Still waiting for evidence of a god.
Any god will do.

So far all I've gotten is some ramblings about a story book. That book and it's many authors are not evidence. That book is the claim.

Supernatural by definition is beyond our natural world.
There is nothing we can say about it or it's properties.
It is outside of existence and things outside of existence are non existent by fucking definition.

Stories and anecdotes about the supernatural are not evidence of the supernatural. They are evidence that human beings like fictional tales.

We love stories. The bigger and wilder, the better.
We love to Max out our heroes or those we worship.

"My god can beat up your god"

And that's what happened with all the different branches of Christianity in its infancy.

Yahweh, the god of war, was one of over 70 different gods with the god El reigning over all.

This god of war ended up winning the battle and replaced El as the top figure among all the gods.

Stories told by campfire began to be written down.
As with such stories, they change over time.

-----
Taking a tangent.
-----
Did you know that there are several people in New York City named Peter Parker. I wonder which one is the real Spiderman.

The Spiderman books talk about these massive skyscrapers in the city of New York.
New York does exist and does have massive skyscrapers.
The books also mention modern day historical figures.
And the books authors are well known and alive.

Other people that live in New York also have told the tales of Spiderman.

Despite all of this, we still have no evidence that Spiderman exists.

/End Tangent

I hope I made my point.

You can argue about the stories in the bible all day and it doesn't get you one step closer to providing evidence of a god.

(October 8, 2018 at 9:36 am)SteveII Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 7:52 am)polymath257 Wrote: P1 and P2: Just  because we have a *story* that some strange things occurred doesn't mean we have evidence of it. We also have to weigh the likelihood of the story being accurate. In this case, it is quite low.teh story was written well after the purported events, gathered by people motivated to support their positions, and approved of by a Roman emperor. That doesn't help the case.

First, how do you think we acquire ALL historical information? Everything is evidence of something.

We also get historical evidence from archaeological investigations, monuments, etc. Writings are often the *least* reliable source of historical information and must *always* be treated skeptically, especially as regards to the motives of the authors.

Quote:Second, you need to address why Paul was writing letters less than 20 years after Jesus to churches all over the Roman empire that BELIEVED the events that the gospels would LATER catalog. The ONLY explanation is that there existed a group of people that believed the events immediately after Jesus' resurrection.

Remember that those across the empire would not have had direct knowledge of the events in Jerusalem. Most believers only believed because of hearsay evidence. The travel times were long and travel was dangerous. Paul himself never saw Jesus (except in a delusion). Given that he clearly made up much of the story, that those he told believed him isn't any evidence of the actual events.

Quote:Third, your reference to what happened in the third century is a red herring--we are talking about what happened in the first century.

Not at all. There were many different accounts of the events, ranging from those eventually adopted as canonical to those that were much more bizarre.

Quote:P3-P5: People being delusional and misinterpreting coincidences isn't evidence. Predicting that people will do so isn't evidence either.

Quote:Serious question begging.

Not at all. The superstitious nature of the society makes *any* story along this line less believable from the start. That there were also violations of physical laws only confirms the impossibility.

if anything, you resort to special pleading in all of this.

Quote:

Quote:P6-P10: all argue from a position of ignorance and actually don't provide evidence for a deity either way. They are just-so stories that don't affect the probabilities.

So...there exists another explanation for these things!? Do tell. Seems to me the Christian worldview has built into it way more explanatory power than naturalism--and it is not 'just so'--it is foundation to the worldview--if there is a God, OF COURSE he created the universe. 

The funny thing is that you think that even if you can't put your finger on an explanation--one will be forthcoming. It literally seems impossible that anything we dream up get's past the "first cause" problem.

The problem is that invoking deities *does not* actually give an explanation either. Since deities could be consistent with *anything*, they don't explain anything.

Quote: P11: Simply wrong

Assertion based on question-begging reasoning.

P12-P13: both based on fallacies. Since there is equal counter-evidence, the net effect is zero, or even against the position you hold.

Quote:No, there are no fallacies here--if you think so, name them. You have failed to explain away the evidence we have so we only have your question-begging assertions or mischaracterizations to compare my list to.

Special pleading.

Quote:The point is that we *know* that people are superstitious and prone to interpret coincidences and low probability events in a supernatural light. The fact that people generally interpret such in light of their local superstition gives evidence *against* the existence of deities that far outweighs the claims made *for* their existence: the net effect is that deities are *less* likely. 

Again, the net effect of ALL of your claims is to make something incredibly unlikely still incredibly unlikely.

Quote:More question begging. In every case above you have already assumed the event/experience did not happen and are a result of superstition. That's not a counter argument.

Given the violations of physical law, that isn't much of a leap, now is it? How reliable were these people and were they reliable enough to say that they really observed such violations? or, is it just possible they were mistaken? Which is more likely?

