(February 1, 2015 at 11:36 am)SteveII Wrote: You want me to comment on documents that may or may not exist and whose content I cannot be examined?
Just like you're asking us to accept the testimony of people who may or may not exist, whose content you cannot examine (remember, the bible authors are anonymous and none of them ever claimed to be eyewitnesses, so they're just commenting on second hand accounts at best.)
That's the point that you did, indeed, miss: why is your hearsay from anonymous sources okay as evidence, while you automatically doubt any hearsay that conflicts with what you already believe?
Quote:The friend who said that God did not exist, was he an eyewitness to the events of the first century? The parallel is nonsense since we are talking about an series of events and not a philosophical statement.
So what if my friend was an eyewitness or not? None of the bible authors were eyewitnesses either; both your and my accounts are second hand, they're on equal ground. I could equally also just claim that he was an eyewitness, being that he's a time traveller, and when you ask me for proof of that, I could just say that time travel is possible if my friend exists, which is the same argument exactly as your "if god exists then miracles" justification.
This is the problem: you make arguments, and then when people make the exact same arguments back to you, suddenly they're no longer effective. Which is it? Is what you're saying solid justification or not?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!