Alien,
...
That is not how it is argued, as has been pointed out many, many times before. If you were to present something which Christians here actually put forward, then I am happy to argue for it (if I agree with that position put forward by those Christians), but I am not going to try to defend the position you describe above as that is a straw man.
Actually that’s exactly how it’s argued: the theist either reaches across to naturalistic disciplines like science and history to establish his claims (your approach),
Part of my approach is to point out that history is not naturalistic, despite the protestations of some here. Just repeating that it is is a bit weak and the sort of thing that Vlad points out to be the case.
or he just asserts it and expects everyone else to accept his claims (Vlad’s approach).
Really? I'll leave you and him to argue that out.
The former seems to me to fail a priori in any case – if you want to posit the supernatural, how on earth would you expect the natural to demonstrate it? – but, even it didn’t, it only works when you set the evidential bar so low that any such conjecture would pass.
Why? Though I posted (some months ago) the Bayesian probability calculation, there has been very little uptake. It might have been when you were away.
If you think the resurrection is legit, how then would you deny the legitimacy of a prophet flying to heaven on a winged horse given equivalent “evidence”? If you think the universe to be 6,000 years old because an ancient book says so, how then would you deny the person who thinks it started last Tuesday because he has a different book that says so?
How would I deny the legitimacy of the Mo flying to heaven? Firstly, I would question whether the Quran actually says he did that. I may be wrong, but I thought some Muslims (not sure how many) thought that was not what the text means. As for anyone claiming the universe is 6000 years old, I would point out that, assuming they are YECers, that this is not what the bible teaches anyway.
Back to Mo for a mo. If the Quran does actually claim he went for that ride, I would not attack that particular claim directly. If there is a God and he is the Muslim God then he
could take Mo for such a trip, but there is a God and he is
not the Muslim God so there is no good reason for thinking he would take Mo for such a ride (that I know of).
The latter on the other hand is just “not even wrong”: if someone thinks he’s established some objective facts because he’s “experienced” them, how then would he deny the truthfulness of the supposed facts of others who think just as sincerely as him that they’ve experienced them too?
There are times when we experience things which we cannot prove to others. This is, yet again, about the difference between being able to know something and being able to demonstrate something. It is stuff which has been discussed a number of times on this board. Let me bring up the example of Fred walking through the forest on his own and seeing the light through the trees in a particular way. He sees it. He knows he saw it, but he cannot demonstrate that he saw it to anyone (unless he recorded it on his camera, say).
Now, as I have said from time to time, I am loathe to try to use personal experience as evidence for other people to be convinced by since it has the problem you have raised. However, if it is consistent with other stuff known to be true, then it could be used as evidence, perhaps. For example, if someone had looked through some more objective evidence and come to the conclusion that this was good evidence (and there being insufficient good evidence against), then it may be OK to accept that personal stuff someone is speaking of (unless there is good reason not to). Maybe. Possibly.
It might be that God deals directly with a person and, say, give them an awareness that they are indeed a forgiven, child of God (them having repented and stuff). How would they convince other people of it? I don't know. Perhaps they can't. How would they know that their conviction was a correct conviction? If it is, then it should match up with facts obtainable elsewhere, I would suggest.
Now Vlad never troubles himself with such questions – he just throws sand in your eyes in the hope that no-one notices – but it’s the Grand Canyon-sized whole in the middle of his schtick nonetheless.
And so it goes…
I think you do a disservice. I don't read all his posts, but the ones I have read have repeatedly pointed out that some of the arguments put forward by those of an atheist ilk make a number of critical assumptions and doesn't get much response (at least not in the posts I have read).
