(July 19, 2015 at 8:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 2:56 pm)IATIA Wrote: Out of 5-7 million.  My source is archeological records and yours is the bible?  Even so ...  

There is nothing in fucking Acts that is worth the paper it is printed on.  Pure propaganda.  Worthy of Goebbels.

You're a lapsed Catholic who needs to go to confession.

So if this "God" offers no evidence even at least comparable to a murder conviction, why should we even suspect that there is a god there at all?

(July 19, 2015 at 8:32 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: None of that was in your five minimal 'facts', so I see no need to include it in mine.

Incorrect. Point #2 states that the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus.

Either they saw him or they didn't.

If they did, then they knew that He was risen and they never wavered in that conviction.

And my point 2 says that "Kenobi's apprentice and former master saw he had risen and appeared to them." Saw, not believed. Either they saw him or they didn't. If they did, then they knew that he was risen and they never wavered in that conviction. George Lucas isn't even part of the equation.

(July 19, 2015 at 8:34 pm)Stimbo Wrote: So if this "God" offers no evidence even at least comparable to a murder conviction, why should we even suspect that there is a god there at all?

Because I have shown you the evidence for God's existence that does exist. It is compelling, but it is not so overwhelming that you have no choice but to accept it...if that were the case, you would resent God for being too overbearing.

If you choose to follow the clues that He has left, you will find Him. The choice is yours.

Didn't you just get done saying there is no evidence?

Your right, what you've presented isn't overwhelming.  You have a real talent for understatement, you know.

(July 19, 2015 at 8:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 19, 2015 at 8:34 pm)Stimbo Wrote: So if this "God" offers no evidence even at least comparable to a murder conviction, why should we even suspect that there is a god there at all?

Because I have shown you the evidence for God's existence that does exist. It is compelling, but it is not so overwhelming that you have no choice but to accept it...if that were the case, you would resent God for being too overbearing.

If you choose to follow the clues that He has left, you will find Him. The choice is yours.

Poor Randy.....



Even this dog knows to stop chasing his tail eventually.

(July 19, 2015 at 8:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Fair enough.  I would too, if the evidence was strong enough.

But that's just it, Jenny, God is not in the business of FORCING anyone to make a decision based on evidence. That would be coercive.

He provides just enough clues for each soul to find and follow IF you are so inclined, but He does not force Himself upon you.

That is the biggest cop-out there ever was.  Evidence is not coercive of choice, it's just information with which to choose.  In your trial hypothetical most people would choose to convict or not based on the evidence, but we could do otherwise.  People vote against their conscience and/or take bribes.  Doing the honest or right thing with the evidence at hand is a choice.

Given evidence of god, one could choose whether to worship him or not.  That is a choice, though given the threat of hellfire not much of one.  Without evidence, there's really nothing to choose.

Believe in me without evidence is the snake rattle of a charlatan.  That all religions appear to need it, tells me something rather basic about religion and it isn't complementary.

(July 19, 2015 at 8:39 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Didn't you just get done saying there is no evidence?

Yep he did.

So much for the minimal facts.

Fact number 2 is a thinly veiled declaration that the resurrection actually happened. All the other 'facts' are red herrings to distract from the questions which surround fact #2. Supposedly, the disciples were martyred still clinging to their story of a physical resurrection. Supposedly, the only reason they would have done so is if they truly believed. Supposedly, they would only have truly believed if they had witnessed it. And supposedly, they would only have witnessed it if it actually happened. However, the belief part is a side effect of the resurrection story. It wouldn't have made sense to tell a tale of resurrection without witnesses to vouch for the story. The existence of witnesses is demanded by the consistency of the story. So the two together form a single piece of embellishment. So #2 is just a stalking horse for these other claims. It's little more than claiming that the miracle of the resurrection is a historical fact. But miracles are supposed to be excluded from historical reconstruction. "Fact #2" is little more than an illicit attempt to sneak a miracle in the back door.