What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[SithDoughnut]

Can you explain what the importance is of the way they ‘evolved’ is?

What do you mean? You asked the question and I answered it.

Islam is a religion and Christianity is a relationship.
This is not a trite comment, but there is a very crucial difference between Christianity and all other religions and belief systems.

If this was true, there would be no Bible, no sin, no commandments, no church, no rules or restrictions and no ceremonies or festivals. Christianity is not simply a relationship, it is a religion. You can say that it is a religion founded upon a relationship but to say that it is not a religion is to ignore most of Christianity.

To lump Christianity in with all other faiths and religions is convenient...but that's about it!

You're arbitrarily assigning a different status to Christianity without any reason to do so. Have you noticed that you're telling me I'm incorrectly lumping in Christianity with other religions, but you're doing exactly the same thing to all non-Christian faiths?

Isaiah is from the Old Testament, and therefore before Jesus. There are plenty of other references to Jesus in the old Testament.

The Jews disagree, and their arguments look just as strong as yours from where I'm standing.

But anyway, what is the relevance of your point that “All of this came after Jesus.”?

The concept of what Christianity is evolved from Judaism. It's not independent.

Ok, but is there less or more historical evidence to support the claims Jesus made, than there is for any other historical figure?

Depends on which historical figure. Pretty much all we know about Jesus comes from accounts written by people who never met him, so they're not all that reliable, especially when it was the church who decided exactly what would become canon and what would not, instead of allowing all accounts into the Bible. That bias results in the Bible being a very poor historical account.

Is that a correct assumption to make?

No, the correct assumption is to not make one. I do not know who Jesus truly was, whether he existed, or what he actually did or said, and until independent evidence comes along (for example, accounts that are unrelated to Christians or the Bible), I'm sticking with the position that I have no conclusion to make yet.

The Bible is supported by more manuscript evidence than any other book from the ancient world. There are in excess of 24,000 extant Greek manuscripts, codex’s and fragments of the Old and New Testament. These have been attested more thoroughly than any other work from the ancient world, and the New Testament alone has approx.. 5300 manuscripts

For example:
-Plato/ written 427-347BC/ earliest fragment AD 900 / 7 Manuscripts
-Tacitus/ written AD100/ earliest fragment AD1100/ 20 Manuscripts
-New Testament / written AD40-100/ earliest fragment AD125/ 5,300 Manuscripts

So the New Testament was written by a single author?

The writings of the roman historian Tacitus is famous for his ‘Annuals’ on Christ (Christus) which were written in AD116, and are particularly noted as being an accurate non-Biblical reference to the death of Christ as described in the 4 Gospels.

The problem with these claims is that they assume that historical references justify all the extraordinary events in the Bible. Christianity is not based upon the existence of Jesus, but what he did. This is where the accounts get more dubious and hard to draw conclusive evidence from.

So I believe it is very clear that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence both from the attesting of the manuscripts themselves, AND from non-Biblical evidence to consider it arguably the most accurate and comprehensive collection of books from the ancient world...

Your only truly independent source you listed was Tacitus, who merely confirms the existence and death of a man named Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the Old Testament equivalent of the non-canonical gospels, and as such are not truly independent in themselves. Nor do they justify the events claimed in the Old Testament (they are essentially the Old Testament plus extra documents - you can't use a different copy of the OT as evidence).

But which one? The first one from AD325 or the second one from AD381?
Please clarify your point regarding this, so that I can answer it.

Both. They essentially re-defined Christianity and subsequent interpretations of the Bible, independently of what the Bible actually said. They were attempts to say "Ignore your interpretation, this is what we say is true". Subsequent interpretations and translations of the Bible have often been based on whether they fit the creed created by a group of fallible men.

I want to clarify my position before I end up defending a position that I do not hold. I am not saying that the Bible is wrong (although we can say that for certain parts of it). I'm saying that while we can't say that the Bible is wrong, nor do we have the evidence to say that it is right. When I argue against your posts, I'm not arguing against the Bible, but claims based upon it. As much as the argument is made that Christianity is a relationship and nothing more, it is in fact a religion based upon its followers and the claims they make. This is the Christianity that I think has no conclusive evidence or logical necessity.

