Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Gwaithmir]

And how do you separate fact from fiction? Quotes from the Bible are mere CLAIMS until you first prove that these events really happened. You can make similar or identical claims from the Koran, the Book of Mormon or the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Why don't you think the events of the NT happened? Here is why I do--go ahead and prove me wrong.

Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

Sorry, Steve, but I do not have to provide proof against any of the statements you made above because every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation. You are dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof. Try again.

[Amarok]

Why don't you think the events of the NT happened? Here is why I do--go ahead and prove me wrong.

Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

Sorry, Steve, but I do not have to provide proof against any of the statements you made above because every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation. You are dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof. Try again.

They love that tactic.

[polymath257]

I am happy to discuss each point with you in as much detail as you like. However, I am not going to have dueling Amazon book links. Pick one and give me the basics.

I'll start on the one you did actually expand on. The reason there must be a first cause is that a infinite amount of past causes/effects is not logically possible. There is no such possibility as an actual infinite number of anything in the real world. If there were an infinite number of past events, we could never have gotten to the events of today because there would still need to be an infinite amount of events that need to pass before we can get to today. 

No scientist has ever had a theory where things come into being ex nihilo.

There is no *logical* contradiction to an infinite regress. There is also no *logical* contradiction to an actual infinity in the real world. Both of those are positions taken because of an adherence to Aristotelian philosophy that has been superseded by Cantorian logic.

Now, we can address the *scientific* question of whether there are actual inifnities. Butit remains that there is no *logical* issue with such.

As for creation ex nihilo, even religion doesn't have that: it assumes a pre-existing deity. And that deity has no beginning, There is no *logical* difference is the position that the universe has always existed in some form (the modern variant is to have a multiverse). Now, I will agree that this has not been scientifically demonstrated, but we are talking about *logical* possibilities here. And an infinite time into the past in a multiverse is certainly a logical possibility.

---

We also get historical evidence from archaeological investigations, monuments, etc. Writings are often the *least* reliable source of historical information and must *always* be treated skeptically, especially as regards to the motives of the authors.

That was easy. My goal was do drive you to a ridiculous position--but you ran there on your own as fast as you could. 99.99% of our knowledge of the world's history before 20th century is a result of reading what people wrote.  

Second, you just admitted that writings are evidence (even as you mischaracterized their status).  So, the NT is evidence of Jesus and his claims. Glad we got that out of the way. 

Reading what people wrote *skeptically*. There are large masses of BS in historical writings. If you read Herodotus, there are clear falsehoods and contradictions. But there is also some real history. A good historian *never* takes the written word as definitive. The bias of the author, the sensitivities of the time and location, the rhetorical goals for writing in the first place have to ALL be taken into account. This means that even in 'serious' history, much of the writing has to be dismissed. When miracles and portents are seen, they are *uniformly* dismissed as superstition unless there is independent collaboration.

So, for example, that nobody else reported darkness and people coming out of graves when Jesus died suggests that aspect of the story was exaggerated.

Remember that those across the empire would not have had direct knowledge of the events in Jerusalem. Most believers only believed because of hearsay evidence. The travel times were long and travel was dangerous. Paul himself never saw Jesus (except in a delusion). Given that he clearly made up much of the story, that those he told believed him isn't any evidence of the actual events.

Why would they have no direct knowledge of the events in Jerusalem? It's even easier than that--we know why from the researcher Luke:

Acts 2:5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

And again, the fact that this remarkable story was not collaborated by independent sources *when it would be expected to be* just shows it to be an exaggeration and unreliable.

[SteveII]

Hawking Radiation for one example of "Something from exnihilo"

Along with spontaneous nuclear fission for things happening without causes.

I'm not sure you are serious. You think a black hole is "nothing"?

Radioactive decay is "uncaused"? It is supposed that there are no physical laws governing nuclear bonds?

---

Why don't you think the events of the NT happened? Here is why I do--go ahead and prove me wrong.

Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

Why might one believe the inference? Like I said many time, it is part of a cumulative case. There are a host of reasons not related to the NT why one might be less skeptical than you.