---

(October 8, 2018 at 9:54 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 9:28 am)polymath257 Wrote: Not at all. I am not using frequency statistics for this evaluation, except as evidence for how gullible people can be.

The problem however is, that just because something doesn't happen frequently, doesn't give you any evidence for your claim.  That doesn't follow from showing that the occurrence is rare, that someone is gullible for believing it.... that's just bad logic,  as shown by the equivocation.

But that they believe physical laws were violated *does* show them to be gullible. that is *by far* the more reasonable explanation, don't you think?

(October 8, 2018 at 11:15 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 9:54 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The problem however is, that just because something doesn't happen frequently, doesn't give you any evidence for your claim.  That doesn't follow from showing that the occurrence is rare, that someone is gullible for believing it.... that's just bad logic,  as shown by the equivocation.

But that they believe physical laws were violated *does* show them to be gullible. that is *by far* the more reasonable explanation, don't you think?

What physical laws where violated? Also how do you know that they where not just manipulated, or that an outside force was involved?

Have we moved away from the statistical nonsense.... this seems like you jumped topics from the previous context?

(October 8, 2018 at 10:48 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Still waiting for evidence of a god.
Any god will do.

Great, another atheist that has problems with definitions.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

Quote:So far all I've gotten is some ramblings about a story book. That book and it's many authors are not evidence. That book is the claim.

Three points on the New Testament not being the claim:

1- The claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God.
2- The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
3- The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim.

Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about. It is not as if the NT writers wrote essays on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it).

Quote:Supernatural by definition is beyond our natural world.
There is nothing we can say about it or it's properties.
It is outside of existence and things outside of existence are non existent by fucking definition.

More definition problems! That is not the definition of supernatural. Supernatural just means not existing naturally-beyond the laws of nature. There is nothing in the definition that says it cannot interact with the natural world. If the supernatural can effect the natural world (the definition of a miracle), then there is something we can say about it's properties. 

Quote:I hope I made my point.

You can argue about the stories in the bible all day and it doesn't get you one step closer to providing evidence of a god.

It's obvious you actually don't know much about the Bible. But let's set that aside for the moment. There were other categories of evidence in my list that you left out. 

P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects (experienced God as outlined in the NT)
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).

Go ahead, answer these. Until then you have made no point.

(October 8, 2018 at 8:02 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 7:59 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: My stance is that any apologist who ignores the attributes of consciousness and willfulness is equivocating with his god-concept.

But as always, if you have something to say, by all means say it.

If consciousness and willfulness are baked into your concept of what God is, I won't argue with you. No philosopher I know of -- including the Christian ones -- conceive of God as having these things in the way that people do.

I wasn't saying that a God's consciousness and willfulness had to be the same as people's, but he does necessarily have to have them to be a being -- i.e. to exist as something more than a concept of the Truth. 

I am grateful philosophers have long discussed God in more abstract terms, since they led to our ideas of natural laws independent of any God-concept.

---

(October 8, 2018 at 8:59 am)SteveII Wrote: 1) You have an 'alternative explanation' to the NT that has evidence? That would be a first.

2) There is an 'alternate explanation' to billions of people's experience? Is it a billion explanations or just one covers everyone?

3) There is an 'alternate explanation' why anything exists? Do tell.

4) There is an 'alternate explanation' for where the universe came from? Do tell.

5) There is an 'alternate explanation' for consciousness? Do tell.

1) Not me, per se -- Biblical scholars.  I personally prefer Bart Ehrman's detective work which concludes that the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, based on a careful study of the Gospels.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic...art+ehrman

2) Billions of people can and do misinterpret their personal experiences, as psychology has shown.

https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Gorilla...le+gorilla

3 and 4) You are assuming that the universe came from nothing, which even the big bang theory does not assume.  The universe, in some form, may have existed forever.  After all, energy doesn't seem to be either created or destroyed, just transformed.  We don't really know yet, but your jumping to conclusions proves nothing.  Further, other scientists have speculated how it is indeed possible for something to come from nothing (without anything supernatural involved).

https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-...e+big+bang

5) Consciousness is not a separate being, it is a process of physical bodies and specifically physical brains.  It varies with brain chemistry and structure.

https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Sci...sciousness

So yes, there are alternative explanations for each of your points, and from my perspective every one is more probable than yours because they do no depend on the existence of a whole other spiritual or supernatural dimension to reality.  The more moving parts any explanation requires, the less probable it's likely to be.  Your explanations are way too complicated for what they are required to explain.

Steve, do you have any facts or information that would indicate that the proposition "a god exists" is true ?

Let's start by describing the god you believes exists and how you obtained this description.

Did you observe this god ?
What does it look like ?

Did this god touch you in any way ?
Did it ask your permission to touch you ?

(October 8, 2018 at 11:15 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 9:36 am)SteveII Wrote: First, how do you think we acquire ALL historical information? Everything is evidence of something.

