(July 18, 2015 at 10:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Aren't you jumping the gun a bit, Randy, imagining that if a gods existence could be proven (either by you or by that god itself) submission would simply follow?  How disappointing your greatest apologetic triumph would be, if you could prove that god existed...and only then, after what must be a lifetime of very hard work.... realize that it didn't matter at all..lol.

No, I will not be surprised that some simply refuse to worship God. The hardness of the human heart is well-documented.

My greater disappointment would be if God showed me that I could have said something that made a difference in someone's eternal life and didn't.

(July 19, 2015 at 7:16 am)Randy Carson Wrote: The police come to my office and tell me that my wife has just been arrested for shooting 13 people in our neighborhood.

"This is impossible", I say. "I've been married to her for more than 26 years, and this sort of thing is not in her."

I know my wife, and I have evidence about her character that the police do not have. When you know God, you have evidence that those who do not know Him do not have.

And the police say "that's fine and good, Randy, but we have thirteen dead and injured with bullets in their bodies that the ballistics report says came from the gun your wife was recorded on CCTV as firing, as well as her fingerprints on the weapon found in her possession when she was picked up."

Call me when you have anything even accidentally similar to that for your (or any) god.

(July 19, 2015 at 7:19 am)Randy Carson Wrote: My greater disappointment would be if God showed me that I could have said something that made a difference in someone's eternal life and didn't.

Personally I would opt for helping people in this life. Makes more sense to me, but I'm neither religious nor conservative.

(July 18, 2015 at 10:47 pm)IanHulett Wrote:

(July 18, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: You wrote:

"Randy, will anything convince you to become an atheist?" and "Actually, not being willing to change your mind based on evidence is one way a person can be intellectually dishonest. "

Since you are asking me whether I would change MY mind and become an atheist based on "evidence", I think it is fair for me to ask what evidence you have that God does not exist.

You're twisting my words. Asking if whether or not you're willing to change your mind based on evidence is not the same as making a claim about something. It's criticizing the way a lot of religious people are close minded, that being that they would never ever change their mind no matter what argument/evidence is presented even if they lived to be 1,000,000.

Wouldn't that depend upon the evidence itself? Some is stronger and more compelling than other.

Do you have any evidence that God does not exist that I should consider?

Quote:So, I don't need to provide evidence that god doesn't exist. I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, I simply am not convinced he does, believe it or not, there is a difference. Since I'm not trying to prove anything, it's not my job to prove anything.

When you make the positive assertion that "God does not exist" then the burden of proof is on you to provide some support for the claim.

If you have not made that claim, then you're off the hook.  

Quote:The name of this thread is "Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach" So, if I'm not mistaken, you're the one trying to prove something... The Resurrection. I'm still waiting for that proof.

Think of each of these five facts - accepted AS FACTS (not opinions) by professional NT scholars of all faith positions (believers and non-believers alike) - as signposts pointing toward a destination - namely, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.

They do not PROVE that Jesus rose from the dead in the sense that we can prove that water freezes at 32 degrees or boils at 212 degrees. However, the resurrection does appear to be the most probable explanation for the events they describe.

(July 19, 2015 at 3:58 am)Neimenovic Wrote: All this talk of resurrection, when Jesus didn't even die according to the story ._.

death
\ˈdeth\
noun
Full Definition
1 a :a permanent cessation of all vital functions :the end of life

If he came back to life, it means he's never been dead in the first place, by definition, and there can't be any talk of resurrection. That's my *1* fact for you, Randy.

How many days later did He come back to life, Nemo?

Do you have a natural explanation for this event?

(July 19, 2015 at 8:20 am)abaris Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 7:19 am)Randy Carson Wrote: My greater disappointment would be if God showed me that I could have said something that made a difference in someone's eternal life and didn't.

Personally I would opt for helping people in this life. Makes more sense to me, but I'm neither religious nor conservative.

Living as a Christian in this life is superior to all alternatives; therefore, by helping someone become a Christian, apologists ARE helping people in this life.

(July 19, 2015 at 8:10 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 7:16 am)Randy Carson Wrote: The police come to my office and tell me that my wife has just been arrested for shooting 13 people in our neighborhood.

"This is impossible", I say. "I've been married to her for more than 26 years, and this sort of thing is not in her."

