Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Skavau]

I neglect to address fallacies and misconstruals of the argument, yes.

Or apparently even point out parts of argument as fallacies. Pro-tip: Just insisting, without the slightest attempt that someone's argument against you is a fallacy is not effective. Especially when I have asked you to clarify statements in the majority of my responses rather than make claims.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I neglect to address fallacies and misconstruals of the argument, yes.

You have not addressed any of their concerns, nor have they misconstrued your argument.

May I suggest a good course in basic logic and elementary principles of philosophy for you? You might begin with the Stanford Encyclopedia. If that's too advanced, I can suggest others.

 

[quatona]

That's your opinion. You are entitled to it. I have already submitted my work on premise (2). Feel free to view it at your leisure. Or you don not have to.

I have silently admitted no where that the moral argument has broken down, so I think you are mistaken.

Well, an argument that is only persuasive to the already persuaded but not to those who disagree is certainly not even an argument.
You can´t/won´t substantiate your premise (2) - that´s the ghist of your admission. Your unsubstantiated assertion is therefore rejected.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

To simply demand that everyone accept your claims with no more support than "lots of people agree", and then refuse to discuss the counter-arguments, but to simply dismiss them out of hand, shows that you have no intention of discussing this matter in good faith.

 

[Davian]

Actually, I don't see him putting words in your mouth. I see him asking you :
" Are you saying premise 2 is false? "
I would consider it putting words in your mouth if he said " Ohhhh, so you think premise 2 is false. Well aren't you just a schmuck"
...or something to that effect.
As stated, I would consider it asking for clarification on your position.

I did say "tried". In the context of Elio's posting history, this is the second step in attempting to shift the burden of evidence, the first being the setting up of a false dichotomy in the OP.

If you will refer to post #409 you will see that I address the issue of madaz' claim of knowledge and they have yet to offer up any "proof" of their claim other than saying it was a hypothetical and that no proof existed for God, which is not true,IMO but it does nothing to address the actual claim of knowledge.

There is proof for the existence of God? Are you keeping this to yourself?

 

[Davian]

Pardon me, madaz didn't even address my request for evidence.

You didn't ask for evidence, you asked for proof of a negative, which is ridiculous.

It was answered by someone else so that's even MORE telling.

Yes, that this is an open forum.

Why is the standard of evidence different for the atheist than the theist?

Perhaps the theists lack the evidence to support their position on certain claims.

Especially when the atheist is making the same claims of knowledge?

An atheist may make a claim of knowledge, but that has nothing to do with their atheism. Atheism is not knowledge claim.

It's great that a number of people will pile up on one person and be demanding of an answer over and over

That may be in response to the evasion and obfuscation of the person in question.

but when it comes to the atheist making the same claim of knowledge it's dismissed and excuses are offered because the atheist position *claims* they aren't asserting anything.

On theistic postion of atheism, they are not.

So, an atheist can make all sorts of claims but doesn't need to back them up because ...........why?? Can't use the atheist isn't making any claims bull on this one.

On theistic postion of atheism, they are not. If they make other claims, call them on it - as they will on yours.

 

[Elioenai26]

You didn't ask for evidence, you asked for proof of a negative, which is ridiculous.

Yes, that this is an open forum.

Perhaps the theists lack the evidence to support their position on certain claims.

An atheist may make a claim of knowledge, but that has nothing to do with their atheism. Atheism is not knowledge claim.

That may be in response to the evasion and obfuscation of the person in question.

On theistic postion of atheism, they are not.

On theistic postion of atheism, they are not. If they make other claims, call them on it - as they will on yours.

Question of evidence aside....

Evidence is only persuasive if one is open to where the evidence leads.

The real issue is: Christians maintain that Christ rose from the dead bodily. If there is historical support for this, then it is reasonable to believe that He did in fact rise from the dead, which would be all the evidence a person who is open to where it leads would need. This would prove a great many things and would open up a whole new way of viewing reality.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Question of evidence aside....

Evidence is only persuasive if one is open to where the evidence leads.

The real issue is: Christians maintain that Christ rose from the dead bodily. If there is historical support for this, then it is reasonable to believe that He did in fact rise from the dead, which would be all the evidence a person who is open to where it leads would need. This would prove a great many things and would open up a whole new way of viewing reality.

How fortunate we are that no such evidence exists.

 

[quatona]

The real issue is: Christians maintain that Christ rose from the dead bodily. If there is historical support for this, then it is reasonable to believe that He did in fact rise from the dead, which would be all the evidence a person who is open to where it leads would need. This would prove a great many things and would open up a whole new way of viewing reality.

