Jack the Bodiless

Still having problems with understanding burden-of-proof?

Why should anyone imagine that the Bible is correct about Jesus, or the burning bush, or the crucifixon or whatever else? Do you assume Greek myth is correct about Zeus chasing Typhon down the length of Italy before picking up Sicily and crushing Typhon underneath it? How about Merlin levitating Stonehenge into position?

What makes the Bible different to every other book of myths? There is a thread on this topic, Inerrantists: please demonstrate that ANY part of the Bible is "divinely inspired"

Of course, what the Bible says about various OTHER topics HAS been disproved. That's why you shied away from discussing the Flood.

Johnny Skeptic

Are you trying to prove what the Bible says? I am not trying to disprove what the Bible says. My position is that it is equally plausible that the Bible is trustworthy and that it is not trustworthy. What is your position? A court trial begins with an initial, primary assertion by a plaintiff. It is not up the the defendant to reasonably disprove the initial, primary assertion that is made by the plaintiff. Rather, it is up the the plaintiff, the initial asserter, to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bible is full of initial, primary assertions from cover to cover. The very first verse is an initial, primary assertion. It says "In the beginning, God [and by implication, no other God] created the heavens and the earth." As an agnostic, I have never assumed how the universe came into being. There is no logic that states that all assertions should be considered to be true unless proven false. It is important to note that the undecided crowd ARE NOT trying to disprove Scripture. They want you to tell them why they should become Christians. Will you tell them, or will you ingnore them? You try to make up all of rules of the game in an unfair way that will benefit you. You almost never make any assertions or claims (an exception was your blunder when you asserted that God heals people today), and you always challenge skeptics to try to disprove the Bible, while at the same time attempting to excuse yourself from the responsibility of defending it. Debates don't work that way. The Bible asserted first, not skeptics. Therefore, it is up to you to defend it.

Johnny Skeptic

The Koran makes claims. Why is it wrong? Deists have beliefs. Why are their beliefs wrong? You and the Bible are analogous to plaintiffs in lawsuits. Lawsuits begin with initial, primary assertions that are made by plaintiffs. The Bible is full of initial, primary assertions from cover to cover, many of which are completely unverifiable, not the least of which are the claims that the God of the Bible, and by implication no other God, created the heavens and the earth, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that he was born of a virgin, that he never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind. As an agnostic, I have never suggested how the universe got here, but you would obviously suggest that the God of the Bible created it. Many skeptics attempt to disprove the Bible, but that is not what I am trying to do. You hold the Bible to be true, but I do not hold the Bible to be false. As I have told you on a number of occasions, my current position is that both sides have equally plausible arguments. Why isn’t that your position as well? Have you ever met God, the Devil, or an angel? Are you quite certain that Isaiah was speaking for God and not for himself?

You ask skeptics why they dispute the Bible, but skeptics want to know why you do not dispute the Bible. If someone asked you why you like to eat fruit, following your same line of reasoning, you would answer “why shouldn’t I eat fruit�? Or, if you were a plaintiff at a court trial and a defense lawyer asked you why anyone should trust your testimony, you would answer “why shouldn’t people trust my testimonies�? Of course, you would never give such answers, so you are definitely inconsistent. Aside from that, surely you must be aware that many readers at various Christian and skeptic forums are part of the undecided crowd. They are not trying to disprove the Bible. A good percentage of them are reluctant to make posts, and they want to know what you find to be appealing about the Bible. They want to know why you have refused to adopt a neutral position like I have? How about it? Surely you do not expect to convince me of anything. I surely do not expect to convince you of anything. It is essentially the undecided crowd who both sides are trying influence, just like in presidential elections.

The point is, you hold the Bible to be true, but I do not hold the Bible to be false. Why do you hold the Bible to be true? Your position is much more assertive than mine is. Why don’t you accept a neutral position like I do?

Regarding “What would that prove�?, for that matter, what would anything prove? If an advanced being showed up and claimed that he was Jesus, what would that prove? If Jesus did rise from the dead, what did that prove about God’s nature?