 

[ianb321red]

If this was true, there would be no Bible, no sin, no commandments, no church, no rules or restrictions and no ceremonies or festivals. Christianity is not simply a relationship, it is a religion. You can say that it is a religion founded upon a relationship but to say that it is not a religion is to ignore most of Christianity.

None of these define what the essence of being a Christian is. Yes, they are part of it I agree, but you are not a Christian if you just obey the 10 commandments and go to church.

What is at the heart of being a Christian is a relationship – that is what salvation is based on (the parable of the wedding banquet is the best illustration of this)

You're arbitrarily assigning a different status to Christianity without any reason to do so. Have you noticed that you're telling me I'm incorrectly lumping in Christianity with other religions, but you're doing exactly the same thing to all non-Christian faiths?

It’s not arbitrary – non Christian faiths differentiate themselves from Christianity in a similar fashion.

It’s important to be able to say what is ‘true’ and also what is ‘false’ – if you really believe in something, then you should be prepared to say something else is not true…..

Depends on which historical figure. Pretty much all we know about Jesus comes from accounts written by people who never met him, so they're not all that reliable, especially when it was the church who decided exactly what would become canon and what would not, instead of allowing all accounts into the Bible. That bias results in the Bible being a very poor historical account.

Ok – this point is very wrong.

The gospels are eyewitness accounts by either disciples or those who were close to disciples. The resurrection was witnessed by over 500 people…
Basically, there is more than enough eyewitness evidence to convince any jury in any court in this day-and-age..

You are also completely wrong about the canon. It was not decided by the church, or by a council or by any group of church leaders
The New testament cannon was accepted by the church leaders and evangelists as the church grew, and the spread of the copies of the letters exchanged between the bishops which referred to the books and letters which were canonical and which were read out and used during church services in the very early days of Christianity.

It was a natural process, and all that the Synod of Hippo AD393 did was formalise the cannon. They did not confer upon them any authority – they simply recorded their previously established canonicity…

The accounts which were rejected – some of which are in the apocryphal books, were rejected for a number of reasons: (1) they were merely devotional or ethical, (2) they did not contain evidence of the intrinsic qualities of inspiration, (3) they were shrouded in continual uncertainty..

So the New Testament was written by a single author?

No - and no Christian would claim it is.

(btw..The Quran is written by a single author and no Muslim would claim otherwise.)

I will answer the rest of your points later....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are we still debating things on a universal basis ?

Because there are a number of problems with this argument (and I think you meant Zeus, not Thor who is the god of thunder...???)

For goodness sake, if you don't know what you're talking about just say nothing. Thor had a lightning hammer!

2) Some of these people still believe in this day-and-age that lightning can be or is an act of god. Now whether this is sincere or not, they still believe it.

Who would these people be? If you're talking about tribes who have little or no contact with "civilisation" (e.g. Amazon tribes) then they do not yet have the electrical discharge explanation so it has not replaced the god explanation.

3) Now I personally understand and accept that lightning is an electrical discharge, but I still believe that God (the Christian one) is capable of causing lighting - through the very nature of what I believe him to be like (all powerful). I can't prove this obviously other than from belief in what is he capable of...and I certainly believe in acts of God for the very simple fact that I hold a belief in God.

So you're saying lightning IS an act of God? Or are you saying God can cause it sometimes? If the latter then so what? That's just sophistry.

4) To support your argument you would have to show universal agreement that the new explanation (electrical discharge) has replaced the old explanation (act of god).

5) The trouble with that is that you would also have to show that God is in fact NOT or NO LONGER capable of producing lightning.

6) And to do that you would have to show that ALL gods that are worshipped either never existed, no longer exist, or if they do exist are incapable of producing lighting.

7) You would have to demonstrate this and convince all followers and believers of all the gods that are worshipped to stop worshipping them.

8) I don't think you can do this.

All irrelevant. Since we're talking universal it only has to have happened once.

