Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Elioenai26]

I am not going to address objections that I have already addressed. Nor will I address comments on the premises of the arguments. Nor will I address false accusations of using fallacies when I have not.

Now if you do not want to debate me then that's fine. You would be doing nothing different than the other people here who refuse to debate me.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I am not going to address objections that I have already addressed. Nor will I address comments on the premises of the arguments. Nor will I address false accusations of using fallacies when I have not.

Now if you do not want to debate me then that's fine. You would be doing nothing different than the other people here who refuse to debate me.

Did you ever wonder WHY no one wants to debate you? Do you understand how you appear to us?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I am not going to address objections that I have already addressed. Nor will I address comments on the premises of the arguments. Nor will I address false accusations of using fallacies when I have not.

Now if you do not want to debate me then that's fine. You would be doing nothing different than the other people here who refuse to debate me.

And given this - seriously, what would you bring to a debate that you haven't already shown here?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not going to address objections that I have already addressed. Nor will I address comments on the premises of the arguments. Nor will I address false accusations of using fallacies when I have not.

Now if you do not want to debate me then that's fine. You would be doing nothing different than the other people here who refuse to debate me.

Perhaps people aren't willing to debate you because they don't want to rehash the same points they've already discussed only to have you ignore or dismiss those points (for the second time). If you are desperate to engage in a debate, you can start by addressing those points.

 

[Elioenai26]

From WLC's web page:

"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

So, if there is no historical support for this event, then it is not reasonable to believe that it happened.

Did you have anything to add, Elio?

I would love to debate you on the historical evidence for the resurrection. Would you like to?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I would love to debate you on the historical evidence for the resurrection. Would you like to?

So you won't even discuss why you'd like to debate anything? And you don't even care what you're debating?

Oh, and there's no good historical evidence for the resurrection. None. It would be a quick debate:

You: various after-the-fact stories
Me: debunking of why they're evidence
You: crickets.....

 

[Davian]

From WLC's web page:

"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

So, if there is no historical support for this event, then it is not reasonable to believe that it happened.

Did you have anything to add, Elio?

I would love to debate you on the historical evidence for the resurrection. Would you like to?

That would be "no" then.

As for the historical evidence for the resurrection, that is already clear. What is there to debate?

 

[Davian]

I am not going to address objections that I have already addressed. Nor will I address comments on the premises of the arguments. Nor will I address false accusations of using fallacies when I have not.

Now if you do not want to debate me then that's fine. You would be doing nothing different than the other people here who refuse to debate me.

Perhaps they are not so much refusing to debate you as declining having you waste their time.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Perhaps they are not so much refusing to debate you as declining having you waste their time.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Elioenai26]

So you won't even discuss why you'd like to debate anything? And you don't even care what you're debating?

Oh, and there's no good historical evidence for the resurrection. None. It would be a quick debate:

You: various after-the-fact stories
Me: debunking of why they're evidence
You: crickets.....

If that is the case, then I would like to enter into a formal debate with you on the historical evidence of Jesus Christ.

Agreed?

 

[Elioenai26]

That would be "no" then.

As for the historical evidence for the resurrection, that is already clear. What is there to debate?

If its clear, then you should be able to prove me wrong in a debate.

I say there is evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You say there isn't. We both can't be right. So let's debate.

 

[Elioenai26]

Perhaps they are not so much refusing to debate you as declining having you waste their time.

Just my opinion, of course.

You would have me be convinced that Christianity is groundless. You would have me convinced of this, and yet repeatedly refuse to debate me. Am I asking for you to do something you know you really can't do?

If everyone here is so much smarter than I am, and I am just some deceived, pitiful, amusing individual, then you should be able to back this up in a formal debate.

 

[Skavau]

People don't tend to debate holocaust deniers for similar reasons, Elioenai.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are you saying premise 2 is false?

I would say it is.

 

[Illuminaughty]

You have to prove me wrong or else I'm right. Isn't that how the burden of proof works? I make an unfalsifiable statement like " the god who created the earth is named Abraxas ,he is exactly 6 ft 2, and supports polygamy in marriage" and unless you can disprove it it's automatically true.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If everyone here is so much smarter than I am,

Correct so far.

and I am just some deceived, pitiful, amusing individual,

Excellent job! Keep it up.

then you should be able to back this up in a formal debate.

Ohhhhh.... and you were doing so well.

"Formal" debates aren't paths to the truth.

But heck, I'll bite. I'll debate whatever with you, as long as I, and only I, can set the rules of the debate.

So there you go. Accept if you dare.

 

[Elioenai26]

You have to prove me wrong or else I'm right. Isn't that how the burden of proof works? I make an unfalsifiable statement like " the god who created the earth is named Abraxas ,he is exactly 6 ft 2, and supports polygamy in marriage" and unless you can disprove it it's automatically true.

Not at all.

But in this forum, everyone makes claims one way or the other. Claims come in one's expression of their views on a particular topic and are usually expressed in the form of an answer to a question. The question oftimes being here in these forums: "Does God Exist?"

