Can't prove the supernatural God

[SteveII]

So...

If 27 people all wrote similar accounts that they saw things that proves Islam is true and not Christianity, would that be sufficient evidence?

I'm sure I can find a lot more than 27. And I'm betting the standards would change right away.

Why are people so taken with accounts made a long time ago? It seems to be like an admission that it was the only time God has ever been around. If that's the case, who cares? It's done with now.

Since the claims of Islam come through one man who is the only one who saw or heard anything, then you would have to invent some things that these hypothetical 27 authors witnessed. 

The reason people still examine the life of Jesus is that if his claims are true, those events changed everything an an unimaginable scale. Your phrase "the only time God has ever been around" shows that you do not understand the result of becoming a Christian--the possibility of having a relationship with God.

[carusmm]

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, it is a null hypothesis.

[robvalue]

So...

If 27 people all wrote similar accounts that they saw things that proves Islam is true and not Christianity, would that be sufficient evidence?

I'm sure I can find a lot more than 27. And I'm betting the standards would change right away.

Why are people so taken with accounts made a long time ago? It seems to be like an admission that it was the only time God has ever been around. If that's the case, who cares? It's done with now.

Since the claims of Islam come through one man who is the only one who saw or heard anything, then you would have to invent some things that these hypothetical 27 authors witnessed. 

The reason people still examine the life of Jesus is that if his claims are true, those events changed everything an an unimaginable scale. Your phrase "the only time God has ever been around" shows that you do not understand the result of becoming a Christian--the possibility of having a relationship with God.

I'm talking about right now. People claim to experience Allah all the time. People claim to experience all kinds of things, by the bucketload.

As I noted, you only seem interested in very old accounts.

[Pat Mustard]

How would one go about ruling out all possible naturalistic causes for something? How would one account for natural causes that he just doesn't understand or know about? I'm also still waiting on a definition of "natural order."

Feel free to jump in on my answer to Rob above. I think I covered your questions there.

Name one single thing that does not have a natural cause, that you can show proof for.

[Pat Mustard]

Let's cut to the chase. You think the description of miracles in the NT is untrue and therefore provide no support for the existence of miracles. Can you prove them to be untrue? No, you can give reasons why you think so. I think there are reasons to believe that it is true, so I think miracles happen. 

Steve this is one of those areas where you continually fall flat on your face. You assert that those things actually happened, it is therefore up to you to prove that they did. There is no need for us to prove your assertions false, especially as is the case with miracles those assertions are about the truthfulness of extremely unfeasible events.

You would have the same problem with me asking you to prove the theory of gravity wrong as I have with your continuous efforts to get us to prove your assertions wrong.

[Pat Mustard]

Quick question: why bother with Jesus? In the OT Yahweh is doing magic all over the place. Jesus is relatively tame, supernatural wise.

Jesus is part of Yahweh. God incarnate. One of three parts of the trinity. The culmination of all the OT.

There was no trinity in the torah/tanakh/talmud, the three jewish religious books which make up the ot. The trinity is wholly a christian invention, in order to try and reconcile their pantheon with their assertion that christianity has only one god.

[Esquilax]

Since the claims of Islam come through one man who is the only one who saw or heard anything, then you would have to invent some things that these hypothetical 27 authors witnessed. 

... As opposed to your accounts, written by an unknown number of unknown authors, none of them during the time when the events happened, and none of whom were eyewitnesses? I don't think a christian really wants to be inviting comparisons, here.

The reason people still examine the life of Jesus is that if his claims are true, those events changed everything an an unimaginable scale.

There are an infinite number of patently untrue claims that could, as you say, change everything at the same scale. The reason people still examine the life of Jesus is hundreds of years of cultural inertia backed by socially acceptable indoctrination, a conservative mandate to block out opposing views, and an apparatus of threats and ostracizing to intimidate dissenters.

Your phrase "the only time God has ever been around" shows that you do not understand the result of becoming a Christian--the possibility of having a relationship with God.

You only get the possibility of a relationship with god from converting? How do you tell the difference?

[SteveII]

Let's cut to the chase. You think the description of miracles in the NT is untrue and therefore provide no support for the existence of miracles. Can you prove them to be untrue? No, you can give reasons why you think so. I think there are reasons to believe that it is true, so I think miracles happen. 

Steve this is one of those areas where you continually fall flat on your face. You assert that those things actually happened, it is therefore up to you to prove that they did. There is no need for us to prove your assertions false, especially as is the case with miracles those assertions are about the truthfulness of extremely unfeasible events.

You would have the same problem with me asking you to prove the theory of gravity wrong as I have with your continuous efforts to get us to prove your assertions wrong.

I never asked anyone to prove my assertions false. I have said over and over in this thread, exactly what you quoted above. You have reasons to think the events of Jesus life did not happen...and those reasons, when examined closely, just seem to be the claim that supernatural events do not happen. Therefore the argument goes: supernatural events did not happen because supernatural events cannot happen. Tell me why that is not circular.


Your illustration of me proving theory of gravity wrong is disanalogous to a discussion on historical events.

I happen to believe the events of Jesus' life are recorded accurately enough. I am not typing them again, so you can look back even a page or two if you want to know what they are. Additionally, I find theories of "honest mistake" or "vast conspiracy" not having any real substance--seems like people just throwing stuff against the wall to see what might stick.

[Pat Mustard]

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?

I count one extremely biased source, the bible. What are the other 26? Tacitus is out, obvious forgery, so is Josephus. And everything else is at best third or fourth hand retellings of what somebody either heard or read from a few centuries later.

[SteveII]

Since the claims of Islam come through one man who is the only one who saw or heard anything, then you would have to invent some things that these hypothetical 27 authors witnessed. 

... As opposed to your accounts, written by an unknown number of unknown authors, none of them during the time when the events happened, and none of whom were eyewitnesses? I don't think a christian really wants to be inviting comparisons, here.

The reason people still examine the life of Jesus is that if his claims are true, those events changed everything an an unimaginable scale.

There are an infinite number of patently untrue claims that could, as you say, change everything at the same scale. The reason people still examine the life of Jesus is hundreds of years of cultural inertia backed by socially acceptable indoctrination, a conservative mandate to block out opposing views, and an apparatus of threats and ostracizing to intimidate dissenters.

Your phrase "the only time God has ever been around" shows that you do not understand the result of becoming a Christian--the possibility of having a relationship with God.

You only get the possibility of a relationship with god from converting? How do you tell the difference?

You joined us on a tangent and a bad comparison of hypothetical 27 books supporting Islam. 

Your characterization of the NT books as unreliable in one pithy sentence does not make any of it true. We have been discussing these things for many pages so if you want object to particular point, it may be easier to respond to the individual post. 

Your reason why people still examine Jesus' life is not evidenced by the current growth of Christianity in countries where these influences are not present. It certainly was not the case in all places in all time periods. 

Clarification: Becoming a Christian involves the start of a relationship with God. How far you take that relationship is up to the individual.