Does a God exist?

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Go ahead, then. Use our arguments against us and destroy evolution. We're waiting!

[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.

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.

You are comparing apples and oranges.I don't think it is reasonable to think the NT authors were simply mistaken (as there is ample reasons to think UFO people are)--especially with the additional evidence of the existing churches. The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception. That would have been quite an undertaken and I think we would need to answer the question why?

[Veritas_Vincit]

"The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception"

No it's not, because the alternative is a suspension of the laws of physics. It's more plausible that they were mistaken, or embellishing, or that it was mistranslated or gradually overexaggerated over time... In fact, just about anything is more plausible than believing in miracles.

[SteveII]

"The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception"

No it's not, because the alternative is a suspension of the laws of physics. It's more plausible that they were mistaken, or embellishing, or that it was mistranslated or gradually overexaggerated over time... In fact, just about anything is more plausible than believing in miracles.

A miracle is not a suspension of the laws of physics. It is simply a cause that is not natural (supernatural if you will). 

You keep saying these things like that is how historical analysis works and all you have to do is claim: it could have been anything other than what it says and I don't have to even think about it because...my circular miracle argument. Here, I helped you by crossing off those things you have presented not one shred of evidence for and/or have not proposed your 'more plausible' theory that accounts for the facts that we have.

[Veritas_Vincit]

That's how your mind works isn't it - you just block out everything that doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

You think historians think that miracles reported by the texts of ancient mythologies actually happened? Or let me guess, just the ones in your religion.

[vorlon13]

That's how your mind works isn't it - you just block out everything that doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

You think historians think that miracles reported by the texts of ancient mythologies actually happened? Or let me guess, just the ones in your religion.

Cherry picking not being constrained to just the Scriptures . . .

[GrandizerII]

"The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception"

No it's not, because the alternative is a suspension of the laws of physics. It's more plausible that they were mistaken, or embellishing, or that it was mistranslated or gradually overexaggerated over time... In fact, just about anything is more plausible than believing in miracles.

A miracle is not a suspension of the laws of physics. It is simply a cause that is not natural (supernatural if you will).

How is the occurrence of a supernatural (or not natural) event different from a suspension of the laws of physics?

[GrandizerII]

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

You are comparing apples and oranges.I don't think it is reasonable to think the NT authors were simply mistaken (as there is ample reasons to think UFO people are)--especially with the additional evidence of the existing churches. The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception. That would have been quite an undertaken and I think we would need to answer the question why?

This is how you sound to me:

I'm not going to accept that the arguments I usually make for testimonies or reports of extraordinary events should apply to the testimonies or reports of the extraordinary events that I myself have committed to accepting as true no matter what ... because Jesus.

[FatAndFaithless]

A miracle is not a suspension of the laws of physics. It is simply a cause that is not natural (supernatural if you will).

How is the occurrence of a supernatural (or not natural) event different from a suspension of the laws of physics?

I think he means that the event itself might be within the laws of physics (eg, someone spontaneously recovering from cancer), but the driving force itself behind the event exists outside of/above nature.  My question would be, how do we distinguish if a cause is supernatural, not so much the event itself.

[robvalue]

Not evolution again, please. Ugh....

Oh go on then. Strawman it one more time.