As Arranged, Trump Has Been Acquitted

[SkepticThinker]

Evidence is too often over-rated. Sure, sure, it's useful.
But it's only so when used in a convincing argument.
I can find evidence for both creationism & evolution.
But only the latter has predictive value because of
superior explanatory power. So some evidence
becomes convincing, & other evidence unconvincing.

Remember...evidence alone does not an argument make.

Evidence is the thing that is going to convince me of something.
Faith claims are not the things that are going to convince me of something.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evidence is the thing that is going to convince me of something.
Faith claims are not the things that are going to convince me of something.

But the evidence must fit into a convincing argument.
Believers have plenty of evidence for their beliefs, but
it typically fits into an inferior argument.

 

[Spartan]

Evidence is too often over-rated. Sure, sure, it's useful.
But it's only so when used in a convincing argument.
I can find evidence for both creationism & evolution.
But only the latter has predictive value because of
superior explanatory power. So some evidence
becomes convincing, & other evidence unconvincing.

Remember...evidence alone does not an argument make.

Judge Wapner always talked about the "preponderance of the evidence" in making his decisions. Evidence sends crooks up the river every day. It's that lack of evidence that fails to convince.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When have you dedicated Christ-deniers ever warmed up to Biblical evidence about Jesus?

There is no biblical evidence of Jesus. The Bible is not evidence of anything except that it was written. Nothing in it can be believed without external corroboration, and even then, we're not believing the Bible, but that external evidence.

Also, what difference does it make to an unbeliever whether Jesus lived? They say a guy named Socrates once lived. His words come to us from a guy named Plato. What difference does it make if the words attributed to these two people all came from Plato or anybody else?

Which argument against the resurrection of Jesus has ever been successful? Pick your best one and let's see that bad boy.

I don't get arguments against the resurrection.

Or maybe you thought that I was making such arguments. I'm not.

Besides, the phrase is burden of proof, not burden of disproof.

Then show me one fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and provide your argument, with evidence, why it's false.

Once again, there is no burden of disproof. You'll need to be doing the proving, not others doing the disproving.

And once again, the Bible is not evidence that anything in it is true. It's not all false, but we have to go outside of the Bible to determine which parts are accurate.

Why would we care if anything apart from the supernatural claims were true or not? Sure, if Jesus was born of a virgin, or walked on water, or was resurrected from the dead, that would be significant.

But I have no reason to believe any of that, so I don't, and as a result, it matters not if Jesus lived or was a fictitious character, what his parents names were, where he was born, etc..

You can't prove abiogenesis.

I don't need to.

So I notice that you like to argue that nobody can disprove the resurrection and nobody can prove abiogenesis. What I don't understand is why you think either of those statements is meaningful, and why you think that you can make an argument that you wouldn't accept without it not being noticed. If I told you that you can't disprove abiogenesis or prove resurrection, your answer would be the same as mine - "So what? Did you have a point?"

Have you looked at the incredible complexity of a single cell? And you think that all magically came about in some swamp slime incident?

Magic is your thing. You know, like resurrection from the dead.

And we don't know where abiogenesis took place. Perhaps warm, shallow waters, or perhaps on sea floors.

But yes, abiogenesis is my leading candidate hypothesis, far ahead of divine creationism, for a number of good reasons, including the fact that so much progress has been made with the science, and still none with the supernatural claims.

Just as it was possible to show that the universe runs itself without ruler gods or spirits, and that the material universe organized itself without a builder god, and the tree of live evolved from a universal ancestral population without help, I expect the scientists to do the same here. We just don't need gods in science, which continues narrowing the gap in which one could put a god. No existing scientific theory would benefit from the insertion of a god into it, and I expect that someday we'll have a godless theory of abiogenesis.

And your complexity argument falls apart when you propose something more complex than a cell, namely a god, to account for the complexity of a cell because you just can't see how that could arise naturalistically. It's called a special pleading fallacy, and if your argument had any validity, it would perforce be stronger against gods than living cells. What could possibly be more complex or less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated than a god? Why should such a thing exist? How could it?

That kind of pie-in-the-sky fantasy requires a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.

You might like this one:

"Can I just say how cute I think it is when a Christian thinks something is far-fetched?" - Sterling Crowe

That's bs. I was explaining the different types of slavery found in the OT - VOLUNTARY servitude as a means of existence

Voluntary servitude is not slavery.

I'm talking about slavery, which was acceptable to Judaism and Christianity. That's where people abduct you, beat you at will, and steal your freedom, labor, dignity, hope, and family. You can't make that stain go away with apologetics.

Secular humanism is one of the great scourges of mankind.

