Can't prove the supernatural God

[SofaKingHigh]

No, it really doesn't.  Whether you call them Paul's letters, the Gospels or group them and call it the bible, it's irrelevant.

The claim is not evidence for the claim.  It's the claim.

You seem to think I am arguing that the NT is true because the NT says so. I am not. I am arguing the events the Gospels describe actually happened because I believe the different components of the NT (which are not all Gospels) and other historical context are reliable. 

If you still think you are right, then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject.

So........let me break that down:

You don't believe the NT because the NT says so, you believe what it says was true because of various parts of the NT?

You're not helping yourself here Stevie.

I should just stop this now, because this is more circular than my wife's rather lovely arse.....however, would you care to share the "other historical context (that*)  are reliable?" please?

[SteveII]

If you take that path, you would not be able to compare religions against each other and see which one makes more sense. I think it is very important to test for internal consistency and relation to the real world. 

BTW, the trinity is not an attempt to reconcile with reality. It is a straight up, spelled out doctrine in the NT.

Which you don't actually bother to do yourself, you just went with the dominant religion of your region and expect atheists to defend Hinduism to you, otherwise you simply dismiss it out of hand 'cause you've already found the one you 'know is right'.

The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the Bible. It does not say 'God is three persons' or 'God is three anything'. I don't think the term 'spelled-out' means what you think it does. There is a whole branch of Christianity that doesn't believe in the Trinity.

No, the word trinity is not in the Bible. However, all through the NT, we have references to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not just that, we have references of the Father referring to the Son and the Son referring to both of the other two.

[SteveII]

You seem to think I am arguing that the NT is true because the NT says so. I am not. I am arguing the events the Gospels describe actually happened because I believe the different components of the NT (which are not all Gospels) and other historical context are reliable. 

If you still think you are right, then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject.

So........let me break that down:

You don't believe the NT because the NT says so, you believe what it says was true because of various parts of the NT?

You're not helping yourself here Stevie.

I should just stop this now, because this is more circular than my wife's rather lovely arse.....however, would you care to share the "other historical context (that*)  are reliable?" please?

You really can't understand the difference between examining if a series of events happened and the 27 sources that describe these events? Answer the question I asked: then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject?

[SofaKingHigh]

So........let me break that down:

You don't believe the NT because the NT says so, you believe what it says was true because of various parts of the NT?

You're not helping yourself here Stevie.

I should just stop this now, because this is more circular than my wife's rather lovely arse.....however, would you care to share the "other historical context (that*)  are reliable?" please?

You really can't understand the difference between examining if a series of events happened and the 27 sources that describe these events? Answer the question I asked: then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject?

By corroborating evidence from various different sources, the more the better.

As far as I can see you haven't examined anything other than the Bible, and it makes no difference as to whether you split it up into 27 sources to make it sound more credible my friend, it's still the Bible.

I asked for your other reliable sources please.

[Mister Agenda]

Which you don't actually bother to do yourself, you just went with the dominant religion of your region and expect atheists to defend Hinduism to you, otherwise you simply dismiss it out of hand 'cause you've already found the one you 'know is right'.

The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the Bible. It does not say 'God is three persons' or 'God is three anything'. I don't think the term 'spelled-out' means what you think it does. There is a whole branch of Christianity that doesn't believe in the Trinity.

No, the word trinity is not in the Bible. However, all through the NT, we have references to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Not just that, we have references of the Father referring to the Son and the Son referring to both of the other two.

I didn't say the view couldn't be supported. I said it's not spelled out. What you're describing is piecing scriptural clues together to reach a theological conclusion.

Oneness Pentecostals have concluded that, since believers are advised to be baptized in the name of Jesus in Acts; and advised to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost elsewhere; that the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is 'Jesus'. They don't believe God is a Trinity, they believe that God is singular divine being that can manifest in any way he chooses. After all, God is not considered four beings in one because he showed up as a burning bush that one time.

[Mister Agenda]

So........let me break that down:

You don't believe the NT because the NT says so, you believe what it says was true because of various parts of the NT?

You're not helping yourself here Stevie.

I should just stop this now, because this is more circular than my wife's rather lovely arse.....however, would you care to share the "other historical context (that*)  are reliable?" please?

You really can't understand the difference between examining if a series of events happened and the 27 sources that describe these events? Answer the question I asked: then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject?

There's historical method. It involves primary sources, and principles of determining reliability. For example, any given source can be corrupted or forged, so original documents are considered more reliable than copies. How close the source is to the event (in time and space) is considered, whether the source is an eyewitness, whether credible independent sources support the same narrative, how likely it is that the source is motivated by bias (are they selling something?). That's a rough summary of what I found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...eliability

[SteveII]

You really can't understand the difference between examining if a series of events happened and the 27 sources that describe these events? Answer the question I asked: then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject?

By corroborating evidence from various different sources, the more the better.

As far as I can see you haven't examined anything other than the Bible, and it makes no difference as to whether you split it up into 27 sources to make it sound more credible my friend, it's still the Bible.

I asked for your other reliable sources please.

So in one sentence you ask for "various different sources" and in the very next sentence you say "it makes no difference as to whether you split it up into 27 sources". You win. I can't argue with that logic.

[SteveII]

You really can't understand the difference between examining if a series of events happened and the 27 sources that describe these events? Answer the question I asked: then by that standard we could never believe anything that happened in the past on any subject?

There's historical method. It involves primary sources, and principles of determining reliability. For example, any given source can be corrupted or forged, so original documents are considered more reliable than copies. How close the source is to the event (in time and space) is considered, whether the source is an eyewitness, whether credible independent sources support the same narrative, how likely it is that the source is motivated by bias (are they selling something?). That's a rough summary of what I found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...eliability

Are you defending the charge of circular reasoning and/or are you saying the 27 books/letters are not reliable? If so, why should I believe them to be unreliable and not, in general, what they purport to be?

