The real religion?

[Jesster]

Steve has ignored every one of my posts in his vapid responses to others. I will now accept his terms of surrender.

[SteveII]

I don't know what you think these verses mean. By your context, it seems you think they mean something other than they do. You will have to look at the verses in context and then tell me what you think they mean for me to reply.

They mean what they mean, they are negative. Playing the ignorance card is so childish. Expected as much. I'm out.

That's what happens when you paste lists from internet without reading the context. It's not my job to disprove a point that has not been made to someone who could care less about the answers.

[LadyForCamus]

It comes down to this, Steve:  your "metaphysical" claims are either subject to scrutiny or not.  If they aren't, then the discussion is over.  It all comes down to faith.  /thread.  If you think that they are, and you enter what you believe to be "good evidence" for this claim into the discussion, then be prepared to have that evidence critiqued for quality in the same way we would critique any other worldly claim.

The question of whether we should believe someone who says they have a relationship with God is not a metaphysical claim either. You still are failing to answer the simple question of why we shouldn't take a billion people's word for it that they have a relationship with God and therefore evidence for God? I have shown that your last answer "because it can't be scientifically proven" was not a good answer. If your answer is now something like: there is no other evidence for God, then you reasoning is circular. While I think there is certainly other evidence for God, it only serves to strengthen the hypothesis that if a billion people have a relationship with God, then God exists but is not necessary for it. 

Sure, and why bother looking it up, right?  Afraid you'll learn something that might cast a different light on your dedication to personal testimony?  Typical willful ignorance...


I'm sorry; did I stutter?  

1. Never claimed "science is the only source of knowledge."  

2. Never claimed "God is false because you can't study him in a lab."  Also, I'm not sure what that means.

3. I am not providing you with reasons God doesn't exist.

YOU made a claim - 'God exists, and people experience a personal relationship with him.'

You provided what you think is "evidence" for your claim.  I'm saying your evidence sucks; it's not evidence.  I provided you with factual reasons why the evidence sucks.  Therefore you have not adequately made a case for the claim.

I did not make the claim 'God exists, and people experience a personal relationship with him.' I have asked over and over why if a billion people claim to have a relationship with God, why is that not evidence for God? Big difference. I have no claim to defend because I do not have any premises in dispute. You continue to claim that one does not follow from the other yet I still have yet to get a good answer to support your claim. 

You are strawmanning the shit out of me.  See above.


THIS IS A CLAIM.   NOT evidence.   face palm*

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is a different subject that I address in another post.

You are talking yourself in circles and playing a poorly-disguised semantics game. I'm not going to waste the rest of the day repeating myself to you 100 different ways. We have patiently explained to you over and over why testimonials are no good. There is nothing left to say except...

...you AREN'T claiming a God exists and that people experience a personal relationship with him? Good, then it looks like we are on the same page. I'm glad you finally came to your senses. Have a nice day! [emoji106]

[Edwardo Piet]

Nuh uh Steve because:

[SteveII]

Steve has ignored every one of my posts in his vapid responses to others. I will now accept his terms of surrender.

Don't remember seeing a question. Do you a specific question?

[Jesster]

Steve has ignored every one of my posts in his vapid responses to others. I will now accept his terms of surrender.

Don't remember seeing a question. Do you a specific question?

Refer back to my previous posts. I won't bother spending the time to repeat myself if you are that lazy.

[Edwardo Piet]

My question is do you now admit that your argument "Neener neener NT is evidence for God neener neener" is invalid? A lack of response=yes. Any disagreement will be taken as sarcastic and an admission of defeat.

[Edwardo Piet]

Steve... also please remember...

[SteveII]

Regarding the old (and tired) Humean argument of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", while it sound like common sense, it is actually demonstrably false.

While the actual argument in the article does not have to do with what we are discussing, some have brought it up the evidence argument.  WLC commenting on Stephen Law's argument where his primary premise was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence":


I have yet to hear a good rebuttal of this.

This is pure hogwash.  All he's done is repackage the extraordinary claims maxim to make it sound like it supports his position.  It's nothing more than semantic tom foolery.  'Probability theorists' have long recognized that this is a problem of Type I statistical error, not Type II, as Craig implies.  When dealing with extraordinary claims it is perfectly reasonable to demand greater confidence intervals in the result.  That's all it says, and it's a well respected principle of science.  That's why you have different confidence intervals in the physical sciences than in the medical sciences.  That Craig wants to beg out of standard scientific principles is understandable, but hardly acceptable.

And how should we weigh the probability of event happening without a supernatural cause? What is the probability of a crippled man walking from natural causes at the precise time Jesus commanded him to walk? Are you saying that is not a factor?

[Edwardo Piet]

I dunno Steve but you can't explain this either: