mormonx wrote: haha.. I didn't say faith was in 100% proof text, or even empirical data, that would be an atheist view. We would have to start a new thread for this but I think there is reasonable proof there is a God > I have "faith" that this evidential God is loving based on the evidence of love that is me and the desire to be loved > I think there is reasonable proof that this God is intelligent > I think there is reasonable proof that the old testament text is reliable, in that it has made it through history to us > I have reasonable proof that the New testament is reliable, meaning I believe we have most of, the jest of, what was written in antiquity > I think there is reasonable proof that Jesus was real and a rabbi > I have reasonable proof that he was crucified > I have reasonable proof that a group of jews thought something miraculous had happened and died for that belief > I have faith, and my eyes have been opened by a new birth, that these jews were telling the truth.
But that's where your evidence ends.
Is It? Is there no evidence that Paul is the original author of at least seven of the pauline letters? Even an atheist Scholar would say yes. Is there no evidence that Christ was crucified? etc.. There is plenty of evidences, the question is only do you believe those evidences. Your talking about evidence of the miracles. No, we do not have evidence for those. We only have evidence of how people reacted to supposed miracles. I take God on his word that they happened "faith."
What definition of proof are you using? There isn't a single piece of evidence for God's existence, let alone "proof."
Regarding your statements about Paul and Jesus' crucifixion: so what? Jesus was crucified. He died. He didn't get up again, like all human beings. Paul wrote letters - so have many other people. This is no basis for informed belief.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Well, I defined faith as belief in the absence of credible evidence. If you dispute that definition, you should be prepared to provide credible evidence.
I guess you are the one to determine "credible" evidence. What was your doctoral thesis on? And why should your subjective definition of faith mean anything. My definition of faith means turtles have hair on their balls. You can't just make up a definition of a word and ask people to argue against it. Or I guess you can and you have. If your going to discuss a historical term the smart thing ti do would be to know what people meant by that term in the application that you are arguing. Not some google definition.
Credible evidence in the usual sense of those words. For example, we have credible evidence that plants use solar energy to aid in producing food, and we can show the process by which they convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds using energy from the sun.
That is credible evidence. It isn't a difficult concept to understand, but of course, like all believers, you're willing to play dumb if it helps defend your belief system.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
mormonx wrote:Besides Mormons are a easy target when it comes to evidence arguments. They don't have any. The only reason a atheist would hang here is because they can't hang with the big dogs. Try http://www.premier.org.uk/ for a right proper Christian ass kicking ;-)
LOL.
Mormonism is a slightly easier target, but only because their bogus beginnings were so much more recent than Christianity's. Christianity is still a paper tiger.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
All the faith of people who believe in gods other than Hoop's is self-generated. Hers isn't though, and she'd know it if she was wrong, just like everyone else who is wrong knows it. Oops, well, maybe not.
A statement absolutely bursting with faith.
How odd it is that so many people who embrace faith still attempt to use faith as a pejorative.
haha.. I didn't say faith was in 100% proof text, or even empirical data,
But that's where your evidence ends.
Is It? Is there no evidence that Paul is the original author of at least seven of the pauline letters?
What definition of proof are you using? There isn't a single piece of evidence for God's existence, let alone "proof."
Regarding your statements about Paul and Jesus' crucifixion: so what? Jesus was crucified. He died. He didn't get up again, like all human beings. Paul wrote letters - so have many other people. This is no basis for informed belief.
We have a few problems here, the first starts with me when I use the word "proof" here and another place:
Faith is falling into a loved ones arms and being sure they will catch you. If you have no proof that that loved one is standing behind you, your an idiot.
My fault, Allow me to correct my mistake, I should have used "evidence." Proof is something neither one of us has on our side. I can't prove the existence of God, and you can't prove he doesn't exist. So let's X "proof" from the conversation core of the debate and use it where it needs to be used on the peripheral.
Second, you use the terms "informed belief" , "NO evidence", and "credible evidence", interchangeably. I was responding to the claim that there is NO evidence, which is not true. There is plenty of evidence, it's just does not satisfy you. When I did show that there was evidence for my belief, you moved to "informed belief" as the new term. So basically, your moving the bar and how can someone argue with another that is altering the playing field with each 5yard dash.
Then there is the problem of weather we are trying to argue Gods existence, Jesus claims, Or existence of evidence for belief. Obviously your stance is the same on all "NO evidence." Which is just uninformed.
I'd love to take an ass whipping right here on this backwater board. Please mormonx, make your case for the existence of god.
hahah... I probably would in my younger days, but I've learned not to argue with people that are out to win at any cost even denying the facts. You've already shown your deception by using straw men (your faith definition), moving boundaries (your terminology), emotional arguments that have nothing to do with the argument, meant to throw off the opponent on a rabbit trail, like this one:
Is it comforting to think that God knew the 12 year old girl that Warren Jeff's abused? Did He care for her enough to prevent that abuse happening?
So, no thanks, I will refrain from kicking your ass.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mormonx wrote:Besides Mormons are a easy target when it comes to evidence arguments. They don't have any. The only reason a atheist would hang here is because they can't hang with the big dogs. Try http://www.premier.org.uk/ for a right proper Christian ass kicking ;-)
LOL.
Mormonism is a slightly easier target, but only because their bogus beginnings were so much more recent than Christianity's. Christianity is still a paper tiger.
pull your skirt down, your ignorance is showing :)
mormonx wrote: Second, you use the terms "informed belief" , "NO evidence", and "credible evidence", interchangeably. I was responding to the claim that there is NO evidence, which is not true. There is plenty of evidence, it's just does not satisfy you. When I did show that there was evidence for my belief, you moved to "informed belief" as the new term. So basically, your moving the bar and how can someone argue with another that is altering the playing field with each 5yard dash.
Sorry, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for your supernatural beliefs - forget whether its credible or not, you've presented no evidence of any kind. No goal posts are being moved - you simply seem confused as to what constitutes evidence.
You have several times seemingly responded to arguments I never made. I've never denied that Jesus and Paul were historical people. That's not the issue. The issue was whether or not Jesus is supernatural. Whether or not your god exists. These are separate issues from the question of the historicity of Jesus and Paul. You have not yet attempted to provide evidence for the issue in question.
mormonx wrote:I can't prove the existence of God, and you can't prove he doesn't exist. So let's X "proof" from the conversation core of the debate and use it where it needs to be used on the peripheral.
I can most certainly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOUR god doesn't exist. Quite easily.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Hoops wrote:Strangely, I find it extraordinarily comforting that the Creator of the universe knows me, cares for me, and is concerned with what I do. NOt terribly shallow at all.
Is it comforting to think that God knew the 12 year old girl that Warren Jeff's abused? Did He care for her enough to prevent that abuse happening?
It's comforting to me that God is Justice and Mercy.
Again, what would you have Him do? This argument is completely void of any substantive thought, but it's an easy one to proffer and it makes you feel good. I guess that's enough.