Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonetheless the claim of a creator god is one that requires justification.  In the absence of any supporting evidence, atheism remains the defult position.  Come up with some objective evidence, then the claim could be considered seriously. 

Until that time, it remains just perhaps the most popular idea that people reach for to defray the existential angst that arises out of not knowing the answers to deep questions.  Most people at some point in their lives find themselves wondering 'where did the universe come from'.  However, the answer that 'it was created by something with universe creating powers' is a superficial and simplistic retort that should be unsatisfying to anyone with an interest in real answers.  To be satisfied with such answers, you also have to live with the dissonance that the claim is logically incoherent and to boot frequently comes laced with shades of anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism, neither of which are helpful.

We have explored a number of arguments for a creator of the universe the refutation or attempted refutation of which has included god like aliens, infinite regress, just is ism, and agnosticism as the default.

None of which it seems to me helps the atheism as the default argument.
The requirement for empirical evidence is really the circular argument underpinning empiricism, scientism and naturalism all three of which have no evidence to support anything beyond the ability to produce empirical, scientific and natural evidence and atheist have relied on force of personality, status, pack mentality and the media suggest they are the fount of all truth.

[Alan Burns]

Stuff that isn't made up in someone's head. Tangible. Repeatable through experiment.
Not flight of fancy trying to shoehorn magic into reality.

That kind of evidence.
What kind were you thinking of?

The historical, eye witness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - which brings meaning and purpose into our human existence.

[Nearly Sane]

The historical, eye witness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - which brings meaning and purpose into our human existence.

You have none

[Gordon]

The historical, eye witness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - which brings meaning and purpose into our human existence.

I'll ask again, for the umpteenth time, in the hope of an answer: how did you check that these accounts didn't contain mistakes, bias or lies? Unless you can do that then your use of 'historical' is unjustified.

[Sebastian Toe]

The historical, eye witness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - which brings meaning and purpose into our human existence.

Ah, you mean like the historical accounts and evidence for Mohammed having been told by an angel that the Christians got that story a bit wrong?
That kind of evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll ask again, for the umpteenth time, in the hope of an answer: how did you check that these accounts didn't contain mistakes, bias or lies? Unless you can do that then your use of 'historical' is unjustified.

As with all ancient documents you can look at what you know or are fairly sure of consider the alternative narratives and consider how they would pan out then you make a judgment call. This i'm sure has been spelt out  to you before if it isn't obvious

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, you mean like the historical accounts and evidence for Mohammed having been told by an angel that the Christians got that story a bit wrong?
That kind of evidence?

Perhaps a moslem contributer can correct me but an awful lot does seem to hinge on a single account rather than the slew of witnesses offered up by the New Testament.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps a moslem contributer can correct me but an awful lot does seem to hinge on a single account rather than the slew of witnesses offered up by the New Testament.

There are no witnesses in the New Testament.

[Gordon]

As with all ancient documents you can look at what you know or are fairly sure of consider the alternative narratives and consider how they would pan out then you make a judgment call. This i'm sure has been spelt out  to you before if it isn't obvious

Nope - the NT included anecdotal claims with no credible provenace that a dead man didn't stay dead. I simply want to know on what basis those who accept this have excluded the risks of mistakes and lies.

If you are one of those who accept this then the burden of proof is yours - so kindly explain how you addressed these risks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are no witnesses in the New Testament.

I don't expect every account in history to be written by first hand witness and I don't suppose many people do. It seems to me another occasion where one's normal analytical approach is suspended because there's a ''whiff of God''.

[Sebastian Toe]

Perhaps a moslem contributer can correct me but an awful lot does seem to hinge on a single account rather than the slew of witnesses offered up by the New Testament.

...and that makes it wrong?
How?
Do tell.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't expect every account in history to be written by first hand witness and I don't suppose many people do. It seems to me another occasion where one's normal analytical approach is suspended because there's a ''whiff of God''.

Straw must be cheap again. Matters naught to there being no witnesses in the NT. Good to see that you accept that Alan's claims thar there are 'historical eyewitness accounts' is drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - the NT included anecdotal claims with no credible provenace that a dead man didn't stay dead. I simply want to know on what basis those who accept this have excluded the risks of mistakes and lies.

If you are one of those who accept this then the burden of proof is yours - so kindly explain how you addressed these risks.

