(July 19, 2015 at 9:56 am)IanHulett Wrote:(July 19, 2015 at 9:07 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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?
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.
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.
Or you proved you didn't understand what I was saying. It's okay. We can move on.
