A simple challenge for atheists

[FatAndFaithless]

If you honestly can't gather that from the last 70+ pages, I have to wonder about the level of your reading ability.

[SteveII]

If you honestly can't gather that from the last 70+ pages, I have to wonder about the level of your reading ability.

I can't for the life of me think why believing 4 accounts of events is circular. You can level the charge of wrong, stupid, misguided, etc. but circular has a specific meaning. Special pleading also has a specific meaning. What am I "exempting from a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption"? Miracles? In fact you are employing special pleading in the case of miracles because you insist that an eyewitness testimony is not sufficient to prove a miracle exists when eyewitness testimony is accepted for every other event. You only exempt miracles based on your naturalistic philosophy.

[Esquilax]

1. I understand what the gospels are. I understand they are anonymous. I understand them to be written within the lifetime of witnesses. I understand them to be written for the reason the first verse of Luke says:

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Why assume that to be true? Given the contradictions between the gospels, their anonymous authorship and dubious provenance, why assume that any of the individual claims in one of the gospels is true for all four? Because it's convenient? Ditto with the claim of being written within the lifespan of eyewitnesses, since we had a conversation about average lifespans before, and more importantly, since "it is possible that eyewitnesses played a part," is not evidence that they actually did.

And if you new the bible was written anonymously, why object to my claim on the grounds that you did?

2. The further evidence of the epistles (written before the Gospels) and the fact there were churches all over to write letters to suggest these events were believed.

How do you know the writers of the epistles didn't also write the gospels to lend more credence to their writings? No doubt you'll dismiss this as a conspiracy theory, but that's exactly the point: when it comes to the gospel stories what we have is an information vacuum, and yet you're extrapolating whole narratives from a lack of properly verified information. It's not a proper way to arrive at truth.

3. Conspiracy theories to give an alternate explanation to this evidence do not seem plausible for a number of reason.

"There are reasons to dismiss what you say," is not a rebuttal, it's a baseless dismissal.

4. Many events were prophesied. While this point was not brought up, it does lend some weight. This fact certainly meant something to the first Jewish Christians.

All those prophesies are vaguely worded pablum either retrofitted to later events by guys like you who do it out of convenience, or had the text manipulated so that the prophecy was "fulfilled," in cases where the bible contains both the prophecy and its supposed fulfillment. Never forget that the new testament authors had access to the old testament when writing.

5. Is there incontrovertible proof that Jesus rose from the dead? No, there is not. Is there evidence that he did? Yes there is. You can question the strength of the evidence, but you don't get to claim there is none.

You keep desperately grasping at this point, but even if we accept it, at best what it means is that you're accepting an extraordinary claim on bad evidence, rather than no evidence. That's still irrational, which is the opposite of what you're trying to argue for.

6. You are caught in the circular reasoning that God does not exists so miracles do not exist. The only physical proof (which is what you are demanding) that God exists is a miracle. Many of you have stated in different ways that any account of a miracle is proof that it is not true.

So, you didn't listen at all when I said I'd entertain the possibility of miracles when you demonstrated that they were possible? Or are you just lying, because it's easier to pretend that everyone else has unfair presuppositions, rather than admit you're losing the argument? I already said I'm open to the possibility assuming you can demonstrate that it is a possibility.

But do you know what's really circular reasoning? "The only physical proof of god is miracles," when coupled to the "if god exists, miracles are possible!" line you've been using so far. You're using miracles to prove god, and god to prove miracles. A perfect circle.

Now, do you have any evidence that miracles are possible and occur, or just more circular reasoning?

7. You say I claim special pleading because I think Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. I may not have formed the sentences perfectly, but that is incorrect. I have evidence to believe that Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. Again, I don't care that you think the evidence is thin, it is still evidence.

At best, your argument shows that you're believing on bad evidence, that you privilege over better evidence for other things, like the idea that none of those religions are true. Aside from still being special pleading, if that's as strong as your position goes, I wonder why you still hold it?

8. You think I have reasoned in a circle. That is not true. I support 4 accounts of events with the fact that the early Christians believed these events to be true. It is important to distinguish that the gospels relate events (objective) and are not "inspired writings" like the Quran (subjective).

But as has been pointed out to you before, the fact that other people believe a story doesn't make it true. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy; if a billion people believed that humans didn't need oxygen to survive, that doesn't make it so. Your "support" is nothing of the sort.

9. Lastly, you cannot be reasoned into Christianity. There is an element of faith and a desire to have a relationship with God. If you approach it with a closed mind that God cannot exist, there is no way for it to make any sense to you.

Faith is belief in spite of evidence. Why would any of us want that, considering that it can also be used to support the existence of anything?

[Darkstar]

I can't for the life of me think why believing 4 accounts of events is circular. You can level the charge of wrong, stupid, misguided, etc. but circular has a specific meaning. Special pleading also has a specific meaning. What am I "exempting from a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption"? Miracles? In fact you are employing special pleading in the case of miracles because you insist that an eyewitness testimony is not sufficient to prove a miracle exists when eyewitness testimony is accepted for every other event. You only exempt miracles based on your naturalistic philosophy.

(Bolding mine)

What? Didn't we just spend the last several pages explaining why eyewitness testimony is not considered a strong form of evidence? And that's when we actually have eyewitnesses who we can verify the existence of. We can't even be sure that the eyewitnesses in question ever existed in your case.