What do you mean no? This is just argument from your own incredulity posing virtuously as a demand for checks.

The Christian account is there. The Jesus as myth schtick is there. Bart Ehrman is there. You examine these positions and make a judgment call.

If you don't give any sensible idea of what is missing from that approach you can't be helped further

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Straw must be cheap again. Matters naught to there being no witnesses in the NT. Good to see that you accept that Alan's claims thar there are 'historical eyewitness accounts' is drivel.

So you ignore every thing not written first hand do you? I think not

[Nearly Sane]

So you ignore every thing not written first hand do you? I think not

No. Pointing out there are no witnesses in the NT which was your claim doesn't do that.

And you've already pissed on Alan's wee bonfire of 'historical eyewitnesses'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Pointing out there are no witnesses in the NT which was your claim doesn't do that.

And you've already pissed on Alan's wee bonfire of 'historical eyewitnesses'.

What then do you mean by no witnesses in the NT?
Pissed on Alan's bonfire? How so?

[Gordon]

I don't expect every account in history to be written by first hand witness and I don't suppose many people do. It seems to me another occasion where one's normal analytical approach is suspended because there's a ''whiff of God''.

There we have it: accepting religious claims means knowingly suspending any attempt at critical or analytical analysis of them, which is as good an example of sheer idiocy as I've ever read here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There we have it: accepting religious claims means knowingly suspending any attempt at critical or analytical analysis of them, which is as good an example of sheer idiocy as I've ever read here.

No evidence for any of this Gordon pointing to it just being something you were bursting to let out

[Nearly Sane]

What then do you mean by no witnesses in the NT?
Pissed on Alan's bonfire? How so?

Alan says there are 'historical eyewitness accounts', you have already accepted that there are not. It would help of you read what I had posted rather than asked me to repeat it.


There are claims of witnesses in the NT. Not witnesses. The claims are made by documents whose authors are unknown. For those things that are methodologically naturalistic we can assess them in the methodologically naturalist method of the study of history.

For those things that are supernaturalist claims, there is no such methodology that I am aware of, and you despite hundreds, at least,  of requests for one have never shown even the tiniest attempt.

Your continued ignoring of this amounts to lying.

[Gordon]

No evidence for any of this Gordon pointing to it just being something you were bursting to let out

This is as good an alternative to Chomsky's famous "Colourless................" as I've seen.

Spectacularly meaningless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alan says there are 'historical eyewitness accounts', you have already accepted that there are not. It would help of you read what I had posted rather than asked me to repeat ot.

Alan has looked at the NT and decided that it is in large part historical and borrows from reportage rather than myth or fiction a notion that doesn't seem to be widespread in the subsequent decades CS Lewis who had expertise in mythology concluded as much.
I don't know what warrant you are using to claim I dismissed this possibility and saw the whole thing as made up

There are claims of witnesses in the NT. Not witnesses.

Yes i've answered that.

The claims are made by documents whose authors are unknown.

I think Origen had up to four ways of analysing the bible. I've said that Lewis cast his eye over them to conclude historical and reportage elements

For those things that are supernaturalist claims, there is no such methodology that I am aware of, and you despite hundreds, at least,  of requests for one have never shown even the tiniest attempt.

But as i've probably pointed out to you before but will do so again many of the miracle claims are part physical in nature and intersperse the purely natural I cannot understand why you miss this.

However I am of thee impression that all Jesus needed to do/leave was the proposal that we are incapable of our own salvation for Christianity to take off.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is as good an alternative to Chomsky's famous "Colourless................" as I've seen.

Spectacularly meaningless.

You what?

[Gordon]

You what?

Whoosh.

[Maeght]

The historical, eye witness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - which brings meaning and purpose into our human existence.

You have claimed this many times and been challenged for the evidence that there are any actual eye witness accounts but never address that. Will you do that this time?

[Alan Burns]

a very apt commentary on today's gospel reading about doubting Thomas -

If we stubbornly said—even in the area of science—that we will accept only what we can clearly see and touch and control, we wouldn’t know much about reality. This helps us to better understand Jesus’ words to Thomas. It is not that we who have not seen and have believed are settling for a poor substitute for vision. No; we are being described as blessed, more blessed than Thomas. God is doing all sorts of things that we cannot see, measure, control, fully understand. But it is an informed faith that allows one to fall in love with such a God.