Sorry, Steve, but I do not have to provide proof against any of the statements you made above because every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation. You are dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof. Try again.

Sorry, once you say "every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation" you have made a positive claim and you need to provide some evidence. All we seem to have is my documents, historical evidence, logical deductions and inferences verses your assertions that they are not what they claim to be. Congrats on the misstep. Question is, can you back up your claim? Or, do you want to modify your position to something like "I am not convinced by your evidence"--which gives you what you want--no burden of proof.

[Gwaithmir]

Sorry, Steve, but I do not have to provide proof against any of the statements you made above because every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation. You are dishonestly attempting to shift the burden of proof. Try again.

Sorry, once you say "every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation" you have made a positive claim and you need to provide some evidence. All we seem to have is my documents, historical evidence, logical deductions and inferences verses your assertions that they are not what they claim to be. Congrats on the misstep. Question is, can you back up your claim? Or, do you want to modify your position to something like "I am not convinced by your evidence"--which gives you what you want--no burden of proof.

No, I don't, Steve. You have provided no proof that any of your statements is true. That's a self-evident fact, which I have pointed out. Your "logical" deductions begin with unsubstantiated CLAIMS. Ergo, your entire argument falls apart like a house of cards. Your CLAIMS are not convincing or valid because you have not backed them up with historical evidence. Again, you are dishonestly attempting to reverse the burden of proof.

[Amarok]

Sorry, once you say "every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation" you have made a positive claim and you need to provide some evidence. All we seem to have is my documents, historical evidence, logical deductions and inferences verses your assertions that they are not what they claim to be. Congrats on the misstep. Question is, can you back up your claim? Or, do you want to modify your position to something like "I am not convinced by your evidence"--which gives you what you want--no burden of proof.

Nope it's not a positive claim it's a negative one .This burden shifting will not save you .

---

Sorry, once you say "every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation" you have made a positive claim and you need to provide some evidence. All we seem to have is my documents, historical evidence, logical deductions and inferences verses your assertions that they are not what they claim to be. Congrats on the misstep. Question is, can you back up your claim? Or, do you want to modify your position to something like "I am not convinced by your evidence"--which gives you what you want--no burden of proof.

No, I don't, Steve. You have provided no proof that any of your statements is true. That's a self-evident fact, which I have pointed out. Your "logical" deductions begin with unsubstantiated CLAIMS. Ergo, your entire argument falls apart like a house of cards. Your CLAIMS are not convincing or valid because you have not backed them up with historical evidence. Again, you are dishonestly attempting to reverse the burden of proof.

He will keep badgering you unfortunately

[brewer]

We can construct the same framework and examples using a Superman or Spiderman comic book.

Next

That's a very foolish statement and shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and aren't/incapable of grasping the actual moving parts of a philosophical discussion. But thanks for the reply--I like to know where the atheists all fit on the discussion-fitness scale.

Hahahahaha. Don't like it when your fantasy delusion is compared to another fantasy, but that all it is, a fantasy.

And then attack the person making the statement. What's that called again???

[RoadRunner79]

I am happy to discuss each point with you in as much detail as you like. However, I am not going to have dueling Amazon book links. Pick one and give me the basics.

I'll start on the one you did actually expand on. The reason there must be a first cause is that a infinite amount of past causes/effects is not logically possible. There is no such possibility as an actual infinite number of anything in the real world. If there were an infinite number of past events, we could never have gotten to the events of today because there would still need to be an infinite amount of events that need to pass before we can get to today. 

No scientist has ever had a theory where things come into being ex nihilo.

There is no *logical* contradiction to an infinite regress. There is also no *logical* contradiction to an actual infinity in the real world. Both of those are positions taken because of an adherence to Aristotelian philosophy that has been superseded by Cantorian logic.

Where you not just recently saying that these axioms are just made up, and need to see if they correspond to the real world?  As well; how does this show that the issue with the logic against having an acutal infinity and against an infinite regress?   It seems that you just assume that the numbers and axioms (which you admittedly make up) so; I don't see how this is supersedes anything and gets around the issues of traversing an infinite regress.