I was addressing God actions and allowances in the present tense, not in the past tense. It is often difficult to know what happened in the world thousands of years ago, but we know quite well what is happening in the world today. Today, God’s behavior is not consistent in accordance with human standards of consistency.

Says any compassionate and rational minded person. If you had the power to heal people, would you heal them? Have you even asked God to heal you?

Not sufficiently. I am always willing to discuss important issues in whatever detail that is necessary, whether I quote previous posts that I made, or whether I restate my arguments. New readers frequently visit these forums, and they don’t want to conduct time-consuming research in various threads that would take much longer than it would take for you and me to quote or restate our past arguments. I sometimes even have trouble myself locating past arguments that I or other people have made.

You have some insurmountable problems here. First of all, what evidence do you have that the God of the Bible created the universe? Second of all, there is no logic that states that the actions and allowances of a being who has creative abilities are moral. The ability to create things deals with the application of advanced physics, and that ability need not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do specifically with morality or amorality.

If a being returned to earth and claimed that he was Jesus, how could you know that he was Jesus? How could you know that the resurrected Jesus was not an imposter? The point is, if a being showed up who claimed to be Jesus, and demonstrated to our satisfaction that he had creative abilities, we couldn’t be certain that he was telling the truth, but at least we would have good evidence that at least he passed that important part of the necessary basic criteria for indentifying Jesus. Just as important and necessary we could question that being about God’s actions and allowances.

The point is, why does God make people blind and deaf? If a human made people blind and deaf, he would be sent to prison, but some reason you do not object to the same behavior from God, and you do not object to God’s refusal to explain himself, even though you would require that a human explain himself who exhibited such behavior? Why is that?

Then at which forum should we debate this issue? In the thread about the dating of the Tyre prophecy, you asked skeptics to state why they find their arguments to be convincing. I am asking you why you find your arguments to be convincing. If you refuse to state why you find the Bible to be appealing, then please do not ask skeptics why they do not find the Bible to be appealing.

Which God did you have in mind? The followers of many other religions believe that they interact with various Gods. What makes Christians’ interaction with God any different from theirs?

If personal experience is the only real evidence, will you please tell me why you are interested in debating the Tyre prophecy and a host of other issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with personal experience? How can we discuss some of your personal experiences if you won’t state what they are? It is simply not done to enter something as evidence and refuse to state what the evidence is. You obviously know from past experience how difficult it is to defend personal experiences.

There are two kinds of personal experiences, spiritual/emotional experiences and tangible and tangible experiences. You will never get anywhere using subjective spiritual/emotional experiences as evidence. What you need to do is to produce some tangible evidence.

Yes it would. I said that “it would certainly be MUCH BETTER evidence than we have now,� not that the evidence could not be faked.

And all of the evidence that you have can be faked as well.

I asked for some specific confirmations the Ezekiel’s original, primary assertions. Ezekiel started these debates, not me. If your position is non-confirmatory, then you have nothing to add right now. I have told you on numerous occasions that my current position IS NOT to object to the prophecy. My position is neutral. Why isn’t your position neutral? You hold the prophecy to be true, but I do not hold the prophecy to be false.

What was the question?

And you should be able to explain why you hold the Bible to be true. If you have the right to ask questions and get answers, so do I. The Bible started all of the debates that Christians and skeptics have, not skeptics. Skeptics are rightly asking Christians why they hold the Bible to be true. You are stating your arguments towards skeptics, but you should state them towards the undecided crowd as well. They are the best crowd that you have a chance to influence, and they are not at all impressed that you refuse to tell them why you became a Christian at any forum here at the IIDB.

That is false. The texts do not claim any first hand testimony from any of the 500 eyewitnesses. In addition, claimed first hand testimonies need not necessarily actually be first hand testimonies.

