Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[SaStrike]

Well agnostic theists are agnostic about all gods, apart from the ones they think are impossible, I reckon.

It's simply that the god they believe in... they are leaning towards existing rather than away from existing.

This is what I mean when I say it's disingenuous to pretend that you don't think such-and-such entity is improbable or probable. Fair enough if you think it's a 50% or unknown probability. But to try and avoid that either... to pretend to have absolutely no opinion on things like unicorns, dragons, other gods, etc... it's just disingenuous.

Roadrunner was trying to have his cake and eat it too, and he's so unwilling to even define his own God, repeatedly, while repeatedly reacting to my statements about God as if I'm talking about his... that he had to go on block. He's not here for a proper discussion. There's nothing problematic about me saying "God is highly improbable" if I'm talking about a God that really is highly improbable. I could be talking about a God that can make square circles: A logically impossible God. You can't get more improbable than that!

But still, RR disingenuously continued over and over to react as if I'm talking about his God, all whilst refusing to define his God, and completely ignoring my statements about how I wasn't talking about his God, and how could I, because he refuses to describe his God to me.

I also said repeatedly that I don't consider all God's equally improbable and it depends on the God. I need to know which God we're talking about. I was merely making a blanket statement about all Gods that I do have valid reasons to consider improbable.

It's almost as if he was pretending like it's impossible to do that about any god, all while he does exactly the same about other gods besides the one he believes in, and about dragons, and unicorns and other improbable entities.

His objection was to say that "improbable" was the wrong word, and he didn't like the word. Tough shit that he doesn't like the word, it is the like word. Probable/improbable is a true dichotomy. The only misleading aspect is the fact that it's not clear whether 50% is probable or improbable, because it's exactly half probable... and it's also possible to put an unknown probability on things. But I already addressed that. And I asked him if he honestly thinks the probability of fire breathing dragons is unknown.

He won't answer direct questions directly, because that would make him have to face the fact that my analogy succeeds, and I have a point, and that I'm right when he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Well he knows where the discussions is headed so he can't answer certain questions in order to avoid making logical commitments.

Anyway I think that Agnostic theists are so rare (much more rare than agnostic atheists) because they feel the need to be certain about the existence of god therefore avoid the word "probable". Where as atheists can freely think and use reason so "I don't know if there is a god or not but lean towards not" is more common.

Theists are sort of forced to hold the position that god certainly exists because god gets mad if we don't have faith, regardless of logic and probability.

[Edwardo Piet]

Anyway I think that Agnostic theists are so rare (much more rare than agnostic atheists)

I think they're definitely rarer but I don't think agnostic theists who are 99% certain that they are right are super rare.

because they feel the need to be certain about the existence of god therefore avoid the word "probable".

I think the belief most theists claim to have in their God doesn't match what they actually believe. Their belief in belief in God is stronger than their actual belief. That's why theists often have crises of faith and desperately beg God for forgiveness for doubting him.... because they really really hope God exists and they really want to get to heaven and they really fear hell... but their actual belief isn't quite as strong as they claim it is. They have moments of stronger faith, and they have moments of weaker faith in which they double down and try even harder to believe because they can't stand the doubts they're having.

Atheists don't have that problem. We know it's either all bullshit or almost certainly all bullshit... depending on the God.

Where as atheists can freely think and use reason so "I don't know if there is a god or not but lean towards not" is more common.

True. Although I doubt there are many atheists who call themselves atheists who is, say, 60% sure God doesn't exist, lol. We're all pretty much 99.9999% as far as I am concerened, about silly things like a magic invisible man who made it all.

There are plenty of atheists who are more 60/40 are the matter, and those atheists are atheists who tend to not call themselves atheists, rarely even join atheist forums, and call themsleves simply "agnostics". Which of course, makes no sense to us because either you believe or you don't... you can have agnostic theism and agnostic atheism but not just flat out agnosticism (unless of course, someone really believes that God is exactly 50% probable or the probability is completely unknown).... but still, these people who are pretty sure God doesn't exist because it's silly, think of themselves as agnostics simply because they are unsure, and they don't understand atheism.

David Mitchell is an example. He is clearly an atheist he just hates to call himself one... and doesn't understand atheism.

Here's a video on that:





He's an example of the classic person who calls themselves "agnostic" and says atheism is just as irrational as theism... because they don't actually understand agnosticism.

[Shell B]

For starters, there are Muslim scholars who consider your religious faith to be false.  Why are they wrong and you right?