The whole point is that when you say the new explanation replaces the old explanation, you are making the assumption that there is universal agreement on the something replacing a need for god.

There isn't and won't be a universal agreement because we have the choice and freewill to accept and reject anything based on out own terms.

This is why I said this would only work for some people, and that for others the god explanation would be the correct explanation for them.

The key point here is that a need that is hardwired can be universal as we are all born with it as part of our DNA or genes.
But something like your description of lightning can't and won't ever be universal as it requires a change in belief and acceptance of something new to change a previous belief. There will always be someone who rejects something which is based on a belief.

And this is why I've previously made the distinction between a need for god and a belief in god....

You still don't really get the difference between a need and a want or belief, do you? I've been trying to debate a need and you keep arguing the case for a want or belief.

I refuse to bang my head against the wall any longer.

 

[SithDoughnut]

None of these define what the essence of being a Christian is. Yes, they are part of it I agree, but you are not a Christian if you just obey the 10 commandments and go to church.

What is at the heart of being a Christian is a relationship – that is what salvation is based on (the parable of the wedding banquet is the best illustration of this)

There's the "essence" of being a Christian, and then there's Christianity. The latter is a religion. No matter what parts of Christianity you decide as more important, the fact remains that Christianity as a whole is a religion.

It’s not arbitrary – non Christian faiths differentiate themselves from Christianity in a similar fashion.

What about from each other? You're lumping them together in exactly the way you accuse me of doing. This is the arbitrary nature of your argument that I'm talking about - somehow, because they're you're beliefs, they're apparently completely unique.

Ok – this point is very wrong.

We might as well agree to disagree here because this line of argument is taking us way off track.

The point I'm making here is that there is no non-Biblical evidence of God, and the historical evidence that we have is only evidence for events that the Bible also talks about, not for any spiritual or theistic claims made.

No - and no Christian would claim it is.

Then does it not occur to you that more authors means more manuscripts?

 

[ianb321red]

No, the correct assumption is to not make one. I do not know who Jesus truly was, whether he existed, or what he actually did or said, and until independent evidence comes along (for example, accounts that are unrelated to Christians or the Bible), I'm sticking with the position that I have no conclusion to make yet.

The trouble here is that you are requiring extra evidence which goes over and above anything that is needed to support and corroborate anything or anyone else accepted as true from the ancient world. I have already shown that the manuscript evidence for both the New and Old Testaments is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some way or another.

It is clear to me that the demands to support and justify biblical content is way in excess of anything required to justify any other work or account from the ancient world.

Further independent (of Christian sources) evidence of Jesus:
-Thallus AD52, a historian corroborates the crucifixion
-Pliny AD112 a governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, mentioned Christ when observing the worship of other Christians..
-Lucian AD120 a Greek writer who opposed Christianity, but acknowledged Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.
-Flavius Josephus (AD37) a Jewish historian, mentions James, the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ) and also said about Jesus “if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.”

The problem with these claims is that they assume that historical references justify all the extraordinary events in the Bible. Christianity is not based upon the existence of Jesus, but what he did. This is where the accounts get more dubious and hard to draw conclusive evidence from.

Flavius Josephus (mentioned earlier) in AD37 corroborates Jesus’ miracles..

But the key point here is that Tacitus (and the other examples provided) support the gospel accounts. And if that is case then the gospel accounts are truth. And if the gospels accounts were truthful then the claims Jesus made are truth.

To put it simply, how many eye witnesses of a murder do you need to find someone guilty in a court of law?

Your only truly independent source you listed was Tacitus, who merely confirms the existence and death of a man named Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the Old Testament equivalent of the non-canonical gospels, and as such are not truly independent in themselves. Nor do they justify the events claimed in the Old Testament (they are essentially the Old Testament plus extra documents - you can't use a different copy of the OT as evidence).

There have been a number scientific investigations to prove the events of The Old Testament:
-In 1990 the Merneptah Stele was found to contain hieroglyphic clues to demonstrate that the ancient Israelites were a separate people more than 3,000 years ago
-In 1993 archeologists found proof of King David's existence outside the Bible.
-It was also discovered that the names of 29 Kings from ten nations (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and more) are mentioned not only in the Bible but are also found on monuments of their own time.

