Arguments for God?

[Mystic_Banana]

I think it shows intelligence to question the religion/beliefs you grew up with. I can’t help but judge cradle Catholics (I mean the really devout, convinced ones) that their narrow education in religion is holding them back from making an informed decision. Judge is not quite the right word…more like question. But with a bias. (I am admitting that I am basically judging and know that’s wrong - hey that’s one reason I’m here, to hear individuals so that I can get rid of that bias.) I can’t encourage you to leave the Church - but I think I can encourage you to educate yourself on alternatives to Catholicism, including atheism, so that you can eventually say, with some confidence, that your beliefs are the result of an open, educated mind. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins would be a good read for you. He puts just a touch of agnosticism in there to make it accessible to anyone with a questioning mind, not just atheists who don’t need more convincing!
(Also look in to Humanism, Christian humanism, agnostic theism and agnostic atheism) Meanwhile, keep on doing what you’re doing so that you don’t feel too bad if you decide to stick with Catholicism. Don’t worry, from the CCC:
“The human person: with his openness to truth…questions himself about God’s existence.”
I take this to mean it’s not the end of the world to question your faith. If you read more of that section (scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1 )you will see that the Church doesn’t necessarily expect you to throw reason out the window to find God. (Even though I completely disagree with that, but my opinion is neither here nor there.) Point is, if you seek the truth, you’re more likely to be satisfied with what you find than if you sit back and assume that what you were raised with is true.
Here’s a quote I like: “If a man has **failed to find any good reason **for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly **natural and rational that he should not believe **that there is a God…” ~Robert Flint

I’ve got to say, from my experience, Humanism may as well refer to itself as ‘antitheism’ - all I’ve seen from organised humanism during my lifetime is how much it thinks religion should have essentially no presence whatsoever on modern life!

I’ve checked out all of Dawkins arguments, and they’re mostly pretty feeble, I have to say. I’d be tempted to read the arguments in tehir recently popular ‘book’ format, but on the other hand I realised that there is such a gratuitous amount of clearly deliberate anti-theistic influence in modern (British) culture that I suspect I already have an incredibly materialist-skewed mountain of influence, cradle-Catholic or no. Much more effective to come here and see if any atheists attacking Catholicism can effectively defend atheism! Some day I should go to argue on Dawkinsnet or something, but that seems to be full of such a bunch of self-righteous bigots I don’t think I could cope with the torrents of hate…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Yes, if by “historic fact,” you mean, “claimed in a few manuscripts liberally peppered with supernatural events and written decades – at the earliest – after the supposed events.”

To be clear, I’m not saying that there definitely was no Jesus – in fact, I think it likely that there was a person upon whom the legends were based – but I am saying that there is insufficient evidence to think that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually existed.

Or c) they were sincere in their beliefs and mistaken.

Or d) they were fictional parts of the Gospel legends, possibly based on real people

What about him? He never met Jesus – he just claims to have had some kind of “experience” on the Road to Damascus. People nowadays have all sorts of experiences – of Jesus, Krishna, Shiva, Buddha, and all kinds of other gods. They also have experiences of UFO abductions, seeing Bigfoot, etc. Many of these people are very sincere in their beliefs, but they are mistaken.

You can be sincere and still mistaken.

Your faith that they are mistaken is impressive! But you can prove that such is the case no more than you can prove abiogenesis is even possible

 

[AntiTheist]

Your faith that they are mistaken is impressive! But you can prove that such is the case no more than …]

I neither have “faith” that they were mistaken, nor do I attempt to “prove” it.

I’m not the one with the burden of proof here. The person claiming that the events actually happened – with all the magic and bells and whistles – has to provide sufficient evidence, and, as I’ve demonstrated, eyewitness testimony by itself is not sufficient to confirm magic. [And, of course, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses]

You have to understand that this is not a standard of proof that I hold only for the Gospels – I hold the same standard of evidence for any supernatural claim. That’s why all the “eyewitness testimony” of ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, and the like will never be enough to convince me.

