"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

InterestedAtheist said:

Biblical reference, please.

Click to expand...

I did not cite the Bible.

You made up an example of possible convincing evidence, it was this:

InterestedAtheist said:

We are talking about me believing that the Christian God exists. If God were to pop down out of Heaven now and say, "Yo, AI, it's me, Jehovah, yes, I'm real," then I would be forced to believe in Him. I would have no other option. I would be unable to disbelieve any more.

Click to expand...

So based on your own post 130, were you said this:

InterestedAtheist said:

"Is this evidence, and/or an argument, that makes sense and seems reliable? Or is it an untrustworthy form of evidence, containing flawed logic? Or perhaps an argument that can be used by many religions to argue for their own truth, and therefore valid for none of them?"

Click to expand...

I asked you how you could know you could believe your own experience? Would you have evidence to convince anyone else of your newly discovered truth? Can it not be used by many religions, and therefore valid for none?

You created this hypothetical experience, I am asking you why you are saying you would believe it at the same time as presenting arguments as to why it would not be reliable. Can you resolve this?

InterestedAtheist said:

Luke 22:45-54

Click to expand...

Well if anyone sees Jesus in incarnate form on earth you have almost got a relevant reference.
Unfortunately the point still actually does not work very well for you, because we do not have any Biblical basis for concluding that everyone received healing for every injury without regard for other factors, even when Jesus was in incarnate.

There is really no point in you claiming that if you saw it you would believe it, because writing down what one saw is the "on camera" of the time. You do not believe it.

InterestedAtheist said:

Well done! You're finally offering evidence.

Click to expand...

"Finally" as in since the first page?

cvanwey said:

It's not about being 'respectful/disrespectful'. It's about stating the observed. If it offends some, I can't help that. But some do this. Just stating objective findings.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you could avoid making off-hand stereotypical remarks if you actually tried. It's not that hard.

cvanwey said:

So please tell others, when they make this type of argument

Click to expand...

I don't think many atheists make the claim that atheists are moral because there's no standard for morality. In my experience, they tend to make both claims--i.e., that they can be moral and that there is no objective standard for morality, but usually not at the same time. And of course, it's not always the same people making both claims.

cvanwey said:

Um, yes. And again, 'verifying' the authenticity of objective events, like the existence of people, places, etc, gets us no closer to the claims of a man rising from the dead. We could verify that the Bible was 100% accurate about Jesus living, preaching, and being crucified. However, the Gospels claim 'He rose on the third day'. Is there a way to 'verify' this? Because, as you eluded to yourself, you do not necessarily buy into 'mystical experience'.

And again, 'Paul' himself stated that if the resurrection is false, then so is Christianity. So again, 'historicity' gets us no closer to 'validating' a resurrection.

Click to expand...

Verifying the authenticity of objective events actually does get us closer to the various miracle claims, since if you have not even established that the people in question existed, obviously there would be no reason to even entertain the notion that the theological claims might be true also.

There are plenty of people out there who are really serious about trying to demonstrate the Resurrection through historical analysis. I happen to agree with those who say that focusing exclusively on one miracle claim is a case of special pleading, so it is extremely annoying when atheists come to me and start insisting on a laser focus on a branch of apologetics that we both think is invalid.

I don't particularly care about trying to demonstrate that the Resurrection occurred. I care about the Incarnation, so any route that I would plot out from philosophical theism to Christianity would be based on that claim instead. If you're exclusively interested in evidence for the Resurrection, I would recommend reading N.T. Wright's work on the matter, but stop acting as if this is the central claim that needs to be defended, because it really isn't.

MrsFoundit said:

Your Bible reference to demonstrate the relevance of this please?

Click to expand...

A better question would be...

According to the Bible, what exactly is impossible with God?

Hint: Correct answer is NOTHING is impossible. So, if amputees don't regrow their limbs, something is wrong with the Bible promises, for whatever reason.

2PhiloVoid said:

How about a demonstration of 'Fire from heaven'? Would THAT get your attention?

Click to expand...

