Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Indeed, but I do not see a need for the "soft" qualifier. I do think he should have been more explicit in what he meant. WLC is often observed to make the same mistake.Hard atheism (positive belief that there is no God) is a truth claim - it is a claim about metaphysics, but still a truth claim. Soft atheism (I see no reason to believe in a God, so I don't) is not.
The Resurrection is a falsifiable event.What is there to investigate? Is there objective evidence for the existence of gods? Can it be presented in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?
That's exactly what the conclusion of the problem of evil argument is...a truth claim about the nonexistence of God (God A in my example).Atheism is not a truth claim.
Of course it is. People chose who to believe every day in court trials.Putting aside for the moment the quality and robustness of said arguments and "evidence", belief is not a conscious choice.
The jurors in the OJ trial chose to disbelieve the ample blood evidence.Can those those you speak of freely change that belief? Can they flip back and forth at will?
The Resurrection is a falsifiable event.
So? I've told him several times that I am not but he keeps pestering me about it.Jeremy was a fan of WLC. So was Elioenai26. I understand his suspicion.
You misunderstand. I was not proposing the witness of the Holy Spirit as objective evidence. The witness of the Holy Spirit is not for nonbelievers, but for believers. Going back to my example of the crime case, the question I was posing was whether you (the accused) should accept it as truth (for yourself) that you committed a crime even thought you clearly know you did not. I was not talking about providing evidence for someone else. I think the question posed was would I still believe in God even if all my evidence was shown to be questionable.How is that in the "same manner"? Court systems are well documented, and observable. Provisions are made (sometimes in a limited capacity ) for citizens to view the proceedings in person, or on television. Evidence is presented and cross-examined by scientific experts.
How am I am I to objectively differentiate this "Holy Spirit" from your imagination?
Yes, that's right."...plenty...".
Again, I believe the question posed to me was would I still believe, not you.Why should I not dismiss this as a product of your imagination?
So nothing in the past is falsifiable? Why would you treat the Resurrection any different than other historical events?Well, it would be if it happened tomorrow and there were people there to officially record what happened. In reality, it's not.
Well, there's lots of multiple attestations (Christian and non-Christian) to the crucifixion of Christ, the conversion of Paul and James the skeptic, the empty tomb, and the sincerity of the apostles that they had seen the risen Christ and willing to testify to it under threat of death. Maybe you could find some reputable documents that refute these things, or maybe somebody provided some reputable documentation that someone had discovered the body of Jesus. Just find some good documentation to refute all I've just listed and that might prove the Resurrection to be a false claim. Good luck wid dat!How could it be falsified ?
So nothing in the past is falsifiable?
Why would you treat the Resurrection any different than other historical events?
I think the conclusion of the problem of evil argument I presented was pretty clear as a "hard" atheistic statement. See below:Indeed, but I do not see a need for the "soft" qualifier. I do think he should have been more explicit in what he meant. WLC is often observed to make the same mistake.
Do you believe Elvis never died, or perhaps that Tupac came back from the dead ? We have lots of eye witness accounts concerning Elvis over the years. Plus we had B.I.G's prophecy concerning Tupac, and then after Tupac's death new tracks of his came out. Is this evidence that Tupac came back from the dead and is still working ?Well, there's lots of multiple attestations (Christian and non-Christian) to the crucifixion of Christ, the conversion of Paul and James the skeptic, the empty tomb, and the sincerity of the apostles that they had seen the risen Christ and willing to testify to it under threat of death. Maybe you could find some reputable documents that refute these things, or maybe somebody provided some reputable documentation that someone had discovered the body of Jesus. Just find some good documentation to refute all I've just listed and that might prove the Resurrection to be a false claim. Good luck wid dat!
And there is also multiple documents from Christian and non-Christian (even opposing) sources that testify tot he Resurrection story."Falsifiable" is the wrong word. But we can sensibly talk about whether some things in the past are verifiable. And some are, and some aren't.
Is the Normal invasion of England in 1066 verifiable? Yep. There's mountains of evidence to support this claim, not least that English Kings spoke French for the next 400 years.
This is just a "just so" statement with no credible support.It's not a reliably documented historical event. In fact, it's more than likely not a historical event at all, along with the rest of the narrative story of the gospels. That story predates the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. How many other "historical events" existed in the form of mythological stories before they actually happened?
Actually, archeologists have found the bible to be an extremely reliable historical source. Not all the bible is literal. There is prose and stories in there as well. Everyone knows that.The Bible is not a historically-reliable source. It mentions some people known to have existed (e.g. Herod) and some places that exist and some events that happened. But it also contains a large amount of pre-existing mythology and fantastical stories that have no other evidence to support them and I see no reason why a rational person should treat them as historical events.
In my opinion, the most likely "true history" of early Christianity is that it was invented by the Flavian Roman emperors in the late 1st century: http://www.fargonasphere.com/piso/
Just a quick reply here because I have to go. You response demonstrates that you have a naïve understanding of the evidence supporting the Resurrection. I suggest that you go and educate yourself a little bit more on this subject.Do you believe Elvis never died, or perhaps that Tupac came back from the dead ? We have lots of eye witness accounts concerning Elvis over the years. Plus we had B.I.G's prophecy concerning Tupac, and then after Tupac's death new tracks of his came out. Is this evidence that Tupac came back from the dead and is still working ?