Aren´t you the guy who keeps complaining about red herrings being brought up?

 

[Davian]

Question of evidence aside....

Evidence is only persuasive if one is open to where the evidence leads.

The real issue is: Christians maintain that Christ rose from the dead bodily. If there is historical support for this, then it is reasonable to believe that He did in fact rise from the dead, which would be all the evidence a person who is open to where it leads would need. This would prove a great many things and would open up a whole new way of viewing reality.

Derailing the thread, Elio?

I'll bite. Outside of some bible stories, what evidence fo you have for this event?

 

[Elioenai26]

How fortunate we are that no such evidence exists.

So you say. I say otherwise.

 

[Elioenai26]

Aren´t you the guy who keeps complaining about red herrings being brought up?

Yes, but since no one has a regard for my desires, I have decided to humor you guys for a while and see where it goes.

 

[Elioenai26]

Derailing the thread, Elio?

I'll bite. Outside of some bible stories, what evidence fo you have for this event?

Google it.

 

[Davian]

Derailing the thread, Elio?

I'll bite. Outside of some bible stories, what evidence fo you have for this event?

Google it.

But, let us humour you; I did google it, and came up with this:

"So you’re asking for non-canonical sources. I think one reason Bill didn’t want to answer is because the non-canonical sources don’t bear out his position. The non- canonical pagan sources in fact never refer to the resurrection of Jesus until centuries later. Jesus actually never appears any non-canonical pagan source until 80 years after his death. So clearly he didn’t make a big impact on the pagan world. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus but didn’t believe in his resurrection. There are non-canonical Christian sources that talk about the resurrection, but unfortunately virtually all of them that narrate the event, although they are non-canonical Gospels, narrate the event in a way that disagrees with Bill’s reconstruction. They don’t believe that Jesus was physically, bodily raised from the dead. For evidence of that simply read the account of the Second Treatise of the Great Seth or read the account the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter; just go down the line. We do have one account in which Jesus comes out of the tomb. It’s in the Gospel of Peter; it’s an apocalyptic account. Jesus comes out of the tomb as tall as the skyscraper; following him is a cross which speaks to the heavens, clearly a legendary account of very little use to historians wanting to know what happened."

Read more: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith.org

 

[quatona]

Yes, but since no one has a regard for my desires, I have decided to humor you guys for a while and see where it goes.

That´s not new. You have done it all the time: "Humoring" people with your red herrings, and complain when people respond to them. A special form of baiting. Rest assured, your debate tricks don´t go unnoticed.

While simply abandoning those discussions that are to your points.

Still waiting for you to substantiate your premise 2.
Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that moral subjectivists are unable to live up to this view.

 

[Elioenai26]

But, let us humour you; I did google it, and came up with this:

"So you’re asking for non-canonical sources. I think one reason Bill didn’t want to answer is because the non-canonical sources don’t bear out his position. The non- canonical pagan sources in fact never refer to the resurrection of Jesus until centuries later. Jesus actually never appears any non-canonical pagan source until 80 years after his death. So clearly he didn’t make a big impact on the pagan world. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus but didn’t believe in his resurrection. There are non-canonical Christian sources that talk about the resurrection, but unfortunately virtually all of them that narrate the event, although they are non-canonical Gospels, narrate the event in a way that disagrees with Bill’s reconstruction. They don’t believe that Jesus was physically, bodily raised from the dead. For evidence of that simply read the account of the Second Treatise of the Great Seth or read the account the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter; just go down the line. We do have one account in which Jesus comes out of the tomb. It’s in the Gospel of Peter; it’s an apocalyptic account. Jesus comes out of the tomb as tall as the skyscraper; following him is a cross which speaks to the heavens, clearly a legendary account of very little use to historians wanting to know what happened."

Read more: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith.org

Ehrman? You quote Ehrman? Heheheh......

While you are at it, would you mind posting Dr. Craig's response?

 

[Davian]

Ehrman? You quote Ehrman? Heheheh......

Actually, I am quoting William Lane Craig's web page, with the context provided in the included link. Do you have a serious response to what I posted? Or just hand-waving?

While you are at it, would you mind posting Dr. Craig's response?

I will leave that for you.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Google it.

I did. No evidence.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So you say. I say otherwise.

Produce it. You made the claim; you support it.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I quote from the OP: In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you.

Let us keep to the OP's wishes.