There are also great flood accounts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, which were prevalent in ancient history which is clearly based on the account of Noah’s flood…

Both. They essentially re-defined Christianity and subsequent interpretations of the Bible, independently of what the Bible actually said. They were attempts to say "Ignore your interpretation, this is what we say is true". Subsequent interpretations and translations of the Bible have often been based on whether they fit the creed created by a group of fallible men.

I’m not sure if I agree – they established the relationship between God the Father and God the Son..but that is entirely biblical (John 10:30 – “I and the Father are one”)

Any fallout from the establishment of these creeds is only to be expected due to the fallibility of man, and is quite frankly no different in essence to the disagreements Christians and Churches still have in this day and age.

My point is that it I don’t basically see this as a big deal, any more than an intramural issue within the church. And certainly the fallout with different denominations and so on does not detract away from the events themselves on which they are based on.

I want to clarify my position before I end up defending a position that I do not hold. I am not saying that the Bible is wrong (although we can say that for certain parts of it). I'm saying that while we can't say that the Bible is wrong, nor do we have the evidence to say that it is right. When I argue against your posts, I'm not arguing against the Bible, but claims based upon it. As much as the argument is made that Christianity is a relationship and nothing more, it is in fact a religion based upon its followers and the claims they make. This is the Christianity that I think has no conclusive evidence or logical necessity.

My central claim is that Jesus Christ is God, and this is my evidence for the existence of God.

Anything relating to religion, The Church or Christianity is a side issue. Yes, it needs to be dealt with, and yes there are issues and questions that need answers.

But Christ is the truth – anything else (religion, The Church, Christians and Christianity) is fallible and ultimately detracts away from what our primary focus should be – and that is Christ

 

[ianb321red]

What about from each other? You're lumping them together in exactly the way you accuse me of doing. This is the arbitrary nature of your argument that I'm talking about - somehow, because they're you're beliefs, they're apparently completely unique.

I'll come back to this point

We might as well agree to disagree here because this line of argument is taking us way off track.

Agreed

The point I'm making here is that there is no non-Biblical evidence of God, and the historical evidence that we have is only evidence for events that the Bible also talks about, not for any spiritual or theistic claims made.

This ties back in with the point regarding non-Biblical evidence for Jesus and the claims he made. I listed half-a-dozen in my previous post....

Then does it not occur to you that more authors means more manuscripts?

No - not all.
Manuscripts are written by copyists and scribes, not the authors. None of the originals written by the authors exist anymore ...

What was your point anyway?

 

[SithDoughnut]

What was your point anyway?

I'm not sure, we've gone so far off-topic I've forgotten how we got here.

My initial point was that there is no evidence and no logical necessity for the existence of God. That also includes there being no evidence and no logical necessity for the divinity of Jesus. There are various documents and records that potentially validate parts of the Bible, but none of them are evidence for the divinity of Jesus or the existence of God. Claiming to be God does not make you God, nor does being crucified, and nor does other people believing your claims that you are God. Reality is not a democracy, after all.

That lack of evidence or logical necessity is the best argument against claims for the existence of God, and in fact is that all that is required for such claims to be put aside until actual evidence is put forward.

 

[ianb321red]

I'm not sure, we've gone so far off-topic I've forgotten how we got here.

My initial point was that there is no evidence and no logical necessity for the existence of God. That also includes there being no evidence and no logical necessity for the divinity of Jesus. There are various documents and records that potentially validate parts of the Bible, but none of them are evidence for the divinity of Jesus or the existence of God. Claiming to be God does not make you God, nor does being crucified, and nor does other people believing your claims that you are God. Reality is not a democracy, after all.

That lack of evidence or logical necessity is the best argument against claims for the existence of God, and in fact is that all that is required for such claims to be put aside until actual evidence is put forward.

Fair enough – let’s narrow this down.

From your perspective there is a lack of evidence and no logical necessity for God to exist, and this extends to and/or includes claims of Jesus’ divinity.
So it follows that arguments for the existence of God does hinge on Jesus’ divinity.

