(July 5, 2016 at 1:35 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 6:02 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Can any of the theists here actually demonstrate that a God exists?

Can you concisely, empirically, logically or rationally meet your burden of proof to demonstrate that any God exists?

Please start by defining what you mean by 'God.'

No preaching please!

I think Jesus coming to earth, teaching, dying and then rising from the dead is a pretty good demonstration that God exists. First century Christians sure thought so--they said exactly that! How about that for concise?

Ok... What makes you think any of that actually happened?

(July 5, 2016 at 1:38 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 1:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: I think Jesus coming to earth, teaching, dying and then rising from the dead is a pretty good demonstration that God exists. First century Christians sure thought so--they said exactly that! How about that for concise?

Ok... What makes you think any of that actually happened?

I choose to believe that the authors of the NT were truthful in what they wrote and that the core content was not changed at a later date--both evidenced by the existence of a growing church as little as 15-20 years after Jesus' death. I would expect to see minor contradictions and minor transcribing errors. I believe the life and death of Jesus is one of the most attested to events in ancient history. 

I also believe the denial of the above consists mainly of a belief that miracles do not happen. This is a circular argument because you are asking for evidence that God exists and then say, well, you can't use miracles because...God does not exist.

(July 5, 2016 at 1:59 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 1:38 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Ok... What makes you think any of that actually happened?

I choose to believe that the authors of the NT were truthful in what they wrote and that the core content was not changed at a later date--both evidenced by the existence of a growing church as little as 15-20 years after Jesus' death. I would expect to see minor contradictions and minor transcribing errors. I believe the life and death of Jesus is one of the most attested to events in ancient history. 

I also believe the denial of the above consists mainly of a belief that miracles do not happen. This is a circular argument because you are asking for evidence that God exists and then say, well, you can't use miracles because...God does not exist.

How about if that "growing church" was just an evolution of the Essene cult?

(July 5, 2016 at 1:35 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 6:02 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Can any of the theists here actually demonstrate that a God exists?

Can you concisely, empirically, logically or rationally meet your burden of proof to demonstrate that any God exists?

Please start by defining what you mean by 'God.'

No preaching please!

I think Jesus coming to earth, teaching, dying and then rising from the dead is a pretty good demonstration that God exists. First century Christians sure thought so--they said exactly that! How about that for concise?

Cheap parlor trick.  But with the special effects we have nowadays, Hollywood could do better.  Pfft, no sale.

(July 5, 2016 at 1:59 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 1:38 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Ok... What makes you think any of that actually happened?

I choose to believe that the authors of the NT were truthful in what they wrote and that the core content was not changed at a later date--both evidenced by the existence of a growing church as little as 15-20 years after Jesus' death. I would expect to see minor contradictions and minor transcribing errors. I believe the life and death of Jesus is one of the most attested to events in ancient history. 

I also believe the denial of the above consists mainly of a belief that miracles do not happen. This is a circular argument because you are asking for evidence that God exists and then say, well, you can't use miracles because...God does not exist.

Finally we've got right down to it! Steve, you are absolutely free to believe that, but I take this to be you conceding the argument.

"I choose to believe..." Demonstrates that you don't hold your beliefs because they are true, you assert they are true because you want them to be true, you like that story of events. It shows that you are not following the evidence where it leads, you are leading the evidence to the conclusion you want.

You may choose to believe that the authors were truthful, but that doesn't prove a thing.

The growth of the Christian church is no different from the growth of Mormonism, Scientology, or dozens of other religions, and it proves nothing about the truth of their claims, only the popularity of the movement.

Now - you say denial of this only comes from disbelief in Miracles and that this is a circular argument. You have the burden of proof backward. Miracles have to be demonstrated to have occurred before it is rational to believe that they can happen. This has never been done, so it doesn't matter if I think miracles are impossible - until they are demonstrated, it is irrational to believe that they have ever happened.