Some people – you, for example – jump at ghost stories as some kind of “evidence” that “the truth is out there,” but the rest of us understand that they are quaint tales that are more at home in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

 

[samiam1611]

I neither have “faith” that they were mistaken, nor do I attempt to “prove” it.

**I’m not the one with the burden of proof here. ** The person claiming that the events actually happened – with all the **magic and bells and whistles **-- has to provide sufficient evidence, and, as I’ve demonstrated, eyewitness testimony by itself is **not sufficient to confirm magic. ****** [And, of course, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses]

You have to understand that this is not a standard of proof that I hold only for the Gospels – I hold the same standard of evidence for any supernatural claim. That’s why all the “eyewitness testimony” of ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, and the like will never be enough to convince me.

Some people – you, for example – jump at ghost stories as some kind of “evidence” that “the truth is out there,” but the rest of us understand that they are quaint tales that are more at home in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Antitheist, I would have to look long and hard to find a statement of yours that I did not agree with. I have yet to understand how anyone can see it any other way. You’re just so…right.

 

[AntiTheist]

Antitheist, I would have to look long and hard to find a statement of yours that I did not agree with. I have yet to understand how anyone can see it any other way. You’re just so…right.

Thanks, Sam. I appreciate it.

For what it’s worth, I’ve considered starting a blog that would function as a sort of “Best of AntiTheist Posts” collection. I just haven’t gotten around to it yet.

Now if someone could just convince me that I could somehow make money with a blog like that, I’m sure that that would get me moving a lot more quickly…

 

[samiam1611]

Thanks, Sam. I appreciate it.

For what it’s worth, I’ve considered ** starting a blog that would function as a sort of “Best of AntiTheist Posts” collection. ** I just haven’t gotten around to it yet.

Now if someone could just convince me that I could somehow make money with a blog like that, I’m sure that that would get me moving a lot more quickly…

You should! I’d read it

 

[Red_Paladin]

I neither have “faith” that they were mistaken, nor do I attempt to “prove” it.

I’m not the one with the burden of proof here. The person claiming that the events actually happened – with all the magic and bells and whistles – has to provide sufficient evidence, and, as I’ve demonstrated, eyewitness testimony by itself is not sufficient to confirm magic. [And, of course, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses]

You have to understand that this is not a standard of proof that I hold only for the Gospels – I hold the same standard of evidence for any supernatural claim. That’s why all the “eyewitness testimony” of ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, and the like will never be enough to convince me.

Some people – you, for example – jump at ghost stories as some kind of “evidence” that “the truth is out there,” but the rest of us understand that they are quaint tales that are more at home in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

You will find that the Church is just as critical as you, but to them eyewitness testimony does hold water because it is logical. We all function like that whether we like it or not. For example, someone(a good sane person, your like-minded friend) tells you that “The Lord of the Rings” is awesome and you say “Okay cool.” then the next day, someone else says the same thing, and your answer is the same. And this goes on for sometime and at the end of the month you might say “Hmm…everybody’s talking about this ‘Lord of the Rings’ might as well go and see what its about.” But you find out that The Lord of the Rings has stopped playing and no store has it, would you disregard what your friends say? You might go and ask them why they think its so great, and they will tell you. Whether you choose to believe them or not, according to your whims and fancies, the fact still remains that Lord of the Rings is an awesome movie and book. But you ask, ‘why should I believe them?’ Thats the wrong question, the question you should ask is why should you not believe them! Just because something doesn’t go according to nature does not mean that it is not possible.

Thanks, Sam. I appreciate it.

For what it’s worth, I’ve considered starting a blog that would function as a sort of “Best of AntiTheist Posts” collection. I just haven’t gotten around to it yet.