Finding eye-witness accounts credible or not is one thing ... falsifying what they are describing or attempting to describe is another.
I would say that Jesus appearing and showing that He resurrected to back your own claim may help your case. Is Jesus going to appear to back your own claim and testify on your behalf to show that He is still around today ?
Referencing scriptures and such do not typically do much for me. I prefer practical, here and now demonstration. I also consider eye-witness testimony from the source (i.e. if you claim to have seen Jesus yourself). I'm not typically interested in historical accounts to *prove* something such as whether or not Yeshua actually came back from the dead and has appeared to men over the centuries since. I would want to see for myself, rather than just hear about what happened to someone a couple of thousand years ago. Have you ever seen Yeshua/Jesus/etc ? Is He going to appear to back your claim now ? Again, I'd typically rather see for myself than have you reference ancient accounts. I will however hear your own account if you have seen Him personally.Just a quick reply here because I have to go. You response demonstrates that you have a naïve understanding of the evidence supporting the Resurrection. I suggest that you go and educate yourself a little bit more on this subject.
I believe I already addressed in another thread why I didn't care to respond to the OP. And you don't have to get into the extensive evidence. If you have an apple, show the apple. Jesus appearing would suffice.BTW, we're off-topic. The Resurrection is one of my favorite subjects, but the evidence is quite extensive and takes time to review and I did not want to get into that subject in this thread. How about answering my OP instead? So may atheists seem to be sidestepping it.
I gather you are not familiar with the concept of falsifiability.The Resurrection is a falsifiable event.
No, atheism is not exactly that.That's exactly what the conclusion of the problem of evil argument is...a truth claim about the nonexistence of God (God A in my example).
I asked, can those those you speak of freely change that belief? Can they flip back and forth at will?Of course it is. People chose who to believe every day in court trials.
The jurors in the OJ trial chose to disbelieve the ample blood evidence.
Understood, but I hope you don't mind this little formality: Have you posted on this site under the username of Elioenai26?So? I've told him several times that I am not but he keeps pestering me about it.
But that is what the blood evidence is in the court case you referenced, is it not?You misunderstand. I was not proposing the witness of the Holy Spirit as objective evidence.
Circular reasoning. Got it.The witness of the Holy Spirit is not for nonbelievers, but for believers.
I would need more information. What I "know", as in human mind/memory, is a demonstrably fallible thing.Going back to my example of the crime case, the question I was posing was whether you (the accused) should accept it as truth (for yourself) that you committed a crime even thought you clearly know you did not.
If all of my evidence was shown to be questionable, I would question, and perhaps abandon my position, as I have in the past. Are you infallible?I was not talking about providing evidence for someone else. I think the question posed was would I still believe in God even if all my evidence was shown to be questionable.
Yeah, right. lol.Yes, that's right.
That question was not in reference to your earlier post, and still stands: Why should I not dismiss this "Holy Ghost" as a product of your imagination?Again, I believe the question posed to me was would I still believe, not you.
It was not clear as you had phrased it. Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum, for the purposes of semantics.I think the conclusion of the problem of evil argument I presented was pretty clear as a "hard" atheistic statement.
I do in the context that UE used it, but not how you used it.See below:
"Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist."
Since it sounds like you now accept that this is a truth claim (as UndercoverElephant explained),
I do not see any contradiction. One can hold a position of disbelief in gods in general, while coming to a conclusion that a particular god, as defined, is only a character in a book.maybe you an see now why I implied in my OP that the conclusion of the problem of evil argument as presented contradicts the softer "lack of belief" stance. So if you claim to hold to a "lack of belief" you cannot concur with the conclusion of the problem of evil argument.
You misunderstand. I was not proposing the witness of the Holy Spirit as objective evidence. The witness of the Holy Spirit is not for nonbelievers, but for believers. Going back to my example of the crime case, the question I was posing was whether you (the accused) should accept it as truth (for yourself) that you committed a crime even thought you clearly know you did not. I was not talking about providing evidence for someone else. I think the question posed was would I still believe in God even if all my evidence was shown to be questionable.
And there is also multiple documents from Christian and non-Christian (even opposing) sources that testify tot he Resurrection story.
Sorry, I got to laugh at this suggestion.
So the Roman empire successfully engineered a massive conspiracy with thousands and thousands of New Testament copies scattered all over the known world and not one document survives to dispute your conspiracy theory?
So another atheist who refuses to answer my OP. Ok. Noted.I believe I already addressed in another thread why I didn't care to respond to the OP.
If you think you are backing people into corners or some such, you may want to think again. Whatever you are concluding as happening from some of your interactions here, may not actually be true of reality. As I recall, I told you in another thread something along the lines that I didn't respond because some things were not well defined, etc. You attempted to define them a bit more here, but they are still vague imo, specifically "omnibenevolence".So another atheist who refuses to answer my OP. Ok. Noted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?