One more time. The book is the claim. The book says "x happened". Does that make it true? Of course not. Not any more than something in a history book is true because it is in a history book. Rather, we have to ask why it is there. We could ask the authors for their sources, or maybe even interview someone involved in the actual event, but for something that is as old as the Bible, both of these are obviously out of the question.

In lieu of other evidence, we have to ask ourselves, is it more likely that some man was born of a virgin, performed miracles, and magically came back from the dead, or that this was all just made up? And if. for some inexplicable reason, you think that magic is the more logical explanation, then why do you not accept the claims of competing religious texts?

[SteveII]

How is your position on miracles not circular?

1 There is no God.
2 Miracles are the supernatural work of God.
3 Therefore, miracles are impossible.
4 The gospels contains reports of miracles.
5 Therefore, the gospels contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.
6 Therefore, the gospels cannot be trusted.
7 Therefore, there is no evidence for God.
8 Therefore, there is no God.

Is there any other evidence for the existence of God than a miraculous event? You will not accept conclusions like first cause, fine-tuning, complexity of life, human consciousness therefore God. You cannot say prove God before I believe in miracles.

Or, are you saying that if we knew the gospel writers to be eyewitnesses then you would believe in miracles.

[FatAndFaithless]

Good fucking God Steve, that's the most utterly dishonest representation of any of our positions I've seen yet from you.

[SteveII]

Good fucking God Steve, that's the most utterly dishonest representation of any of our positions I've seen yet from you.

Then please explain your position. It seems from reading that any eyewitness testimony of a miracle is off the table. What other evidence would you accept as proof of the existence of God? Unless the only evidence you would accept is a personally performed miracle, you are caught in a circle.

[FatAndFaithless]

Nah, I'm done. You can't even get the first premise of any of our positions right, no matter how many times they have been presented to you.

[Esquilax]

How is your position on miracles not circular?

Well, let me educate you. But do remember that we talked about this dictating other people's positions to them; it's awfully rude.

1 There is no God.

Not a part of our position, but please don't just senselessly leap to the contra-positive.

2 Miracles are the supernatural work of God.

Also not a part of our position, as miracles could either work through natural means caused by a supernatural source, or be supernatural but not caused by a god. Don't assume everyone else is bound by your definitions.

3 Therefore, miracles are impossible.

Since one and two are incorrect, three cannot be true.

4 The gospels contains reports of miracles.
5 Therefore, the gospels contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.
6 Therefore, the gospels cannot be trusted.
7 Therefore, there is no evidence for God.
8 Therefore, there is no God.

So, you're adding the strawman fallacy to your- quite impressive!- list of them, now?

Is there any other evidence for the existence of God than a miraculous event? You will not accept conclusions like first cause, fine-tuning, complexity of life, human consciousness therefore God. You cannot say prove God before I believe in miracles.

If you believe miracles are from god, then of course you'd need evidence of the existence of god (not those question beggy, arguments from ignorance you listed here) before you should believe in miracles; it's irrational to believe in the effect with no indication that the cause exists. The problem is that what you're doing is saying that if god exists, miracles are possible, and since you believe in miracles- let's not forget you've not mentioned any specific examples of those- then therefore god must exist, since you've defined miracles as things that god causes, and they're possible if you believe in god.

Or, are you saying that if we knew the gospel writers to be eyewitnesses then you would believe in miracles.

Eyewitness testimony, even at its best, is to be disregarded if it conflicts with the available objective evidence. Since we have no indication that miracles or gods are even possible, there is no reason to accept eyewitness testimony of events that contradict everything we know to be true about the way reality works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

1 There is no God.

Sure there is, hell, tons of em, right there in the pages of the books, in the stories that we tell. There they are, have at em.

2 Miracles are the supernatural work of God.

There are people who claim to be able to work miracles with no reference to a god(and always have been) - the two things aren't inextricably tied together.

3 Therefore, miracles are impossible.

That's a strange "therefore" - can't say that I'd sign onboard with that one.

4 The gospels contains reports of miracles.

Stories about miracles, sure...report, to me, means a little more than a story.

5 Therefore, the gospels contains legendary material or historical misrepresentations.

Another strange "therefore", the narratives do contain legendary material and historical "misrepresentations" - and also....stories about miracles.

6 Therefore, the gospels cannot be trusted.

Depends on what you're trusting them for. If you want historical accuracy...then yeah, not so much - for all of the above.

7 Therefore, there is no evidence for God.

Another strange "therefore" - I;d say that these narratives are plenty of evidence for a god between the covers, personally. That's where we're always finding them....and they seem pretty thin on the ground elsewhere.

8 Therefore, there is no God.

See above.

Is there any other evidence for the existence of God than a miraculous event?

Isn't that what -you- should be telling -me- about? Doesn't seem like a question you should be asking.......more like a case you should be making.

You will not accept conclusions like first cause, fine-tuning, complexity of life, human consciousness therefore God.

Right, because those "conclusions" are garbage due to a failure of adhering to the principles claimed to have been used in order to reach them.

You cannot say prove God before I believe in miracles.

I wouldn't say that, but if you're claiming that god performs miracles....you actually would have to do that. If you just wanted me to believe in miracles, you wouldn't need to refer to any gods.

Or, are you saying that if we knew the gospel writers to be eyewitnesses then you would believe in miracles.

Me, nah. Plenty of people alive today that claim to have witnessed "miracles" of the godly and non-godly variety firsthand...so obviously that doesn't work for me.