Original Sin?

Quote: rxwine

Your evidence is no better than proof of alien UFOs from non-Earth life forms. Nothing so far.

How is the historical proof of Jesus Christ and His undeniable lasting effect on the world no better than UFOs? How is showing that logically the universe must have an ultimate beginning, a creation, and that an all-powerful, eternal, spiritual being must be the creator not considered evidence. How is the various recent discoveries by modern cosmology also not evidence of an expanding universe pointing to a creation event? Etc., etc.

Quote: Dalex64

Note how this is different from agnosticism, which is the position that the truth of certain beliefs is unknown and possibly unknowable.

Saying that you believe there is no god because there is no plausible evidence is an atheist position.

I don't know why you keep trying to wedge agnosticism in there.

Weak atheism is just an attempt to avoid any burden of proof, which I can understand, but it is why it is appropriately called weak.

Quote:

People who are saying that there are no gods and can be no gods because of a lack of evidence are challenging those making the positive assertion that there are gods to show some plausible evidence.

And I think at the same time challenging those who make the positive assertion that there are no gods to show some plausible evidence.

Quote:

Http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof

Http://www.strangenotions.com/who-has-the-burden-of-proof-when-discussing-god/


The second site comes closest to a logical explanation of how those claiming that there is no god share a burden of proof, but it is cast in their section about philosophical proof. I think we have shown plenty of philosophical evidence against the existence of gods.

These are very good links, especially the second one. There has been no philosophical evidence against the existence of gods that I have seen so far. Please remind me because I either blocked it out or forgot it.

Quote:

If you want physical, scientific disproof of something, you are going to have to give me something that has physical, scientific evidence that can then be proven or disproven.

The scientific evidence is pretty clear that it points to a beginning of the universe, that it began to exist. The scientific community generally holds this position. You can prove it through red shift, cosmic background radiation, 2nd law of thermodynamics. This scientific evidence can be used to support the philosophical and metaphysical evidence for the existence of God.

Well, you ignored me pointing out that there is evidence that parts of the bible, including the gospel of mark was added to, and changed, for maybe the first 300 years or so after it was first written.

It is my understanding Mark it was written first, closer in time to the actual events.

The original ending is with an empty tomb, and women scared and fleeing and never telling anyone (yet it was written down - but that is another question).

The whole story of the resurrection was added later. These websites, along with the lack of any corroborating historical documentation, reinforce my belief that the resurrection as it is believed in now never happened.

Http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_resurrection_hoax.htm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

Http://www.religioustolerance.org/symes01.htm

It is pretty easy to see a progression here, a story from one who did not witness his death, an empty tomb, a transition to a higher plane, a spiritual resurrection, and finally revisions to the texts and inserting stories of a physical resurrection and appearances to people.

Quote: FrGamble

How is the historical proof of Jesus Christ and His undeniable lasting effect on the world no better than UFOs? How is showing that logically the universe must have an ultimate beginning, a creation, and that an all-powerful, eternal, spiritual being must be the creator not considered evidence. How is the various recent discoveries by modern cosmology also not evidence of an expanding universe pointing to a creation event? Etc., etc.

Let's see.

Quote:

The extent of the historical basis of the Iliad has been a topic of scholarly debate for centuries. While researchers of the 18th century had largely rejected the story of the Trojan War as fable, the discoveries made by Heinrich Schliemann at Hisarlik reopened the question in modern terms, and the subsequent excavation of Troy VIIa and the discovery of the toponym "Wilusa" in Hittite correspondence has made it plausible that the Trojan War cycle was at least remotely based on a historical conflict of the 12th century BC, even if the poems of Homer are removed from the event by more than four centuries of oral tradition.

You know what? You can pick a variety of stories, some probably intended as actual fiction and pull out facts and events that are actually correct.

You know what that is called? "Cherry picking."

If you want to verify the authenticity of old works by picking out certain things today which fit with facts and call it all true, you are certainly not doing the world any favors.

Quote: Dalex64

It is pretty easy to see a progression here, a story from one who did not witness his death, an empty tomb, a transition to a higher plane, a spiritual resurrection, and finally revisions to the texts and inserting stories of a physical resurrection and appearances to people.

There's a book out from a couple years
ago that, using modern forensic methods,
takes the book of Galations apart line
by line, and provides evidence that
the Christianity we know today was
invented by Paul about the year 50.

Paul took the stories from the orig
cult that surfaced after the death
of Jesus and added to and embellished
them into the NT we have today.
The author claims Jesus would be
appalled at the message the Church
teaches, it's so far away from what
he preached.

Quote: FrGamble

You can reject my ideas all you want, but I would think that you wouldn't want to call them definitively wrong .

They're wrong because you have no real
evidence they're right. You essentially
want me to come up with evidence as
to why there is no evidence that god
doesn't exist? That's just cuckoo.
Surely you see that all the burden of
proof lies with you.

It's really kind of simple, if you are making a claim then you need to substantiate it. You are making a claim and I am making a claim, therefore we both need to present evidence and reason for why we believe what we do. I have provided you with this which you ignored or rejected out of hand. I have yet to see you present any reason for the nonexistence of God.

Quote: FrGamble

God is not at all imperceptible or intangible. I have provided lots of evidence already.

Subjective feelings are not evidence. Arguments from ignorance and "gaps" aren't evidence either.

The next evidence for any kind of deity I see will be the first.

Quote: FrGamble

How is the historical proof of Jesus Christ and His undeniable lasting effect on the world no better than UFOs?

Simple: it's very, very likely those claiming to have seen an extraterrestrial spaceship actually saw something in the sky. Whereas actual historical evidence of Jesus is negligible outside of the Christian Bible.

Quote:

How is showing that logically the universe must have an ultimate beginning

Since no one with even a speck of scientific credibility has shown that, I'd be curious to see your evidence for it.

Quote: FrGamble

It's really kind of simple, if you are making a claim then you need to substantiate it.

You claim god exists. Me saying until you
provide real proof of your claim, I can't
believe that, is not me making a claim.
Me saying there is no god because there
is no evidence is not me making a claim.

Again, you seem to want me to show
evidence of why there is no evidence.
You want me to prove a negative by
showing positive evidence.

It's like this. You think you saw the ghost
of Ben Franklin last night. You're sure
of it. I doubt your story is true, so you
want me to prove it didn't happen, or
admit that it did. You want me to come
up with evidence that a supernatural
experience never happened.

That's what you're doing with god.