I know my wife, and I have evidence about her character that the police do not have. When you know God, you have evidence that those who do not know Him do not have.

And the police say "that's fine and good, Randy, but we have thirteen dead and injured with bullets in their bodies that the ballistics report says came from the gun your wife was recorded on CCTV as firing, as well as her fingerprints on the weapon found in her possession when she was picked up."

Call me when you have anything even accidentally similar to that for your (or any) god.

If you served on the jury and you were presented with such evidence by the prosecutor, you would have no choice but to convict my wife of the crime, would you?

(July 19, 2015 at 7:19 am)Randy Carson Wrote: No, I will not be surprised that some simply refuse to worship God. The hardness of the human heart is well-documented.

My greater disappointment would be if God showed me that I could have said something that made a difference in someone's eternal life and didn't.

Yes, but you don't have any control over that, so I suppose you can't take it to hard to heart.  It isn't your fault that the catholic god made shitty choices that might prevent a person from worshiping it on moral grounds regardless of it's existence.  That's the burden you toil under.  I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the hardness of the human heart....but hey, aggrandize your god by insulting human beings -all day long-....I'm sure it'll help you win those souls, lol?

Glad to see that you believe that you and your pedo priests are living a superior life to my own, btw. I wish you'd say shit like that more often. In any case, if this were true, apologists would only help people if they were -convincing-. You are the opposite of convincing...so perhaps you should give it a rest?

(July 19, 2015 at 9:10 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 3:58 am)Neimenovic Wrote: All this talk of resurrection, when Jesus didn't even die according to the story ._.

death
\ˈdeth\
noun
Full Definition
1 a :a permanent cessation of all vital functions :the end of life

If he came back to life, it means he's never been dead in the first place, by definition, and there can't be any talk of resurrection. That's my *1* fact for you, Randy.

How many days later did He come back to life, Nemo?

Do you have a natural explanation for this event?

Yes, just keep repeating things. Works great.

Do you know what permanent means, Randy?

And you haven't even proven that it did happen, what do you want me to have an explanation for? Things keep not happening all the time.

(July 19, 2015 at 9:07 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 18, 2015 at 10:47 pm)IanHulett Wrote: You're twisting my words. Asking if whether or not you're willing to change your mind based on evidence is not the same as making a claim about something. It's criticizing the way a lot of religious people are close minded, that being that they would never ever change their mind no matter what argument/evidence is presented even if they lived to be 1,000,000.

Wouldn't that depend upon the evidence itself? Some is stronger and more compelling than other.

Do you have any evidence that God does not exist that I should consider?

Quote:So, I don't need to provide evidence that god doesn't exist. I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, I simply am not convinced he does, believe it or not, there is a difference. Since I'm not trying to prove anything, it's not my job to prove anything.

When you make the positive assertion that "God does not exist" then the burden of proof is on you to provide some support for the claim.

If you have not made that claim, then you're off the hook.  

Quote:The name of this thread is "Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach" So, if I'm not mistaken, you're the one trying to prove something... The Resurrection. I'm still waiting for that proof.

Think of each of these five facts - accepted AS FACTS (not opinions) by professional NT scholars of all faith positions (believers and non-believers alike) - as signposts pointing toward a destination - namely, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.

They do not PROVE that Jesus rose from the dead in the sense that we can prove that water freezes at 32 degrees or boils at 212 degrees. However, the resurrection does appear to be the most probable explanation for the events they describe.

Is there a reason you're ignoring EVERYTHING I'M SAYING? I'M NOT SAYING GOD DOESN'T EXIST. Stop twisting my words, and stop shifting the burden of proof. You're making the assertion that god exists, and so it's YOU'RE JOB TO PROVE IT.

According to the majority of religious people, no matter what evidence you provide for them, they will never change their mind, so no it doesn't depend on the evidence. They explicitly say that.

Gee. Thanks for taking me off the hook when I was never on the hook to begin with. I was never making a positive assertion. You're just presenting a straw man, accusing me of saying something I never said in order to escape the burden of proof you placed on yourself.

And I did take into consideration your five "facts," just as any skeptic would, but they didn't add up. Sorry.
---
---
Remember when I said you were being intellectually dishonest? Well, you just proved my point.