quote tag at the start and the ending tag at the end of the sentence. Cut out all the extraneous tags that the reply button puts in. You only need one start tag and one end tag.

 

I learned how to do this within the first day or two that I was here. Come on. If he really has been debating for 10 years online, then he should know ubb code by heart.

[Mr. Neil]

Actually, it's a nonsensical question. "What kind of evidence". There are kinds of evidence? I would expect the only kind of evidence there is; the kind that is testable and falsifiable.

 

I couldn't tell Kevin, in all seriousness, what kind of evidence to expect, because his claim is incoherent. He believes a theology that cannot be wholey true, and yet it claims to be. Such a claim is already falsfied unless he can substantially deal with Biblical difficulties.

 

Unfortunately, such an endevor is fatal to the Christian premise, because if there are Biblical difficulties to be dealt with and clarified, then the Bible has errors; something it can't have if it's claim is true. It's a catch 22.

 

You have problems like the discrepencies between 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 about chariot numbers that cannot be reconciled, because it's making a claim about the same event. One says that David slew so many chariots, and the other makes the same claim with a different number. Aside from the number of chariots, it's the exact same claim in both books.

 

So what evidence would I expect if Christianity were true? I'd expect the Christian claim to be demonstratably true, that the Bible is true and inerrant. That cannot be done, and the reason it can't is because Christianity is false.

[Vigile]

Because he asked a perfectly valid premise question early, almost immediately, in the discussion. He hasn't said so, but it is obvious to me that he knows that presenting anything before what has been deemed "acceptable" is a pointless endeavor. He has taken up a few simple minded responses, but he is still waiting for that answer before he goes into anything serious. I can't blame him. - That's why.

 

Besides which, neither side can make any progress without that answer, so why not get it over with and prove him wrong?

 

What are you talking about? He gave us a list of claims, called them proofs, then told us we don't know the meaning of a proof. I told him several times that if he comes at us with extraordinary claims, such as "There is good reason to believe God exists" and "the New Testament documents are reliable" then his evidence must also be extraordinary.

 

He finally saw fit to respond, not in kind, but with a sound byte:

 

For example, consider this syllogism:

 

1). Things which begin to exist have a cause.

 

2). The universe began to exist.

 

3). Therefore, the universe had a cause.

 

Which CT quickly and rather easily destroyed piece by piece.

 

Meanwhile, I presented him a short essay expanding on why it is assinine to reject a relative morality, which I guess must be one of the simple minded responses you refer to. He has refused to address these issues and more but then he goes on to tell us that he finds us ignorant in a number of areas which we haven't been tested on.

 

Essentially, fuck you and your support of your other simple minded theist. All you guys do is skirt the issues, rehash old destroyed arguments and refuse to answer a direct question directly.

[JeffXL]

Actually, Kevin has been answered: something outside of the Bible that has not been forged. And Kevin H continues (like every Christian does) to dodge either the questions or the answers given. White raven answered Kevin's posts, and avoids actually discussing anything by dreaming up white raven's supposed interest in a "grudge match." Huh?

 

Evidence has, indeed, been brought forth, and yet there is no answer.

 

The "eyewitness" accounts contradict each other in the Buybull, BTW.

[Ssel]

At the very least, Kevin should not debate in the arena until he learns how to quote properly.

I have to agree with this,

 

Kevin, PLEASE take the time to learn the quote thing or don't use it at all.

 

I was referring to HIS simple minded responses because he couldn't feel comfortable to do anything else and didn't even have a sample of perhaps an archeologist’s writings or something to go by.

 

I'm merely saying get on with the evidence. I'm not supporting either side.

[crazy-tiger]

One would say that corroborating, non-contradictory evidence would be sufficient as long as it doesn't rely on the premise of the Bible being true, Christianity being true, or the existence of BibleGod...

 

 

By the way... he was given an answer early on as well, but he ignored that. Instead he offered up some proof that Jesus was who he said he was because the Bible says he is, (which he offered as proof that the Bible is true) some twaddle about objective morality, (debunked so many times it's a joke) more stuff about Jesus from the Bible, (proof that the Bible is the word of God) fine-tuning of the Big Bang for life, (getting the cart before the horse... life adapts to conditions. Life is fine-tuned to the Big Bang) and God existing because the universe began...

Besides which, neither side can make any progress without that answer, so why not get it over with and prove him wrong?