"The process of secularization, combined with moral relativism, when its done its work, will ultimately destroy a sense of shame in a culture. Secularization has a deadly effect when it is uninformed by a transcendent moral order" (i.e. God). - Ravi Zacharias

I refer you to America's white evangelicals and secular humanist as the rebuttal to that. The former is a moral cesspool, the latter better than that. The religions have failed to provide moral guidance.

There's no "blind faith" on my part.

You are blind to the degree of blind faith you have.

Josh McDowell, a former skeptic of Christianity was challenged to do his homework too. This was his finding:

"I took the challenge seriously. I spent months in research. I even dropped out of school for a time to study in the historically rich libraries of Europe. And I found evidence – evidence in abundance; evidence I could hardly believe with my own eyes. Finally I could come to only one conclusion: If I were to remain intellectually honest, I had to admit that the Old and New Testament documents were some of the most reliable writings in all of antiquity."

Why would we care about this? And here are more claims of evidence with none provided.

There was a verifiable resurrection - Jesus.

There's your blind faith now.

You secularists don't have any objective moral absolutes.

No such thing exists.

Incidentally, you're misusing the word secularist. A Christian can be a secularist if he supports church-state separation. Secularist is not synonymous with atheist or secular humanist.

It's all moral relativism on your part.

Yes, and that's a good thing. Without moral relativism, no moral progress can be made. Old values are replaced by better ones.

Evidence bolsters one's faith.

No. As you have been told, belief that is supported by evidence is not faith in the religious sense of the word. If you had evidence to support your beliefs, you wouldn't need faith to believe them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Judge Wapner always talked about the "preponderance of the evidence" in making his decisions. Evidence sends crooks up the river every day. It's that lack of evidence that fails to convince.

Notice though that lawyers present more than evidence.
Notice also that both sides present it, so the presentation
alone doesn't win the case. They must make an argument.

 

[Spartan]

There is no biblical evidence of Jesus.

I stopped reading your antichrist post right there. That's moronic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no biblical evidence of Jesus.

I stopped reading your antichrist post right there. That's moronic.

I see you've returned to stage three of apologetics, the angry, emotional posting. You did well for a few days, but I guess you couldn't maintain the facade any longer.

So your feelings were hurt and you ran off.

You do understand that just because you won't look at the arguments made to you that others won't. All you do there is concede the entire post. Let's look at the arguments you have conceded.

There is no biblical evidence of Jesus. The Bible is not evidence of anything except that it was written. Nothing in it can be believed without external corroboration, and even then, we're not believing the Bible, but that external evidence.

< sound of crickets chirping >

That would have been a tough one to contend with. Good choice fleeing.

Also, what difference does it make to an unbeliever whether Jesus lived?

< sound of a pin dropping in the next room >

You're right. It doesn't matter to me, either.

So I notice that you like to argue that nobody can disprove the resurrection and nobody can prove abiogenesis. What I don't understand is why you think either of those statements is meaningful, and why you think that you can make an argument that you wouldn't accept without it not being noticed. If I told you that you can't disprove abiogenesis or prove resurrection, your answer would be the same as mine - "So what? Did you have a point?"

< sound of a coyote faintly baying on a distant mountaintop >

Magic is your thing. You know, like resurrection from the dead.

< sound of a distant, barely audible ship's whistle blowing through the fog with a buoy clanging >

And your complexity argument falls apart when you propose something more complex than a cell, namely a god, to account for the complexity of a cell because you just can't see how that could arise naturalistically. It's called a special pleading fallacy, and if your argument had any validity, it would perforce be stronger against gods than living cells. What could possibly be more complex or less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated than a god? Why should such a thing exist? How could it?

< sound of a distant, barely audible rooster crowing dawn >

You had no response to that either. I think I understand why. What answer could you possibly give?

Voluntary servitude is not slavery. I'm talking about slavery, which was acceptable to Judaism and Christianity. That's where people abduct you, beat you at will, and steal your freedom, labor, dignity, hope, and family. You can't make that stain go away with apologetics.

< sound of a slowly dripping faucet in the next room >

Defending slavery can't be fun. I understand why you bellied up here as well.

I refer you to America's white evangelicals and secular humanist as the rebuttal to that. The former is a moral cesspool, the latter better than that. The religions have failed to provide moral guidance.

You secularists don't have any objective moral absolutes.

No such thing exists.

< sound of distant, barely audible inner city car alarm at 3 AM >

It's all moral relativism on your part.

Yes, and that's a good thing. Without moral relativism, no moral progress can be made. Old values are replaced by better ones.

< sound of a mouse gnawing on a crumb of bread in the far corner of the room >

Good job defending your beliefs. They're all lying dead on the thread floor.

Here's the deal. Post respectfully and unemotionally, and I will return the favor. Post like you did here putting your objective absolute moral values on display, and my tone will change to what you see here. Your choice.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Then show me one fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and provide your argument, with evidence, why it's false.