Now if someone could just convince me that I could somehow make money with a blog like that, I’m sure that that would get me moving a lot more quickly…

Where theist can come and laugh

 

[AntiTheist]

You will find that the Church is just as critical as you, but to them eyewitness testimony does hold water

So I’ll find that that the Church is just as critical, except for the fact that they’re not as critical. Got it.

We all function [by relying on testimony] whether we like it or not. For example, someone(a good sane person, your like-minded friend) tells you that “The Lord of the Rings” is awesome and you say “Okay cool.”

Let’s change the example from a matter of opinion (that a movie is good) to fact (that an event happened).

Let’s say that a sane and well-respected friend of mine tells me that he went to Disney World. I would accept that claim based on nothing more than his testimony because it’s a pretty commonplace claim (lots of people have been to Disney World, including me), it squares with other facts that I know (my friend was gone for a week…), and even if my friend is not telling the truth, it doesn’t really matter.

Now let’s say that this same friend tells me that he went to Disney World in a flying saucer after he was abducted by aliens. In this situation, I would not believe him merely on the basis of testimony, and I imagine that you would not either.

Why is this the case? The evidence hasn’t changed…but the nature of the claim has changed. This is what I mean when I say that eyewitness testimony is insufficient to demonstrate supernatural or magical claims.

In the case of the Gospels, the evidence is far worse because we don’t even have eyewitness accounts. We have texts composed by non-eyewitnesses removed from the events by decades, and we don’t even have any originals of the texts. We have copies of copies of translations of copies written by non-eyewitnesses.

If you’re not willing to believe that your friend went to Disney World in a space ship, then a bunch of stories should not be sufficient to convince you that a man did magic.

 

[Windfish]

This is what I mean when I say that eyewitness testimony is insufficient to demonstrate supernatural or magical claims.

There is no such thing as magic. Setting that aside, though, you consistently assert this (epistemology), but I have never really seen you support this beyond colloquial appeals. Epistemologically, this is so easy to dismantle, I just wonder where you are getting this from.

 

[FightingFat]

Yes, if by “historic fact,” you mean, “claimed in a few manuscripts liberally peppered with supernatural events and written decades – at the earliest – after the supposed events.”

To be clear, I’m not saying that there definitely was no Jesus – in fact, I think it likely that there was a person upon whom the legends were based – but I am saying that there is insufficient evidence to think that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually existed.

Or c) they were sincere in their beliefs and mistaken.

Or d) they were fictional parts of the Gospel legends, possibly based on real people

What about him? He never met Jesus – he just claims to have had some kind of “experience” on the Road to Damascus. People nowadays have all sorts of experiences – of Jesus, Krishna, Shiva, Buddha, and all kinds of other gods. They also have experiences of UFO abductions, seeing Bigfoot, etc. Many of these people are very sincere in their beliefs, but they are mistaken.

You can be sincere and still mistaken.

I think the things you say here are basic, solid questions. The kind of fundamental questions most reasonable people have when considering the facts as presented. However, it is a rather perfunctory understanding of the evidence. It really doesn’t take much digging to get to some more serious evidence.

I also wonder whether you can seriously believe that all the great minds who have been Christian throughout the last 20 centuries were so easily duped? Were they as simplistic in their understanding and so gullible as to not ask such questions?

For example, many argue that the divinity of Christ was simply an idea developed from Greek philosophical (i.e. Pauline) influence. However the earliest records provide evidence of Jesus being called Maranatha, the use of this Aramaic term for God was qualified by the Qumram scrolls (Aramaic Enoch 9:6; 89:31, 33 & 36, where the Gk has no Kyrios). The use of this in 1 Cor 16:22 demonstrates at least, that the first Aramaic-speaking Christians worshipped Jesus as God and has nothing to do with Gentile converts, who only began to come into the community in numbers two decades after the death of Jesus.

When we speak of the faith of the Apostles in the face of persecution as evidence of the truth of the Christian message, it has a unique context. No religious movement has grown so rapidly in its early years without military support, indeed, where Christianity is concerned, this rapid expansion took place in the face of fierce persecution.