The bigger point of that story, (Elijah and fire from heaven) is that a real God must offer evidence of his existence. Baal couldn't offer evidence, allegedly, so the Baal worshippers were not justified in their belief in their God Baal. Of course, they were killed for their following Baal, but that's a separate question for times when superior objective morality based on Bible's God comes up.

coffee4u said:

That was the law given to the ancient Israelites. That was given to them and only them.

The question has no more purpose than if you dragged out the law from 1902 that says only men get to vote and waved that around while claiming women don't have the vote.

Those laws are not in place anymore.



They weren't false prophets and the prophecies did come true years after they were spoken.



Immanuel was not a personal name and this is not the first time it appears in scripture, it comes from Isaiah and is yet another prophecy.
Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."



Isaiah 7–8 tells about a historical event in the kingdom of Judah. The prophecy foretold the birth of Jesus Christ over seven hundred years later. No one is having 'sex with a virgin'.



1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing you said is relevant. You dodged every single point I made. I accept your concession on the issue.

PS

Why are you linking to a Mormon Bible? You're just not paying attention at all, are you? I think I'm worth more than the 5 seconds you put into your response. We're done! *Kicks the dust off feet.*

PPS

If you are Mormon, you're in violation of the rules here because you are not allowed to self-identify as Christian.

BigV said:

A better question would be...
According to the Bible, what exactly is impossible with God?

Click to expand...

Point invalid, unless you can justify applying a quote which says with God as if it actually says "regardless of God".

Not to mention, in post 205 I said "miracles do happen, objective evidence of this is not producible."

I did not cite the Bible.

Nihilist Virus said:

Absolutely nothing you said is relevant. You dodged every single point I made. I accept your concession on the issue.

Click to expand...

Was there a concession, where?

BigV said:

The bigger point of that story, (Elijah and fire from heaven) is that a real God must offer evidence of his existence. Baal couldn't offer evidence, allegedly, so the Baal worshippers were not justified in their belief in their God Baal. Of course, they were killed for their following Baal, but that's a separate question for times when superior objective morality based on Bible's God comes up.

Click to expand...

Elijah??? I never said anything about Elijah, nor was I referring to him as an example of any kind.

cvanwey said:

Define 'concession'? He cannot answer you effectively until we all know what the true standard of this word is? Can you give us 'the' definition? Until then, your question is incoherent.

Click to expand...

CONCESSION | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

cvanwey said:

Am I stereotyping if I ultimately conclude that I notice 'some' children enjoy making fun of kids they see as 'different'?

Click to expand...

If you go up to a kid and say, "Well, you're 12, right? Kids your age really love making fun of other kids they think are different! Chances are you really love it too!" that would definitely be stereotyping.

cvanwey said:

My only point here was to demonstrate that a person here, and this person knows who they are, use the go-to response of ''oh yea, what's your standard." You and I both agree this response is suspect Maybe for some of the same reasons, maybe for differing reasons...

Click to expand...

No, we don't agree that this response is suspect.

cvanwey said:

I [only] agree that in if we 'verify' a person never existed, then [of course] the claims of their 'abilities' is automatically debunked.

However, again, even if we verify that Jesus did in fact exist, preach, and was crucified by the Romans, substantiating a claim that He rose from the dead, rises and falls upon it's own 'merits' and 'evidence'. Wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

I would. It'd be a little silly to try to adjudicate a claim like that without first having a solid understanding of how historical analysis of the New Testament works, though. It'd be like trying to do calculus without knowing how to count.

cvanwey said:

Disagree. Again, 1 Corinthians 15:14. Unless you disagree with what 'Paul' says here?

Click to expand...

You are abusing that line. The Resurrection is necessary but not sufficient--it could be true and your faith could still be vain if the underlying theological understanding of it is false.

cvanwey said:

The Cambridge dictionary represents THE standard?

Click to expand...

I have no interest in any "THE standard". However, communication does require words therefore some agreement as to meaning.

cvanwey said:

I have already conceded all meaning to be in line with yours. Please begin now with post #183, 184?

Click to expand...

Yes, but what do you mean by concede?