---

The Christian evangelicals cherry-pick their sources just as they do with other scholarly disciplines:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

For instance, the The Gospel according to Peter claims, explicitly, to have been written by the Apostle Peter, unlike the so-called "canonical" gospels.  And, yet, no evangelical here can offer any reason why the Gospel of Peter should not be accepted.

Here are a few reasons. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why...-to-peter/

---

How so?

I’ll see what I can work up on the next couple of days.  Did you have something in mind, that it does not?

Pretty much everything I can think of doesn't link up with archaeological evidence, and if we're able to stretch an event to match, the timeline is wrong, so anything you could come up with from an unbiased source would be acceptable.

[Jehanne]

That's the point. The unbiased sources who were alive when Jesus was took NO notice of him whatsoever!! In fact, they did not even mention his existence!

[Shell B]

That's the point.  The unbiased sources who were alive when Jesus was took NO notice of him whatsoever!!  In fact, they did not even mention his existence!

That's my understanding of it too. I'd be happy to change my mind if actual evidence is presented, though, so I'm always open to it.

[John V]

See how confused you are? On the one hand you say God's unfalsifable,

OK.

outside of nature and there can be no evidence of him, you have to take him on faith... and on the other hand you say that nature is evidence of God, and you don't have to take him on faith. Total contradiction. Either there's evidence for God or not.

False dichotomy. That there is some amount of evidence for a proposition does not necessarily indicate that there is conclusive evidence for that proposition. In such cases belief in the proposition requires some amount of faith.

... the fact that he would be completely indistinguishable from a supremely powerful alien pretending to be God....

Assuming you mean by "alien" a product of this universe, then the alien wouldn't be supremely powerful.

Either he's unfalsifable or he isn't, either you have to take him on faith or you don't, either there can't be evidence of him or there can, make your mind up.

I've made my mind up - there can be evidence of God, but the evidence isn't necessarily conclusive. Are you having difficulty with this concept?

You're defining God as something unfalfifable that you have to take on faith and then claiming he's not unfalsifiable and not only can you have evidence of him but nature already is evidence of him.

You don't seem to understand falsifiability.

You're a confused mess, I'm just pointing it out. If God is outside the reach of science, he's outside the reach of science. If you have to take him on faith, you have to take him on faith. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm noting the simple fact that evidence in support of something isn't necessarily conclusive.

There's nothing arrogant or irrational about claiming that a being that is described in such a way that he is outside of the scope of empirical evidence is outside the scope of empirical evidence.

Here you're not actually reading what I said. To say that God is not confined to the earth doesn't imply that it's impossible for God to appear on the earth or otherwise affect the earth. P then Q doesn't imply Q then P.

---

Both Matthew and Peter were, of course, illiterate, as were the other disciples, as was Jesus.

Matthew - seriously? He was a publican for crying out loud.

---

Regarding Jesus:

Luke 4
16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.

[Jehanne]

If you believe anything that Luke says (I don't), then, yes, Jesus was literate.

[Edwardo Piet]

outside of nature and there can be no evidence of him, you have to take him on faith... and on the other hand you say that nature is evidence of God, and you don't have to take him on faith. Total contradiction. Either there's evidence for God or not.

False dichotomy. That there is some amount of evidence for a proposition does not necessarily indicate that there is conclusive evidence for that proposition. In such cases belief in the proposition requires some amount of faith.

Note the bold... notice that I didn't mention conclusive evidence. So that's a strawman. I said "either there is evidence for God or not". I didn't say "either there's conclusive evidence for God or no evidence of any kind for God at all."

... the fact that he would be completely indistinguishable from a supremely powerful alien pretending to be God....

Assuming you mean by "alien" a product of this universe, then the alien wouldn't be supremely powerful.

Irrelevant. The point is we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. From our perspective an alien could be powerful enough that we couldn't tell the difference from it and a truly supremely powerful being. That's why, as you can see in the quote above, I mentioned the word "indistinguishably".

Furthermore, we could be living in a simulated universe... a simulated God is more probable than an actual God that lives outside the universe.

Either he's unfalsifable or he isn't, either you have to take him on faith or you don't, either there can't be evidence of him or there can, make your mind up.

I've made my mind up - there can be evidence of God, but the evidence isn't necessarily conclusive. Are you having difficulty with this concept?

Nope. As I showed above, you strawmanned me. I never mentioned conclusive evidence, I mentioned evidence. Do you believe God is outside the realm of science or not? If he isn't wouldn't that make him natural rather than supernatural? Isn't being supernatural about being beyond the natural world? And doesn't science test the natural world?