[SteveII]

If Mark was supposed to be an editor, he must be the worst one imaginable since he omitted the most important part of the whole story. It had to be added in later because even people at that time could see what he had written was not convincing enough.

Why do you think it was added later? There are many that think that he simply included an earlier narrative in with his writing. There, all fixed. Good editor again.   

[Redbeard The Pink]

Your first paragraph relies on dismissing the entire NT (and any other claims of miracles).

No. It relies on all miracle/supernatural claims lacking sufficient evidence to justify believing them. The claims in the New Testament are not supported by sufficient evidence to convince me (or any rational person) that they are true. Thanks, by the way, for acknowledging (via this bold part here) that the NT is, in fact, forwarding miracle claims. Now, if you agree that a claim cannot be used to prove itself, then we agree that the NT cannot be used as evidence of miracles. Right?


I have a bad feeling about this...

But in addition, even though you are carefully wording your sentence, you are really saying that events can only have naturalistic explanations.

Again, no. I'm really saying that all known explanations, objects, and events are naturalistic, so it is not reasonable to believe or expect supernatural explanations for things, especially in the absence of any sort of evidence (or, as far as I can tell, adequate definition).

You are simply moving "unknowns" over to the naturalistic column for no reason other than they must not have had a supernatural cause.

 ...nope...I am leaving unknowns in the unknown column, which is where they belong.


I do not generally expect unknowns to turn out to be supernatural, and that is because they literally never have. If even one known, supernatural thing existed, then it might be reasonable to expect other things to perhaps have supernatural origins/explanations, but since that isn't the case, I find it unreasonable to believe or expect supernatural explanations for any event (no matter how bizarre). If good evidence to the contrary ever surfaces, then I will change my mind.


I am also, among other things, a magician and a hypnotist, so I am very, very thoroughly acquainted with the psychology and mechanisms by which man can be convinced of the supernatural using entirely natural means. I was also an advanced Biblical apologist for some years, so I also know the kind of mental gymnastics it takes for an otherwise intelligent, skeptical person to believe in things like gods, ghosts, and demons (even while understanding and accepting science in other matters).

Why is this not the equivalent of saying " miracles do not exist because miracle can't happen"--which is circular?

Because that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this: "There is insufficient evidence that miracles happen or have ever happened, so it is not reasonable to believe that miracles happen or have ever happened. If you have even one good reason to believe in miracles or the supernatural, what is that reason?"


It's pretty much the same thing I've been saying the whole time. Still waiting on an answer, too.

I do keep hearing the claim that healing happens at the same rate between religious and non-religious. Do you have something that explains that study? Please note, I was not using modern healing miracles as evidence in this discussion because of some of the reasons you pointed out.

Ummm...what do you need explained, exactly? Prayer studies are a dime a dozen, and they always reach the same conclusion: prayer to any and all gods has absolutely no statistical impact on the rate of healing or survival from any illness; it's virtually the same as not praying at all. Whether you get better has to do with your health, the availability of appropriate medical treatment, and luck. Prayer is a non-factor.


Actually, that's not true, I should be fair here; in the case of some heart conditions, people who know they are being prayed for survive at an objectively worse rate than other patients with the same problem. Doctors speculate that this is because they get a form of performance anxiety over not wanting to make prayer look bad, and anxiety in any form does not mix well with heart trouble.


So yeah...prayer will either do nothing, or it will actually give you a heart attack. How useful.

I don't think you can consider the NT as the claim. "The claim" is Jesus was God, came to Palestine in the first century, performed miracles, preached a new message, died, and rose again for the purpose of redemption.

 DAMMIT, Steve! We agreed!


We meet again, Captain Semantics! How's your mother? She still sore from that fireball?


Steve, look at what you just wrote. "'The claim' is Jesus was God, came to Palestine in the first century, performed miracles, preached a new message, died, and rose again for the purpose of redemption."


Those claims are made by the New Testament, Steve. The New Testament claims that Jeshua Josephson von Nazareth was a god and performed miracles. Those claims are not sufficiently supported by extraneous evidence, and those claims cannot be used as evidence of themselves.


We agreed, Steve. How could you?

I have reasons to believe the NT contains 27 books written by different people within a lifetime of Jesus.

Ok, but what are your reasons for believing that those writings are true, regardless of when they were written?

Paul's letters actually are older than the Gospels. Paul discusses "the claim" in great length and it was clear that a large number of people from Palestine to Rome were receiving letters discussing "the claim" that they already believed.

Which Paul are you talking about, exactly? Historians can only generally agree that about seven of the Epistles traditionally attributed to Paul were actually written by him, and those seven do not reference the humanized gospel story at all; in fact, looking at just the letters that Paul actually wrote, it appears that Paul himself believed in a purely celestial Jesus character whose battles and sacrifice took place somewhere other than Earth, and about whom knowledge could only be gained through the visions and writings of prophets (as opposed to history).


Your assertion here seems to be that the New Testament is a compilation of evidence about a series of claims that had already been made and circulated by the time the NT was actually written/compiled. I disagree. The New Testament is a catalog of religious claims that were being made by a particular religious group at a particular time in history; it does not actually offer any evidence for those claims. What's worse, various parts of the Bible are flatly contradicted by science and/or history (The Flood, The Exodus, The Origin of Man and the Universe, etc.). When some parts are unsupported by evidence and other parts are outright contradicted by it, the reliability of your document starts to dwindle considerably.