Does a God exist?

[Veritas_Vincit]

Ironically I'm the only one who's proved either of our points. Come over to the Unicorns Steve!

[RoadRunner79]

You initially claimed that your belief in the NT miracles was different from that of other miracle stories.  You seem to be treading water here.  How are you different in your belief in the miracles of Jesus than other believers in the incredible?

1) Content of the NT is internally consistent within itself and with the OT. 
2) More historical support for more actual documents written by more than one person
3) Historical support of first century church
4) Person of Jesus is a compelling figure
5) Observations of personal effect of Jesus in the lives of other people
6) Personal experience.

This part of the conversation also reminded me of a quote by CS Lewis

When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been

wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a

more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs

from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic—there is only one right

answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer

being right than others.

As  a Christian, I don't have to deny every miracle claim, nor do I feel the need to.  I also don't feel the need to put aside my skepticism for every miracle claim made by Christians.  There are those that I doubt, and those that I place in tension.

[Cyberman]

No, of course you don't have to deny every miracle claim. The question on the table is can you substantiate one?

[Angrboda]

You initially claimed that your belief in the NT miracles was different from that of other miracle stories.  You seem to be treading water here.  How are you different in your belief in the miracles of Jesus than other believers in the incredible?

1) Content of the NT is internally consistent within itself and with the OT. 
2) More historical support for more actual documents written by more than one person
3) Historical support of first century church
4) Person of Jesus is a compelling figure
5) Observations of personal effect of Jesus in the lives of other people
6) Personal experience.

Five good reasons to believe in UFOs

• The long, documented history of sightings.
  
• Numerous modern sightings by credible, well-trained professional observers.
  
• Consistencies in the descriptions of purported alien ships.
  
• Possible physical evidence of encounters with alien spacecraft.
  
• Physiological effects on UFO witnesses.
  

You have a bunch of circumstantial evidence.  So do they.  Both cases are weak.  I've yet to see a difference.

[SteveII]

1) Content of the NT is internally consistent within itself and with the OT. 
2) More historical support for more actual documents written by more than one person
3) Historical support of first century church
4) Person of Jesus is a compelling figure
5) Observations of personal effect of Jesus in the lives of other people
6) Personal experience.

I think you are doing well Steve, and maintaining your composure a lot better than I could.   I always take it as encouraging, when the arguments are ignored, and those opposing start attacking your character, and using poisoning the well tactics.  Just about anything can be dismissed, with a hyper-skeptical approach, and it's why it is not pragmatic to hold consistently. 

It's kind of fun, just to spectate!  As I said, you are maintaining yourself better than I would.  By now, I would have went POE, and started using their same arguments against evolution.  It's not as productive, but I like watching them back pedal and use circular reasoning.

Thanks! I found you have to stay focused on one subject at time--sometimes ignoring parts of a reply to stay on track. It might migrate to another, but only after I am done addressing weak points in the argument or sense that my defense of xyz is not being understood. I try to respond to either 1) those that are interested in a civil discussion or 2) post that are not so much civil or thoughtful but whose contents will help me make my next point. There are some posts that I simply can't get to or cover topics already discussed in detail a few pages before. 

As to staying composed, I block people who either 1) clearly just intend to be hardcore blasphemous, or 2) the kind of person who only posts one-liners that do not contain anything of interest to me.

[LadyForCamus]

1) Content of the NT is internally consistent within itself and with the OT. 
2) More historical support for more actual documents written by more than one person
3) Historical support of first century church
4) Person of Jesus is a compelling figure
5) Observations of personal effect of Jesus in the lives of other people
6) Personal experience.

By now, I would have went POE, and started using their same arguments against evolution.  It's not as productive, but I like watching them back pedal and use circular reasoning.

Lol, RR, and the argument would be chock-full of logical fallacies if you were to do that. And the sad thing is you KNOW that because it's been explained to you over and over. But, by all means. ::

[RoadRunner79]

By now, I would have went POE, and started using their same arguments against evolution.  It's not as productive, but I like watching them back pedal and use circular reasoning.

Lol, RR, and the argument would be chock-full of logical fallacies if you were to do that.  And the sad thing is you KNOW that because it's been explained to you over and over.  But, by all means.  ::

How can the same arguments be chock-full of fallacies in one instance, and legitimate in the next?   But that is the point.... thanks.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, RR, and the argument would be chock-full of logical fallacies if you were to do that.  And the sad thing is you KNOW that because it's been explained to you over and over.  But, by all means.  ::

How can the same arguments be chock-full of fallacies in one instance, and legitimate in the next?   But that is the point.... thanks.

Um...Because religion and evolution are fundamentally different things, so you can't apply the same blanket arguments to both and expect the same effectiveness?

Come on, RR. You've been around here for far too long to play this stupid.

[logicNartman]

hahahahahahahahahaha God exists because of humanity we created god

[RoadRunner79]

How can the same arguments be chock-full of fallacies in one instance, and legitimate in the next?   But that is the point.... thanks.

Um...Because religion and evolution are fundamentally different things, so you can't apply the same blanket arguments to both and expect the same effectiveness?

Come on, RR.  You've been around here for far too long to play this stupid.

A lot of them you can.... Unless it is a category mistake which I have never had brought up.   Obviously, I can't make the argument from modernity, but that is a fallacy any way, thinking that because it is newer it is better.