How can we know that God is?

[tabibito]

ding. ding. ding.
She also likes to dismiss anything you say as "just your opinion" and yet we are to accept everything she posts that is her opinion, or the opinion of her sources.

And with regard to Christianity, her sources are highly suspect.

[Mountain Man]

The resurrection is a matter of faith, not a historical fact.

The resurrection of Jesus is at least as well documented as any other contemporary historical event, and is better documented than most.

(This is usually when skeptics beg the question and say, "Biblical writings don't count!")

[shunyadragon]

It's the old "If we dismiss the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, then there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection" game.

No old game at all just the complete lack of objective indepamdemt evidence of the Resurrection.

There is absolutely none, zip, nada, negatory independent evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus nor any of the other miraculous and supernatural events of the life of Jesus nor any of the other ancient religions that have supernatural and miraculous events recorded in their scriptures,

[tabibito]

No old game at all just the complete lack of objective indepamdemt evidence of the Resurrection.

There is absolutely none, zip, nada, negatory independent evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus nor any of the other miraculous and supernatural events of the life of Jesus nor any of the other ancient religions that have supernatural and miraculous events recorded in their scriptures,

The dates commonly assigned to the gospels are no more than speculative. None of them are based on hard evidence, and many reflect a strong bias for naturalistic rationalisation.

[Mountain Man]

No old game at all just the complete lack of objective indepamdemt evidence of the Resurrection.

There is absolutely none, zip, nada, negatory independent evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus nor any of the other miraculous and supernatural events of the life of Jesus nor any of the other ancient religions that have supernatural and miraculous events recorded in their scriptures,

Here's how I responded to a similar comment you made in another thread:

As for "independent sources", that's a red herring. When skeptics say "independent sources", they're really asking for something written by someone who would have no reason to write about Jesus or Christianity.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And with regard to Christianity, her sources are highly suspect.

A comment by someone who considers accredited academics to be suspect!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The dates commonly assigned to the gospels are no more than speculative. None of them are based on hard evidence, and many reflect a strong bias for naturalistic rationalisation.

Do please explain what you understand by "a strong bias for naturalistic rationalism". You are beginning to remind me of another individual on a board elsewhere who repeatedly dismissed "higher criticism".

[shunyadragon]

Here's how I responded to a similar comment you made in another thread:

As for "independent sources", that's a red herring. When skeptics say "independent sources", they're really asking for something written by someone who would have no reason to write about Jesus or Christianity.

No, no one has claimed this. The problem is with supernatural and miraculous claims by ancient religious texts and even today. There is absolutely no way to independently and objectively verify such events. The remain religious beliefs and claims based on ancient texts, and they are not even datable to the time the events are claimed to happen.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, no one has claimed this. The problem is with supernatural and miraculous claims by ancient religious texts and even today. There is absolutely no way to independently and objectively verify such events. The remain religious beliefs and claims based on ancient texts, and they are not even datable to the time the events are claimed to happen.

Perhaps Athene really did spring fully formed from Zeus' brow! And perhaps Gilgamesh really did meet with Utnapishtim, the Sumerian Noah.

[Mountain Man]

No, no one has claimed this. The problem is with supernatural and miraculous claims by ancient religious texts and even today. There is absolutely no way to independently and objectively verify such events. The remain religious beliefs and claims based on ancient texts, and they are not even datable to the time the events are claimed to happen.

In fact, the evidence we have for the miracles of Jesus is exactly the kind of evidence we have for most other ancient events: written accounts by either eyewitnesses or those who lived at the time of the eyewitnesses.

And again, your use of the word "independently" is suspicious. As I noted in another thread:

That's a red herring. When skeptics say "independent sources", they're really asking for something written by someone who would have no reason to write about Jesus or Christianity.

[rogue06]

rogue06








I do believe there is a pattern. First people are asked to speculate - then they speculate (having mistaken the request for speculation to be a genuine query) - then they are contemptuously dismissed for speculating.

Or saying if the Gospels agree on something it was some sort of conspiracy where the authors colluded to line up their stories , hence they can't be trusted, and if there are any "discrepancies" or God help us, disagreements, that means they can't be trusted.

How many times have you seen this or something similar to someone claiming that, let's say, there is only one source, the Bible, that says Pilate crucified Jesus?

Even after pointing out that for much if not most of what we know from that period comes from single sources, you point out that the Bible is a collection of separate works written by at least ten different authors, and for good measure some of the other earliest Christian writing such as those from the Apostolic Fathers.

That is dismissed because they're all Christian works, so you point out that it is confirmed by non-Christians of the period, and even quote Tacitus.

And that gets rejected because, like nearly every scrap we have from this time, we only have a copy of a copy, and could have been tampered with.

And so it goes


ETA: Btw, FYI, I have deactivated the function where placing a @ next to my user name notifies me. Was getting far too many along with the actual post responses, especially when a significant number were nothing but attempts to start fights between posters.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Or saying if the Gospels agree on something it was some sort of conspiracy where the authors colluded to line up their stories , hence they can't be trusted, and if there are any "discrepancies" or God help us, disagreements, that means they can't be trusted.

How many times have you seen this or something similar to someone claiming that, let's say, there is only one source, the Bible, that says Pilate crucified Jesus?

Even after pointing out that for much if not most of what we know from that period comes from single sources, you point out that the Bible is a collection of separate works written by at least ten different authors, and for good measure some of the other earliest Christian writing such as those from the Apostolic Fathers.

That is dismissed because they're all Christian works, so you point out that it is confirmed by non-Christians of the period, and even quote Tacitus.

And that gets rejected because, like nearly every scrap we have from this time, we only have a copy of a copy, and could have been tampered with.

And so it goes

The books of the Bible are not all Christian works.

[rogue06]

In fact, the evidence we have for the miracles of Jesus is exactly the kind of evidence we have for most other ancient events: written accounts by either eyewitnesses or those who lived at the time of the eyewitnesses.

And again, your use of the word "independently" is suspicious. As I noted in another thread:

That's a red herring. When skeptics say "independent sources", they're really asking for something written by someone who would have no reason to write about Jesus or Christianity.

Or they want someone to confirm a miracle but not to convert as a result. The Talmud confirms that He did miracles, but declares they are works of the devil^[1] and not God. That is pretty much what they demand, but rather than ever admit that, watch the goalpost moving commence



1. keep that in mind when someone says that the Jews only believed in an allegorical devil)

[rogue06]

The books of the Bible are not all Christian works.

New Testament is obviously being referred to nitwit.

[Mountain Man]

New Testament is obviously being referred to nitwit.

She seems to have this idea that she can win a debate by scoring nothing but cheap points.