No, you don’t get it. My current position is not that the Bible is fraudulent, although your position is that it is not fraudulent. I want to know why be believe that it is not fraudulent. The Bible started all of the debates at this forum, not skeptics.

I don’t have to. I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years. You previously said that the only real evidence is personal experiences, so may I ask you why you are bringing up personal experiences at this forum? You ask the impossible. You ask skeptics to prove that the Bible is fraudulent. You are attempting to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. No, I can’t disprove that a man saw a pigs sprout wings and fly. Can you? Can you disprove the Koran, or any other religious book, for that matter? We can’t go back and check out the empty tomb. We can’t go back in time and disprove the claim that God of the Bible created the universe. If you were to tell me that you have a dog at your house, I could not disprove that you have a dog at your house, but if you actually had a dog, you would easily be able to prove that by inviting me over to your house to show me your dog. Similarly, if God, or some other being, has supernatural powers, it would be easy for him to prove it, but obviously he doesn’t want to.

What is the cornerstone of Christianity?

Please give me some examples of which prophecies, revelations, and providence that your are talking about. A web definition for teleology is “the study of final causes, results. Having a definite purpose, goal, or design.� What are God’s purpose and goal?

Why do you assume that there was anything to believe? Please do not prejudge who would or would not be impressed if a Christian began to us prayer to cure people who have serious cases of multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy, and restored lost arms and legs.

Let me put it this way: What if God instantly healed all of the sick people in the world? Magicians couldn’t instantly heal all of the sick people in the world. Who would care if it was aliens who instantly healed all of the sick people in the world? Comfort is what humans want, including Christians. Who provides temporary or eternal comfort doesn’t really matter.

What kind of personal experiences are you talking about?

No, you are missing the point. The texts say that one day there won’t be any more mysteries. 1 Corinthians 13:9-12 say “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.� Surely you are looking forward to not having any more mysteries.


If Jesus preferred mysteries, he wouldn’t have supposedly performed so many miracles. Matthew 4:24 says “And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.� If God preferred mysteries, after Jesus died, the disciples wouldn’t have gone about confirming “the message of his grace� by performing miracles, reference the book of Acts.

People who are in deplorable states of physical health with no available means of recovery and want to die. It would be much easier to evaluate this issue if God were to tell us what criteria he uses to decide who to heal and who not to heal, and why he let hundreds of millions of people die without ever having heard the Gospel message. You ask me lots of questions, but only God can adequately answer questions about his actions and allowances. Why should I have to answer questions without God having to answer questions as well? I am just a puny human with limited abilities.

The only way that I can adequately respond to your comments is if I know specifically what kinds of suffering you are talking about, and which individuals you are talking about. Please do not ask me to ask some Christians about this. You cited personal experiences as evidence, so it is up to you tell us what kinds of evidence you were talking about.

How do we go about adequately verifying who God endows with knowledge?

Ok, let’s start with the Tyre prophecy. Please transfer your reply to the thread on the dating of the Tyre prophecy. You hold the Tyre prophecy to be true, but I do not hold the Tyre prophecy to be false. Why do you hold the Tyre prophecy to be true?

But why did the Bible convince you?

My point is that there is good tangible evidence that George Bush is the president of the United States, and there is good tangible evidence regarding what he frequently says. The same cannot be reliably claimed regarding the existence of the God of the Bible and what he has actually said.

Why do you assume that the prophets did not speak from their own judgment?

My point is that you claim that God is good based upon unfounded speculation. You hold the Bible to be true, but I do not hold the Bible to be false. You are much more assertive than I am. For instance, you believe that God created the universe, but I do not have a position one way or the other. Upon what evidence do you base your belief that God created the universe?

You didn’t answer my question. I asked you “Do you know of any way that we can be reasonably certain that Jesus’ shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind?� The point is not is it wrong, but is it right? The claim that Jesus’ shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind in an original, primary assertion. It is not up to skeptics to disprove the assertion. It would be impossible to do so. It would also be impossible for you to prove the assertion, so why don’t we agree that there is not sufficient evidence to make a reliable conclusion one way or the other? Do I understand you correctly that you trust the parts of the Bible that are completely non-verifiable because of the parts of the Bible that you believe are verifiable? If so, which parts of the Bible do you believe are verifiable? There is no point in me criticizing the Bible unless you first tell me why you believe it. The Bible came first, not this forum.