We also get historical evidence from archaeological investigations, monuments, etc. Writings are often the *least* reliable source of historical information and must *always* be treated skeptically, especially as regards to the motives of the authors.

That was easy. My goal was do drive you to a ridiculous position--but you ran there on your own as fast as you could. 99.99% of our knowledge of the world's history before 20th century is a result of reading what people wrote.  

Second, you just admitted that writings are evidence (even as you mischaracterized their status).  So, the NT is evidence of Jesus and his claims. Glad we got that out of the way. 

Quote:

Quote:Second, you need to address why Paul was writing letters less than 20 years after Jesus to churches all over the Roman empire that BELIEVED the events that the gospels would LATER catalog. The ONLY explanation is that there existed a group of people that believed the events immediately after Jesus' resurrection.

Remember that those across the empire would not have had direct knowledge of the events in Jerusalem. Most believers only believed because of hearsay evidence. The travel times were long and travel was dangerous. Paul himself never saw Jesus (except in a delusion). Given that he clearly made up much of the story, that those he told believed him isn't any evidence of the actual events.

Why would they have no direct knowledge of the events in Jerusalem? It's even easier than that--we know why from the researcher Luke:

Quote:Acts 2:5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

Quote:

Quote:Third, your reference to what happened in the third century is a red herring--we are talking about what happened in the first century.

Not at all. There were many different accounts of the events, ranging from those eventually adopted as canonical to those that were much more bizarre.

Go ahead. List the first century documents that contradict the books we know were written in the first century. Looking forward to seeing those "many different accounts". 

Quote:

Quote:P3-P5: People being delusional and misinterpreting coincidences isn't evidence. Predicting that people will do so isn't evidence either.

Quote:Serious question begging.

Not at all. The superstitious nature of the society makes *any* story along this line less believable from the start. That there were also violations of physical laws only confirms the impossibility.

if anything, you resort to special pleading in all of this.

First, you definitely are question begging to use superstition as an argument against miracles people claim to have seen.

Second, a miracle is not a violation of the physical laws, it is a natural event with a supernatural cause. To say it another way, a physical law describes the expected effect given certain conditions. If there is a supernatural cause, those certain conditions obviously do not obtain. You need to be precise with your language. 

Quote:

Quote:So...there exists another explanation for these things!? Do tell. Seems to me the Christian worldview has built into it way more explanatory power than naturalism--and it is not 'just so'--it is foundation to the worldview--if there is a God, OF COURSE he created the universe. 

The funny thing is that you think that even if you can't put your finger on an explanation--one will be forthcoming. It literally seems impossible that anything we dream up get's past the "first cause" problem.

The problem is that invoking deities *does not* actually give an explanation either. Since deities could be consistent with *anything*, they don't explain anything.

Christianity is a cumulative case that involves natural theology, revealed theology, the person of Jesus, the occurrence of miracles (big and small), and personal experiences.  

Quote:

Quote: P11: Simply wrong

Assertion based on question-begging reasoning.

P12-P13: both based on fallacies. Since there is equal counter-evidence, the net effect is zero, or even against the position you hold.

Quote:No, there are no fallacies here--if you think so, name them. You have failed to explain away the evidence we have so we only have your question-begging assertions or mischaracterizations to compare my list to.

Special pleading.

Yeah...no. P12-13 (below) have no special pleading in them because both have reasons for the conclusions. You have to address the reasons I put in bold.

P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from [b]P4, P5[/b])
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from [b]P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)
[/b]

Quote:

Quote:The point is that we *know* that people are superstitious and prone to interpret coincidences and low probability events in a supernatural light. The fact that people generally interpret such in light of their local superstition gives evidence *against* the existence of deities that far outweighs the claims made *for* their existence: the net effect is that deities are *less* likely. 

Again, the net effect of ALL of your claims is to make something incredibly unlikely still incredibly unlikely.

Quote:More question begging. In every case above you have already assumed the event/experience did not happen and are a result of superstition. That's not a counter argument.

Given the violations of physical law, that isn't much of a leap, now is it? How reliable were these people and were they reliable enough to say that they really observed such violations? or, is it just possible they were mistaken? Which is more likely?

The more the people the less likely they were mistaken. The more action that those beliefs compelled, the stronger the case. A claim of "no evidence" is a positive claim that requires a alternate theory that fits the evidence we have--of which there are a thousand data points in the first century alone.

(October 8, 2018 at 1:33 am)Belaqua Wrote: God is, though, as I said, they don't hold that he's tangible.

In other words we know god exists through his non existence.

We don't know - the right answer.

(October 8, 2018 at 6:54 am)SteveII Wrote: .

Bullshit doesn't become less bullshittery the more you post it Steve, it just gets more runny and many.

None of your "proofs" are evidence for god, because they all have the same problem. They start with "assume god exists".