[SteveII]

Sorry, once you say "every one of them is an unsubstantiated allegation" you have made a positive claim and you need to provide some evidence. All we seem to have is my documents, historical evidence, logical deductions and inferences verses your assertions that they are not what they claim to be. Congrats on the misstep. Question is, can you back up your claim? Or, do you want to modify your position to something like "I am not convinced by your evidence"--which gives you what you want--no burden of proof.

No, I don't, Steve. You have provided no proof that any of your statements is true. That's a self-evident fact, which I have pointed out. Your "logical" deductions begin with unsubstantiated CLAIMS. Ergo, your entire argument falls apart like a house of cards. Your CLAIMS are not convincing or valid because you have not backed them up with historical evidence. Again, you are dishonestly attempting to reverse the burden of proof.

Notice how you slide between 'proof' and 'evidence' in your sentences. They are not the same thing.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that my list is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

So, since my list is backed by evidence, you have a choice. 1) you can just claim you are not convinced by the evidence and you have no burden of proof or 2) you can say this is not evidence of my conclusions--which is a positive claim--and you bring upon your self a burden of proof to support your position. Your choice.



Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

---

I am happy to discuss each point with you in as much detail as you like. However, I am not going to have dueling Amazon book links. Pick one and give me the basics.

I'll start on the one you did actually expand on. The reason there must be a first cause is that a infinite amount of past causes/effects is not logically possible. There is no such possibility as an actual infinite number of anything in the real world. If there were an infinite number of past events, we could never have gotten to the events of today because there would still need to be an infinite amount of events that need to pass before we can get to today. 

No scientist has ever had a theory where things come into being ex nihilo.

There is no *logical* contradiction to an infinite regress. There is also no *logical* contradiction to an actual infinity in the real world. Both of those are positions taken because of an adherence to Aristotelian philosophy that has been superseded by Cantorian logic.

I'm not doing this again with you. I will re-issue my challenge to you. Provide an article from a recognized source that discusses that an actual infinite number of real objects is possible. Until you do, all you have is your made up axioms of infinite sets that have no application to real objects in the real world. 

Now, we can address the *scientific* question of whether there are actual inifnities. Butit remains that there is no *logical* issue with such.

As for creation ex nihilo, even religion doesn't have that: it assumes a pre-existing deity. And that deity has no beginning, There is no *logical* difference is the position that the universe has always existed in some form (the modern variant is to have a multiverse). Now, I will agree that this has not been scientifically demonstrated, but we are talking about *logical* possibilities here. And an infinite time into the past in a multiverse is certainly a logical possibility.

Sure there is a difference. If there is a God, he exists necessarily. The universe does not exist necessarily (if you think so, give some reasons why). 

---

That was easy. My goal was do drive you to a ridiculous position--but you ran there on your own as fast as you could. 99.99% of our knowledge of the world's history before 20th century is a result of reading what people wrote.  

Second, you just admitted that writings are evidence (even as you mischaracterized their status).  So, the NT is evidence of Jesus and his claims. Glad we got that out of the way. 

Reading what people wrote *skeptically*. There are large masses of BS in historical writings. If you read Herodotus, there are clear falsehoods and contradictions. But there is also some real history. A good historian *never* takes the written word as definitive. The bias of the author, the sensitivities of the time and location, the rhetorical goals for writing in the first place have to ALL be taken into account. This means that even in 'serious' history, much of the writing has to be dismissed. When miracles and portents are seen, they are *uniformly* dismissed as superstition unless there is independent collaboration.

I think you meant corroboration. What do you call 27 separate documents written over 50 years, dozens of widespread churches that contained people that saw and/or believed the resurrection?  That's the very definition of corroboration. 

So, for example, that nobody else reported darkness and people coming out of graves when Jesus died suggests that aspect of the story was exaggerated.

And again, the fact that this remarkable story was not collaborated by independent sources *when it would be expected to be* just shows it to be an exaggeration and unreliable.

That's an argument from silence (a fallacy). In addition, 99.99% of all ancient documents have been lost.

[Amarok]

And the dunder twins unite for fail