It may that there is no way to politely examine closely held personal beliefs; you may perceive any criticism of your beliefs, or your defence of them, as a personal attack.
Perhaps this is not the forum for you.
I refer to you the definition of ad hominem....basically it is addressing a poster and not the post. But upon rereading your original post, it appears I was mistaken.
my apologies. But just remember to address the post, and not the poster.
No, that would be misrepresenting what I said. What I did was to liken your defence of your religious beliefs to that used by those that believe in the existence of Bigfoot.
duly noted
I suppose that would depend on the criteria one uses to do that evaluation, and how much of current scientific knowledge one must toss out to set that criteria.
now science is not something in the OP and is technically off topic. I never said anything about it using the scientific method. I actually believe very very few things DO use the scientific method, I don't believe evolution for example uses the scientific method, for one as it's unobservable, but not to go on a tangent, I simply was proving that not alot of things, that SAY they are science ARE in fact science. And I know for a fact I would not claim in the OP, this idea.
I don't see how this is relevant. For example, even if there were zero discrepancies between the bible stories and modern archaeology (or geology, palaeontology, cosmology, geology, genetics, etc.) it would not speak to the reality (or not) of the resurrection. You are presenting a red herring here.
That was just an example, but I won't respond to your post as that should be on the thread noted.
(to discuss more about archaology, for sake of redundancy, and staying on topic please keep further notations on that thread), again it's okay to talk a little about it, but I am basically posting my replies in two threads.
but for the most part to answer you, the thread was not to prove the resurrection scientifically, but merely assert the historicity of the Bible in general, which does not (to repeat) speak like a cartoon, a fable, a myth etc....as the people groups, places, dates, etc have been confirmed on a number of occasions, again please see thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...und-in-the-bible.7930436/page-2#post-69196029
Sure, but anonymous stories of anonymous eyewitness testimony will be laughed out of a present day court of law. Would you not concur?
no, historical documentation relies on eye witness testimony as well, and eye witness are rarely if EVER laughed at, they may be dismissed, but not laughed at, again because this is considered a potential DIRECT evidence, even if from a cold case, that removes this case by many years. And I can provide examples of this if you wish.
Another red herring - unless it is your intention to state that your "God" has no measurable effect on the world?
Actually your claim that I mention science is a red herring. That is what I was trying to correct, two times now. Please reread some of this stuff, and come up to par with what is being argued.
As do many other things. Are you asking that your religious beliefs be held to a different standard than everyone else's?
no, actually I am asking that you believe what you are saying. If I did mention science ,something that you probably don't have many examples of.....then I would provide my own examples. But I didn't mention science because I know it as rare in relation to the world of research. Something need not be science to be true, it can be true based not on direct evidence, but numerous circumstantial evidences, this goes for everything. See for example if I sued someone on the fact that it rained on me. I did not have direct evidence, no witnesses to confirm. But I had drops of water on my coat. And also the weather reports from 3 different agencies confirmed. And also the humidity increase on the barrometers, and also the drops of water evaporating on the cement. So now I have 6 circumstantial evidences which can equal one direct evidence as far as a ruling being declared that YES I did get rained on.
Another red herring. This does not address the OP, and the ontological argument does not make the case for a personal "god", like that found in your religion.
this is arbitrary, and is a repeat of my posts content.
Where, exactly?
Please quote me.
Except the part where I applied the concept of parsimony, in pointing out how (and in your own words) your argument in the OP is flawed.
I am quoting you, by saying I am saying in the OP that this stuff is not science, is accurate. I never said it was. Thus you are doing a red herring, and a strawman. As you are setting up something I never said, and striking it down. It is a classic case strawman tactic.