He's had it since post #42/3... and he's not managed to produce any evidence since.

[Ssel]

Actually, Kevin has been answered: something outside of the Bible that has not been forged.

He was looking for a more specific answer. It can be easily agreed that the Bible itself would not be acceptable evidence to support the stories within.

 

Give him something that would say "with THIS kind of evidence, I can not really argue"

 

What kind of evidence would that be? superman comics? archeological essays from Preston? what?

[white_raven23]

Well sorry guys but I feel compelled to step into this.

 

In Kevin's defense, he has asked at least 3 times for what would be compelling evidence and has received no answer. He has presented initiating lines of argument so as to attempt to proceed. He can not proceed further, nor can any one else until the issue of what constitutes compelling evidence is answered.

 

It is a reasonable request. I was waiting for it to be answered myself. It would be pointless to present anything without an answer.

 

 

Are you serious?

 

You guys actually need to have "evidence" clarified?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Specifically I draw your attention to the first section of this definition.

 

Any objectively demonstrable circumstance which tends to indicate or disprove a proposition. See scientific method and reality.

 

Aaaaand just to make sure no one is confused....

 

Scientific Method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

Now, obviously I don't expect Kevin to go through the laborous process of re-creating experiments himself.....but any work he cites needs to have been able to prove it has evidence to sustain itself.

 

Reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

 

What would be nice and pretty would be verifyable physical evidence corroberating the stories in the bible....but this is has yet to happen without such evidence (like the chariot wheels in the Red Sea) being proven to be the work of untrustworthy hucksters.

 

Yes, I put that section in BOLD so as to circumvent the attempt to re-use "evidence" that has been de-bunked repeatedly.

 

 

Is this clear enough? No? Okay.....evidence needs to have as it's primary source, something we can verify with our five senses.......likely limited to the visual as the internet does't convey the other four.

 

Hope this helps.

[Amethyst]

And for those who don't trust Wikipedia, here's the Merriam Webster's definition:

 

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence

Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s

Function: noun

1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof: TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

 

So far, nothing Kevin has offered has furnished proof. Nor has he offered any outward signs (what he's offered has been circular arguments eg. the Bible is real because it says it is, or the church says it is, or the church-approved historians say it is, etc.)

 

And just in case you need to know what proof is, here it is:

 

Main Entry: 1proof

Pronunciation: 'prüf

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove -- more at PROVE

1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE

3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity

4 archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness

5 : evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal

6 a plural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b : a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c : a coin that is struck from a highly-polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d : a test photographic print made from a negative

7 : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality

8 a : the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b : strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 proof is 45% alcohol>

[Ssel]

Hope this helps.

Oh, give me a break. We arn't talking about the defintion of evidence. We're talking about what papers would be acceptable to the people here and now.

[crazy-tiger]

Hope this helps.

Oh, give me a break. We arn't talking about the defintion of evidence. We're talking about what papers would be acceptable to the people here and now.

No, we're talking about what EVIDENCE would be acceptable...

 

And the reply given in post#43 does that quite well.

[Amethyst]

Oh, give me a break. We arn't talking about the defintion of evidence. We're talking about what papers would be acceptable to the people here and now.

 

For me, it would have to be something more than something written down. Because as a writer and a bookworm, I know that written text can be fiction, even if it claims to be true.

 

It would have to be something that is undeniably true, and something that even scientists could not prove to be a fake. Like oh, the remains of Jesus, having been guarded by an ultra-secret society for all these years. But even if that were the case, and we could prove that he existed at one time, we still couldn't prove that he was god. I'm not going to bow down and worship another human being. Well, maybe if someone put a gun to my head, but not under normal circumstances.

[Vigile]

Hope this helps.

Oh, give me a break. We arn't talking about the defintion of evidence. We're talking about what papers would be acceptable to the people here and now.

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, since he provided us a list of claims and then proceeded to call them evidence it is apparent that he does need a definition of the word.

[Ssel]

.. something that even scientists could not prove to be a fake. Like oh, the remains of Jesus, having been guarded by an ultra-secret society for all these years.

Okay, let ME make the specification..

 

Kevin, I will accept as evidence only documents published by PhD level representatives of recognized educational institutes or world established archeological organizations established before the year 1960. References are required. Web pages must include their source to be equally established. The Bible itself stands as no evidence at all.

 

Would that be agreeable to both sides?