In fact, the above question has been the topic of debate between several well known atheists and Christian apologists.

Everyone has a view on the above question. From this view certain claims are made, and the claimant of said claims has the burden of proof. I have the burden of proof, and anyone else here who makes claims also has the burden of proof.

Now, I do not know if you were being serious or sarcastic, but with regards to your statement: "You have to prove me wrong or else I'm right." is incorrect.

For example, let's say I committed a crime. The police question me about the crime because I am a suspect. I tell them: "I did not commit the crime."

Now, what if they cannot prove that I committed the crime? Does that mean that my statement: "I did not commit the crime." is right?

Of course not!

However, I will humor you and show you why your parody named Abraxas is not a good one of the theistic God.

You posited that a 6ft 2in god named Abraxas created the earth. Well, in endeavoring to see whether this claim had any truth to it, I would start by asking whether or not anyone else held to this view. If not then I would kind of start to think that it was just something you made up in your own mind to try and prove a point. I would then ask myself: "How could a 6ft 2in "god" create the earth? I would consult experts from a wide range of relating fields and see if it would be feasible to posit this "Abraxas" as a probable explanation of the earth's existence. I would take into account their results regarding said "Abraxas" and continue in my research, building, as I go, a cumulative case either in support of, or against your assertion that Abraxas created the earth.

At the end of my research, I would analyze my findings and draw a conclusion. The conclusion would be: "Out of the pool of live explanations for the existence of the earth, Abraxas the 6ft god is not the best explanation."

 

[Elioenai26]

Correct so far.



Excellent job! Keep it up.



Ohhhhh.... and you were doing so well.

"Formal" debates aren't paths to the truth.

But heck, I'll bite. I'll debate whatever with you, as long as I, and only I, can set the rules of the debate.

So there you go. Accept if you dare.

What type of format do you have in mind? I also would like for you to go over the rules of the debate as well so we can have a mutual understanding of them. Have you picked a topic?

 

[Davian]

If its clear, then you should be able to prove me wrong in a debate.

I say there is evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You say there isn't. We both can't be right. So let's debate.

You would have me be convinced that Christianity is groundless. You would have me convinced of this, and yet repeatedly refuse to debate me. Am I asking for you to do something you know you really can't do?

If everyone here is so much smarter than I am, and I am just some deceived, pitiful, amusing individual, then you should be able to back this up in a formal debate.

I think people can glean the type of individual you are from your posting behaviour to date.

I won't consider beginning to take you seriously while you have quotes like this in your signature:

"A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God" - Ravi Zacharias

I will not enter a debate where I am to prove a negative.

I may also be put at odds with the rules and moderators of this site, both of which I respect.

I have made my views clear when challenged, and have no interest in putting up a defence for what is already mainstream science.

As said by others, the burden is on you. This 'debate me' schtick is getting old, and, as said by others, is not the path to truth.

At first, I wondered why there were high profile scientists that would not debate the likes of WLC, but I figured it out quickly. I won't be the step stool that gets you out of the hole that you have dug for yourself.

 

[Elioenai26]

I think people can glean the type of individual you are from your posting behaviour to date.

I am sure they can. But I have no idea what that has to do with you accepting an invitation to a debate.

I won't consider beginning to take you seriously while you have quotes like this in your signature:

"A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God" - Ravi Zacharias

I feel I am more than justified in using the quote. According to every atheist who I have questioned regarding their willingness to worship Christ, they have confessed that they would question what right Christ had to claim their allegiance and some have made it very clear that they would reject outright the opprtunity to love, worship, honor, and reverence Jesus Christ even if they did believe Him to be real.

I will not enter a debate where I am to prove a negative.

I am glad. I would'nt either. No one is asking you to prove a negative. But you do have a view on certain things. Lets say for instance the topic: "Does God exist?" I am sure you have a position on that question that you could argue from? No?

I may also be put at odds with the rules and moderators of this site, both of which I respect.

Is a formal debate against policy? I have not read that it was. No one engaging in a formal debate here would be at odds with the rules and moderators of this site.

I have made my views clear when challenged, and have no interest in putting up a defence for what is already mainstream science.

Mainstream science? Surely you are not talking about logical positivism?

As said by others, the burden is on you. This 'debate me' schtick is getting old, and, as said by others, is not the path to truth.

I never said debate was a path to truth. However, debate is a much more conducive format for getting one's points across in a clear, concise, and orderly manner.

At first, I wondered why there were high profile scientists that would not debate the likes of WLC, but I figured it out quickly. I won't be the step stool that gets you out of the hole that you have dug for yourself.

Dr. Craig has been debating high profile scientists and atheists for 20 plus years using the same five arguments as his base, and he still is the most well respected, most revered, Christian philosophical apologist and debater today. One atheist even confessed that he can put the fear of God in an atheist when debating. So I think you may be hesitant to debate me because you know I utilize much of his knowledge and teachings.