And it also follows that if “actual evidence is put forward” then logically you would have no option than to concede your position? Is this correct?

Now there is a fundamental problem here with the notion of evidence – one that comes up time after time after time……

1) Who decides what is or isn’t evidence to support an argument?
2) And who decides whether the evidence is satisfactory or not to support or refute an argument?

Now in a court of law decisions regarding evidence credibility are made by a judge and a jury.
But in debates and discussion like this there is no mediation or moderation of evidence and such like. Therefore, the only way a position is conceded is by the individual retracting their argument.

But even if there were an adjudicator to accept and reject evidence based arguments, does this mean that the person or argument who has their evidence rejected therefore genuinely stops believing in their own argument simply because it was thrown out?

Therefore I’m not sure what evidence is with regards to this discussion. And I’m also not sure what evidence you are looking for, or at least receptive to regarding this discussion.

Please clarify or define “actual evidence” necessary for proving the divinity of Jesus and therefore the existence of God.

 

[SithDoughnut]

And it also follows that if “actual evidence is put forward” then logically you would have no option than to concede your position? Is this correct?

Yes, or if I was feeling stubborn I might just re-word the argument to "Not enough evidence".

Please clarify or define “actual evidence” necessary for proving the divinity of Jesus and therefore the existence of God.

If we were doing this properly, this would be your job .

We've skipped a very important step. We haven't defined divinity or come up with any predictions based upon it yet. Essentially, what has happened is the equivalent of me asking you what is the evidence necessary for proving the existence of squidgebubbles.

So, I'm afraid I have to turn the question back on you: What are the properties/defining characteristics of divinity? How does divinity manifest itself? What sort of impact would we expect divinity to have upon the universe?

 

[ianb321red]

Yes, or if I was feeling stubborn I might just re-word the argument to "Not enough evidence".

Ok – but we have to deal with these matters objectively!
So, objectively speaking what is “enough evidence”? That is different to what is “enough evidence” for you personally – it is what would be considered enough evidence for any reasonable and informed conclusion to be drawn out from?

I think we both need to agree on what is “enough evidence” is in an objective sense, otherwise the very definition of (a) evidence and (b) enough of ‘it’ becomes completely illusive…

So, I'm afraid I have to turn the question back on you: What are the properties/defining characteristics of divinity? How does divinity manifest itself? What sort of impact would we expect divinity to have upon the universe?

These are fair and valid questions to ask..(however I normally have to argue for the divinity of Christ with a Jehovah’s Witness not an atheist… )

My concern here is that it will revisit some the issues we have previously discussed and agreed to move on from. I don’t necessarily mind that, but to answer your 3 questions regarding divinity I can only use Jesus Christ to illustrate my point (since no other Gods divine or otherwise exist with my worldview).

So the next step is to revisit the sources issues to support my assertion that Christ is divine, which will take us back to the matter of Biblical and non-Biblical evidence….

And as I’ve said above, we both need to agree on what is evidence in an objective sense in the first place.

So I think this is the next step…

 

[SithDoughnut]

So, objectively speaking what is “enough evidence”? That is different to what is “enough evidence” for you personally – it is what would be considered enough evidence for any reasonable and informed conclusion to be drawn out from?

That depends on the evidence in question. Simple fact of the matter is that there is no objective quantity. Besides, it's a sliding scale; the more evidence you have, the more convincing it becomes.

And as I’ve said above, we both need to agree on what is evidence in an objective sense in the first place.

Evidence is that which supports an argument. For us to create a proper argument, we need to define "divinity". That's the first step, and as you are the advocate of this position, you should probably be the one to define what you're arguing for.

Once we've done that, then I can tell you what I think would count as evidence for your argument. Currently we're discussing a meaningless concept, so it's up to you to give it some meaning. What the evidence would be depends upon this definition.

 

[ianb321red]

That depends on the evidence in question. Simple fact of the matter is that there is no objective quantity. Besides, it's a sliding scale; the more evidence you have, the more convincing it becomes.