Well of course, but how can we reliably determine who is actually speaking for God?

If you mean the Old Testament, that message was limited mainly to the Middle East, so what about the rest of the people in the world?

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] It is a fact that Christians perceive risks if they change their minds and they are wrong, and that skeptics do not perceive risks if they change their minds and they are wrong.

Then where do you suggest that we debate this very important issue? It is a fact that perceived promises of rewards and punishes prevent religious minded people from following the evidence wherever it leads.

A comfortable eternal life is the chief desire of religious minded people, including Christians. Revelation 21:4 says “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.�

I support morality and authority, so you missed the boat on those issues.

Yes indeed. That frees them to follow the evidence wherever it leads without being afraid of making the wrong decisions. Christians cannot make the same claim. What skeptic would not want to have a comfortable eternal life in the presence of a loving God if he believed in those claims? Some skeptics are wonderful, decent, kind, loving people. All that they want is a lot more evidence than we have now.

The point is, where does the evidence lead? Have you ever been to heaven or seen hell? You said that personal experience is the only real evidence, so have you ever been to heaven or seen hell, or do you know of any living person who has?

Yes. Why didn’t God prevent the Bubonic plague, what criteria does God use to determine who to heal and who not to heal, what criteria does God use to determine when to send Jesus back to earth, and why does God refuse to explain his actions and allowances? Most of all, why do you believe that it was the God of the Bible who created the universe, and why do you believe that the supposedly risen Jesus was not an imposter? I do not have a position one way or the other, but you do, so please explain yourself.

TomboyMom

I have this problem with slaughtering innocent babies. Are you saying you don't? Or that God didn't do this--which?

TomboyMom

And there's no reason whatsoever to believe the bible any more than any other book of scripture. Therefore there is no evidence at all for this. Yet you believe it. You believe things without any evidence at all.

TomboyMom

By that I take it you mean, "No"?

Johnny Skeptic

Sure, and the same goes for you, right? I suggest that God show up in person and we can discuss his behavior with him. Maybe I will consider his explanations to be appropriate, and then again, maybe I won't. If God were to actually show up in person, how could we distinguish him from an alien imposter? I would be quite content with a Mexican standoff. Would you?

I am content with a Mexican standoff. Are you?

Why should other people ascribe to your judgment that God's behavior is good? Exodus 4:11 says "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?" If a human exhibited such behavior, he would be send to prison, and with your blessing I might add. Why do you accept such behavior from God?

What about the undecided crowd? They are not sure whether or not God's behavior is bad. They want you know what you specifically find to be appealing about the God of the past and the God of the present. How about it? You hold the Bible to be true, but as an agnostic, I do not hold the Bible to be false. You promote intelligent design, but I do not promote naturalism, nor do I promote intelligent design. So, your positions are much more assertive than mine are, and yet you ask me lots of questions, while at the same time refusing to answer some of my questions.

Do you limit creative ablilities to the God of the Bible? If so, why?
If Jesus returned to earth, how could Christians identify him?

bfniii

i'm skipping questions that i have answered multiple times.

one response would be that the very definition of God entails that He exists outside this universe and is not limited by the same things that limit us.



these are answers you have provided previously and i have responded to them.

bfniii

nope. i have stated my case in detail and at length. i'm sorry we disagree.



again, why should anyone believe anything from antiquity?



i have answered this before but will do so again: the bible purports to be a guide in personal salvation. i am not aware of myths that do.



it's not nice to lie. i have made quite a few posts on the flood. i can quote them.

bfniii

you can't disprove it then. that's all you had to say. you have no disproof nor do you have any proof that an alternate scenario happened.