You can point to the Bible and say "look, these people say miracles happened." So what? This is here say. It's the worst kind of evidence, copies of copies of translations of copies of testamony that would be utterly incredible if given by someone living today. We have better evidence of UFOs. The Biblical evidence for miracles is laughable. You believe in miracles because it says so in some old book? From 1950 years ago? Just because lots of other people do as well? Because you choose to believe they are truthful?

I'm not saying you can't have miracles because God doesn't exist, I'm saying its unreasonable and irrational to believe in miracles, or God, because NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE exists. You can choose to believe what you like. You can choose to believe in Zeus or Apollo or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - but that doesn't mean any of those things are real.

So if you're happy to just affirm whatever version of reality makes you feel good, rather than trying to investigate and discover the truth about reality as it is, then go for it, but know that you are basing your world map on comfort over reality - in a nutshell, you are living in a fantasy.

(July 5, 2016 at 6:02 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Can any of the theists here actually demonstrate that a God exists? [1]

Can you concisely, empirically, logically or rationally meet your burden of proof to demonstrate that any God exists? [3]

Please start by defining what you mean by 'God.' [2]

No preaching please!

1) Probably not in a way you will find convincing.

2) Defining god at the outset is backwards, but since you asked: 'god' is subsistent-being, i.e. that-which-exists-as-'god' is being whatever-it-is completely by the power of its own act of being: no other act of being is a necessary condition for that-which-exists-as-god to be 

3) Empirical evidence (EE): 

a) Some things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist. (e.g. I exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of human cells also exist simultaneously with 'me', and the 'ordering and configuration' of those cells exist on the condition that a certain amount and quality of cells exist simultaneously with the 'ordering and configuration', and the 'certain amount and quality of those cells' exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of molecules exist simultaneously with the 'amount and quality of those cells', etc.)

b) No non-abstract (i.e. non-mathematical) actual infinity of things is known to exist (i.e. All aggregates of 'things' are finite aggregates)

Logical axiom (LA): Non-abstract actual infinities cannot exist

Logical Demonstration:

Given EE(a) is true, then either:

i) All things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist, or

ii) At least one thing exists without the condition that other thing(s) exist.

If EE(a) is true, then there is no possibility besides (i) and (ii)

Suppose (i) is true. Then all things are aggregates of an infinity of simultaneously existing things, which are themselves aggregates of an infinity of simultaneously existing things, etc.)

However, supposing LA (which is consistent with EE(b)), then (i) cannot be true.

Therefore, (ii) must be true: at least one thing exists without the condition that other thing(s) exist.

What is this thing(s)? The demonstration cannot answer that. Does such a thing(s) exist? Yes, and it exists in the most simple and fundamental way: it just is.

To facilitate the discussion about this thing or things, call it/them whatever you want. I happen to call it/them 'god'

If you choose to believe something, then you don't actually believe it. If you did, there would be no choice in the matter.

(July 5, 2016 at 2:17 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 1:59 pm)SteveII Wrote: I choose to believe that the authors of the NT were truthful in what they wrote and that the core content was not changed at a later date--both evidenced by the existence of a growing church as little as 15-20 years after Jesus' death. I would expect to see minor contradictions and minor transcribing errors. I believe the life and death of Jesus is one of the most attested to events in ancient history. 

I also believe the denial of the above consists mainly of a belief that miracles do not happen. This is a circular argument because you are asking for evidence that God exists and then say, well, you can't use miracles because...God does not exist.

How about if that "growing church" was just an evolution of the Essene cult?

How would you explain the content of Paul's letters to them?

(July 5, 2016 at 3:00 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 2:17 pm)pocaracas Wrote: How about if that "growing church" was just an evolution of the Essene cult?

How would you explain the content of Paul's letters to them?

I don't see how they contradict the messianic notion already present in the figure of the Teacher of Righteousness.
Nor how this small group was shunned by the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Nor how the main gathering (or town) of these people was precisely on the famous road to Damascus...

Quote:I choose to believe that the authors of the NT were truthful in what they wrote

And there is your problem.  Willful gullibility.