I'll answer the divinity question shortly.

Can you just clarify your position on the evidence from scripture?

You made a number of comments in post#141

You've said:
"Pretty much all we know about Jesus comes from accounts written by people who never met him, so they're not all that reliable, especially when it was the church who decided exactly what would become canon and what would not, instead of allowing all accounts into the Bible. That bias results in the Bible being a very poor historical account."

I addressed this point in post#142

We've discussed independent extra-Biblical sources to which I've listed a number of them in posts#139 and #145

I also addressed you point re. the Nicene Creed

I ask for clarification because I'm not sure we covered off all the points with regards to some of the things we discussed, and also because my next points regarding divinity will (as I'm sure you're expecting) largely be dependent on the authority of scripture....

So for my arguments to be accurate, the primary source for them must be The Bible. I cannot argue my points in any other way...

 

[SithDoughnut]

Can you just clarify your position on the evidence from scripture?

Scripture is innately biased, and so I would not consider it objective evidence. This is because if we accept the Bible as evidence, then we must also accept other religious texts as evidence, including Islamic religious texts, which states that he is not divine, and Jewish religious texts, which not only deny his divinity but also deny his position as a prophet. All three religious texts have the same weight as evidence, in my opinion.

Therefore accepting the Bible as objective evidence means that we have a religious text that supports the argument that Jesus was divine and two religious texts which say the he is not. If you would rather that I accept religious scripture as evidence, I can do that, but then the evidence is in favour of Jesus not being divine. Either way, you need something other than the Bible to have a suitably-evidenced argument.

 

[ianb321red]

So, I'm afraid I have to turn the question back on you: What are the properties/defining characteristics of divinity? How does divinity manifest itself? What sort of impact would we expect divinity to have upon the universe?

The concept of divinity has been completely de-based to refer to a multitude of different concepts.

Divinity only has one true meaning - Jesus Christ. And in this true context it only refers to Christ being God. Therefore:

- The properties/defining characteristics of divinity= properties/defining characteristics of Christ in particular, and The Trinity in general…

- How does divinity manifest itself = through Christ who is fully God and fully human, the accounts of which are recorded in scripture which I believe to be truthful

- The impact we would expect divinity to have upon the universe = I believe Christ created the universe, that Christ is the logos, the Alpha and the Omega.

To quote from John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made"

 

[ianb321red]

Scripture is innately biased, and so I would not consider it objective evidence. This is because if we accept the Bible as evidence, then we must also accept other religious texts as evidence, including Islamic religious texts, which states that he is not divine, and Jewish religious texts, which not only deny his divinity but also deny his position as a prophet. All three religious texts have the same weight as evidence, in my opinion.

Therefore accepting the Bible as objective evidence means that we have a religious text that supports the argument that Jesus was divine and two religious texts which say the he is not. If you would rather that I accept religious scripture as evidence, I can do that, but then the evidence is in favour of Jesus not being divine. Either way, you need something other than the Bible to have a suitably-evidenced argument.

This is a very good point, but there is a further problem.

-Imagine you have 3 witnesses to a crime
-All 3 are called to give evidence in a court of law
-The first two of the witnesses lie under oath and tell a mixture of lies and truth
-The third witness tells the complete truth
-The judge eventually finds out that the first two witnesses lied, and throws out their evidence.

In this situation the third witness would be the only one credited with having an entirely truthful account of the crime.

My example is to make the point that The Bible makes the claim that it is the whole truth.

That does not mean that Islam and Judaism are completely false - it means that they are not the whole truth, but that they contain some truth..

So unless Christianity can be demonstrated to be false, then it follows that logically based on the claims made by scripture that any other god (or religion) which is worshipped is false.

And furthermore, it can be demonstrated that Islam and Judaism are not the whole truth.

