RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 10, 2018 at 11:36 am
(This post was last modified: October 10, 2018 at 1:01 pm by SteveII.
Edit Reason: edited for clarity
)
(October 9, 2018 at 6:06 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote: @ SteveII:
Inductive line of reasoning:
a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
> Cite your Sources.
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry.
> Prove it.
c. They presided over the early church.
> Prove it.
d. This early church instructed Paul.
> Prove it.[/size]
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written).
> Prove it.
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels.
> Prove that apostles Peter, James and John were the actual authors of said gospels.
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day.
> Prove it.
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses).
> Prove it.
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book.
> Prove it.
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
> Prove it.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop).
> Prove it.
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.
> Only if the above claims can be proven to be historically accurate.
This is where you are not following along. I don't have to prove anything. You know very well my sources. This is an inductive argument and the probability of the conclusion follows from the probability of the premises. It does not claim proof of anything. This is where you have to be careful. You can't say I am wrong--because you bring on yourself a burden of proof (which you can't provide). You can only say that the evidence I cited is not convincing to you --which I never doubted.