(February 1, 2015 at 3:03 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 2:58 am)robvalue Wrote: Does our hearsay evidence not count as equally valid?

If I had any confidence in Steve's ability to actually understand the point you just made, I'd say that'd be a fun question to watch him try to answer.

You want me to comment on documents that may or may not exist and whose content I cannot be examined?

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.

Does it matter the century? Why? God stop making housecalls or something? Why?

I see, there are different levels of hearsay evidence, got it.

I told you already that God visited me and explained everything, that not bother you? That's not even hearsay, it's actual first hand experience. But if you're calling God a liar, you better have a good explanation.

(January 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm)bob96 Wrote: Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom.


How did it come into being?

It came into being by you imagining it and exists only in your imagination.

(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?

(February 1, 2015 at 1:11 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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?

I have some lights appearing on my special pleading sensor array.

(February 1, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I have some lights appearing on my special pleading sensor array.

I need to get one of those. I'm tired of having to identify special pleading myself.

(February 1, 2015 at 11:36 am)SteveII Wrote: The friend who said that God did not exist, was he an eyewitness to the events of the first century?

If it's the same friend I'm thinking of, yes.

(February 1, 2015 at 12:05 am)Esquilax Wrote: And you can't just cover for your first baseless assertion with a second, because now you've just replaced "are miracles possible?" with "is god possible?" and even if you answer the latter question you'd still need to answer the former. As it stands, you're attempting to rush ahead without answering either question, and that alone makes every conclusion you draw suspect at best.

Through reasoning, we discover that the existence of God is logically possible (ontological, cosmological, teleological). Tell me what is wrong with this syllogism:

1. If God possible, miracles are possible,
2. God is possible
3. Therefore Miracles are possible

The definition of miracles is an event that occurs beyond the explanation of natural things.

(February 1, 2015 at 2:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: Tell me what is wrong with this syllogism:

1. If God possible, miracles are possible,
2. God is possible
3. Therefore Miracles are possible

Points 1, 2 and 3.