For example, take the Islamic account of Jesus:

The Quran - written circa 600 years after the known time when Jesus lived.
The Quran - written in Southern Persia (Saudi Arabia) some 1000 kilometres from Judaea/ Galilee
The Quran - written by one author (Muhammad) alone who never knew, met or saw Jesus, and never had any contact with anyone who likewise knew, met or saw Jesus
The Quran - the alleged account (of Jesus) dictated to by an angel to Muhammed, but this account was then memorised and passed on orally
The Quran - the alleged account denies the crucifixion, denies the deity of Jesus, denies The Trinity, contains inaccuracies surrounding the virgin birth (i.e. born under a palm tree), and the early childhood life of Jesus (i.e. performing miracles as a baby)

compared to:

The Bible - 3 full eyewitness accounts written by people who lived at the same time as when Jesus was alive. A wealth of additional eyewitness accounts reliability recorded also..
The Bible - written by people who knew Jesus and/ or were close to Jesus
The Bible - written by people who lived in Judaea/ Galilee where Jesus lived
The Bible - accounts written down and first manuscripts complied 15-35 years after the events being described
The Bible - affirms the deity, the crucifixion, The fatherhood, The Trinity

Now based on the huge differences of:
-authorship
-closeness to the events described
-location of authorship

Which account do you think is correct? If you believe the Islamic account is correct, then that is the equivalent of believing that me completely rewriting Russian history from the 15th century, completely changing the facts about people who lived then and then saying that my version is more accurate than a group of historians who lived in Russia at that time and knew those people.

That's crazy isn't it?

So based on the belief that The Bible is the whole truth, then that is the basis for any of the arguments for my position..

And to finish this point off, as a Christian I cannot realistically argue my point from anything other than The Bible as my primary source. Otherwise why have The Bible in the first place?

 

[ianb321red]

If you would rather that I accept religious scripture as evidence, I can do that, but then the evidence is in favour of Jesus not being divine. Either way, you need something other than the Bible to have a suitably-evidenced argument.

The problem with this logic is that it is saying that the amount or quantity of evidence is the most important thing, not the accuracy of the evidence.

Therefore I believe to prove that something is true (or false) then fundamentally you need to have accurate evidence.

If you are trying to prove that someone is guilty of murder, and the murder event itself was witnessed or caught on video camera, then one or two single pieces of accurate evidence would be all you need to prove the guilt without any doubt what-so-ever in the conviction.

By contrast, if there were 10 of 15 dubious pieces of evidence which were of questionnable original or source, would this be better evidence than a single piece of accurate evidence as described above?

 

[SithDoughnut]

My example is to make the point that The Bible makes the claim that it is the whole truth.

As does the Qur'an. Claiming that you are telling the truth does not mean that you are, even if you think you are.

Which account do you think is correct?

The problem is that events pertaining to the divinity of Jesus do not have mass witnesses, and the gospels are not first hand accounts. It's extremely unlikely that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses either (or at the very least, it's a massively minority opinion among Biblical scholars). When it comes to John, no one actually knows who wrote it.

On top of that, you have contradictions and historical errors within the Bible that also bring doubt upon the claims of divinity. The main example off of the top of my head is Jesus' birth. The claim is that Mary and Jospeh returned to Bethlehem for a census, but there is no historical evidence that this census ever occured, and even if there was a census it was never a requirement to return to your home town.

To go back to your original example of the trial, I've got three witness, all equally dubious, claiming wildly different things and not a shred of physical evidence to support any of their claims. True, one of them claims to have hundreds of witnesses but none of these witnesses are available to question and I'm not even told who most of them are. On top of that, I've got people claiming the same thing as the Christian, but including claims that Jesus tamed dragons and the like. If I were a judge I'd throw this trial out of court, because none of the claims have a leg to stand on.

To be frank, all three claims are dubious at best. If forced to make a conclusion, numerical advantage is all there is to go on, and it's not in your favour.

And to finish this point off, as a Christian I cannot realistically argue my point from anything other than The Bible as my primary source. Otherwise why have The Bible in the first place?

That's nice for your personal beliefs, but not if you want to claim them as fact.

 

[ThankGod]

On what basis do you feel God is not real?

 

[SithDoughnut]

On what basis do you feel God is not real?

Was that directed at me?

 

[ianb321red]

Was that directed at me?