The fact you see calls to disprove things not in evidence as reasonable belies your level of understanding vis a vis basic logic and reason.

Prove fairies aren't real. Oh you can't? Well I guess then they are real. You will look at this, scoff and say 'those aren't the same!'

This is why talking to those like you only serves as a vehicle to teach and reach others.

 

[Spartan]

The fact you see calls to disprove things not in evidence as reasonable belies your level of understanding vis a vis basic logic and reason.

Prove fairies aren't real. Oh you can't? Well I guess then they are real. You will look at this, scoff and say 'those aren't the same!'

This is why talking to those like you only serves as a vehicle to teach and reach others.

So, you're totally unable to show me one fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels!! You're only sophomoric comeback was, "Prove fairies aren't real." You need help figuring that one out too? LOL.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, you're totally unable to show me one fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels!! You're only sophomoric comeback was, "Prove fairies aren't real." You need help figuring that one out too? LOL.

Wow, you really don't get it.

 

[Spartan]

Wow, you really don't get it.

It's you who doesn't get it. About 1-2 billion of us Christians have got it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So, you're totally unable to show me one fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels!! You're only sophomoric comeback was, "Prove fairies aren't real." You need help figuring that one out too? LOL.

Prove to me one person, place, or event in the Harry Potter series is fictitious.

Oh you can't?

Do you get it yet?

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact you see calls to disprove things not in evidence as reasonable belies your level of understanding vis a vis basic logic and reason.

Prove fairies aren't real. Oh you can't? Well I guess then they are real. You will look at this, scoff and say 'those aren't the same!'

This is why talking to those like you only serves as a vehicle to teach and reach others.

I just proved in another thread that I am The Prophet.
Challenge: Let any mortal prove I'm not.

 

[Spartan]

Prove to me one person, place, or event in the Harry Potter series is fictitious.

Oh you can't?

Do you get it yet?

You haven't figured out Harry Potter is fiction, and that Jesus is a real, historical person? ROTFLOL.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You haven't figured out Harry Potter is fiction, and that Jesus is a real, historical person? ROTFLOL.

Haven't figured out how burden of proof and logic work yet, eh?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You haven't figured out Harry Potter is fiction, and that Jesus is a real, historical person? ROTFLOL.

Whoosh

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You haven't figured out Harry Potter is fiction, and that Jesus is a real, historical person?

No, and neither have you.

You just believe that a guy named Jesus existed because you want it to be true. You now need it to be true

The man born of a virgin who walked on water, raised the dead, and then was himself resurrected is just as fictional as Harry Potter. The main difference between the books telling the Jesus story and those telling the Harry Potter story is that the former are older, had the benefit of people like Paul, Constantine, the conquistadores and the Spanish Inquisition to inflict them on the world, and that you were raised to believe in one but not the other.

Whoosh

No kidding. LOL.

 

[Spartan]

No, and neither have you.

Absolute nonsense.

You just believe that a guy named Jesus existed because you want it to be true. You now need it to be true.

Anybody who claims Jesus never existed is way, way out there in left field without a moral, intellectual, or geographical compass.

 

[Spartan]

Haven't figured out how burden of proof and logic work yet, eh?

See my previous response to you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Anybody who claims Jesus never existed is way, way out there in left field without a moral, intellectual, or geographical compass.

Who claimed that? You claimed that Jesus actually lived. I don't recall anybody claiming that he did not, just that they don't take your word or that of these so-called biblical scholars, and in my case, I don't accept the magical claims. HG Wells says, "Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented."

Really? Harry Potter. Here was a boy. That part of the story could not have been invented. Is that convincing?

We never know what people mean by a historical Jesus. If the history you're going by is the Gospels, then I reject that claim. I do not believe anybody was ever born of a virgin, walked on water, raised the dead, and was himself resurrected from the dead.

And if one is allowed to remove parts of the story and call what remains "historical Jesus," how much can be stripped away? How about if there were really only nine apostles, or none at all? Is that still a historical Jesus? What if his parents weren't named Mary and Joseph? What if he wasn't born in Bethlehem? When does it stop being a historical Jesus and just a myth?

The plain fact is that if the magical part isn't true, it doesn't matter if any of what's left actually happened.

And I'd bet that you'd have no trouble finding evidence of a historical Harry Potter going to school in the UK, better evidence than for this Jesus person. I'll bet that you could get a photo and a birth certificate of somebody named Harry Potter who shared a few things with the fictional character.

Furthermore, if anybody is saying more than that somebody roughly approximating the story of Jesus sans the magic possibly or probably lived, he's saying so on faith, and I reject all conclusions derived from faith-based premises.