You're defining God as something unfalfifable that you have to take on faith and then claiming he's not unfalsifiable and not only can you have evidence of him but nature already is evidence of him.

You don't seem to understand falsifiability.

Actually I do understand it... but you don't seem to understand it as you're the one saying God is unfalsifable but then saying there can be evidence of him. Science requires falsfifiability and science tests the world... so you can't use the world as evidence unless God becomes falsifiable. You can't have evidence of an unfalsfiable entity, and you already admitted God is unfalsfiable, and yet you say there is also evidence of him. That makes no sense.

You're a confused mess, I'm just pointing it out. If God is outside the reach of science, he's outside the reach of science. If you have to take him on faith, you have to take him on faith. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm noting the simple fact that evidence in support of something isn't necessarily conclusive.

Note that you've only started noting that trivial truth after strawmanning me as I noted above. I never said anything else. That's just a trival truth. I never spoke of conclusive evidence, I spoke of evidence.

There's nothing arrogant or irrational about claiming that a being that is described in such a way that he is outside of the scope of empirical evidence is outside the scope of empirical evidence.

Here you're not actually reading what I said.

Rather hypocritical considering your strawman of me above. You didn't actually read what I said.

To say that God is not confined to the earth doesn't imply that it's impossible for God to appear on the earth or otherwise affect the earth. P then Q doesn't imply Q then P.

How ironic. It turns out that it isn't even an example of me not reading what you said. It's an example of you not reading what I said. Because I never said anything about it being impossible for God to appear on the earth or otherwise affect the earth, I said it was impossible for there to be evidence of it because God is unfalsifable. You're just strawmanning me again.

Well. That was underwhelming.

[John V]

You don't need faith if you have evidence,

This is one of several statements that clearly imply that evidence as you see it is necessarily conclusive. Do you want me to quote more?

There are atheist scholars who think the evidence indicates that a historical Jesus existed, and some who think that he didn't. That's because evidence (particularly historical) can be less than conclusive. Saying that either there's evidence or not is simplistic in many situations. Going beyond a statement such as In my opinion the evidence indicates he did/didn't exist, to one of I believe he did/didn't exist, requires an element of faith.

---

Actually I do understand it... but you don't seem to understand it as you're the one saying God is unfalsifable but then saying there can be evidence of him.

No, you don't understand it.

A proposition is falsifiable if evidence which refutes it could possibly be produced.

A proposition is unfalsifiable if evidence which refutes it cannot possibly be produced.

A proposition can have some supporting evidence for it regardless of whether it's falsifiable or unfalsifiable.

[RoadRunner79]

Here are a few reasons. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why...-to-peter/

---

I’ll see what I can work up on the next couple of days.  Did you have something in mind, that it does not?

Pretty much everything I can think of doesn't link up with archaeological evidence, and if we're able to stretch an event to match, the timeline is wrong, so anything you could come up with from an unbiased source would be acceptable.

What do you consider as an unbiased source?  

It seems to me, that archeology is constantly finding things which go a long with the Biblical story (and that many of the arguments against are just absence of evidence arguments with a misunderstanding of what expectations should be in ancient archeology).  It seems that there are numerous examples where "experts" have claimed that the evidence doesn't match up, and entire people groups mentioned in the Bible did not exists, only to have to eat their words upon later discoveries. 

The main issue that I am aware of, is the exodus, which revolves around some disagreements about dates.  Those holding to later dates, saying that their isn't evidence, and those who figure on earlier dates saying that there is support (along with Jericho that follows).  The other major disagreement with the exodus (even considering a earlier date) , is with the number of people.   And there are some reasonable explanations here as well. 

And with the new testament because it is more recent, then we have better support for.  There are multiple accounts, hostile and third party corroboration, the history of the Church which followed.  I find that all this meets the historical method fairly well.

Here are a few links to some support for the Old Testament support.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-b...oboration/
https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...-evidence/

http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-ar...the-bible/

Archeology and Ancient History are not an exact science.  And when you look back, you can see trends in even the scholarly work, that move in favor of, and against the Bible.  I think we are moving back to a point where the popular expert opinion is against the Bible.  But when you look at this, it's not citing some new information which was discovered, or a pivotal point which has been reconsidered with new and better reasoning.  It's largely just the current trend in opinion and mood.  Which is why I always ask what are the facts, and what is the basis for the conclusion in this regard.