As for miracles, you don’t really seem to grasp what the Gospel speaks of there. Miracles are works which demonstrate that God was active and present to the people. What matters is that whatever Jesus actually did, that was perceived as miraculous, was enough that those people in that time recognised God amoungst them (Emmanuel). These miracles, even the Resurrection itself, were only one aspect of the complete revelation of the incarnate person Jesus Christ.

Of course the reality that this man is God is quite extraordinary. The extraordinary nature of this reality is held out by the Apostles story; it was only after the Resurrection that they came to understand what Jesus said during His lifetime.

As for the idea that none of the Gospel writers were eye witnesses, whilst I accept that some redaction has gone on, my own solution to the Synoptic problem is that Q is actually Aramaic Matthew, written by the Tax Collector who was a disciple, the Apostles note taker, who being a record taker by trade, kept notes on what went on in Aramaic. These notes were later interpolated and added to by a Jewish convert, possibly a Levite. The evidence for such a scenario is put forward by Robert Gundry, who provides evidence based on the translation in the earliest codices.

Marks Gospel is often thought to contain the ipssime verba. Mark, a contemporary of Peter was probably writing from Peter’s own account. Luke was a contemporary of Paul and the eyewitness evidence would offer strong evidence for much of John being written by John! (See Jesus & The Eyewitnesses).

In short, I am familiar with your conclusions, but they are several decades out of date. There’s lots of interesting new scholarship out there which offers a much more positive prognosis with regards the reliability of the Gospels.

 

[AntiTheist]

I also wonder whether you can seriously believe that all the great minds who have been Christian throughout the last 20 centuries were so easily duped?

Yes.

Were they as simplistic in their understanding and so gullible as to not ask such questions?

No. Most people know that smart people are sometimes easier to trick than stupid people, if only because smart people have quicker minds that can invent all sorts of rationalizations for belief. [This is why, for example, college students often make the best recruits for cultists]

For example, many argue that the divinity of Christ was simply an idea developed from Greek philosophical (i.e. Pauline) influence.

Well, since I’m not arguing this point, we can skip it.

When we speak of the faith of the Apostles in the face of persecution as evidence of the truth of the Christian message, it has a unique context.

As I said, there’s no evidence that anyone who was an “eyewitness” was anything more than a character in a story. And even if there was an “eyewitness” who was tortured and executed, willingness to suffer and die for a belief can only tell us about the strength of the belief, not whether the belief is true.

What matters is that whatever Jesus actually did, that was perceived as miraculous, was enough that those people in that time recognised God amoungst them (Emmanuel).

According to the stories, yes. But what’s at stake here is whether the things depicted in the stories actually happened.

my own solution to the Synoptic problem is that

You’re free to make up any stories you want. As I said, even if you could somehow prove beyond all doubt that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses the day after the events, they still would not be sufficient to demonstrate that the magical parts of the story are true – any more than my friend’s insistence that he was abducted by aliens is evidence that “the truth [of alien abductions] is out there.”

 

[Windfish]

For Brenlae:

The following is an outline of many of the arguments for God’s existence. Please keep in mind that it is incomplete and that it comes from an Evangelical Christian source:

doxazotheos.com/?page_id=96

It is a helpful resource. I would start with St. Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God. For that I recommend the following books:

Aquinas: An Introduction to the Life and Work of the Great Medieval Thinker
The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide

I especially recommend that latter two so that you will have the necessary background information and knowledge to read and understand the author’s blog, which can be found here:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Besides the philosophical arguments, there are also the historical ones. If you would like resources on the historicity of the New Testament, just ask! Right now, I am working on the argument from miracles, which is a kind of historical argument. Here is one example:

The Miracle of Lanciano. It is an 8th century Eucharistic miracle. It has been miraculous preserved for centuries, and it has been scientifically examined. Here is a web entry on it:

therealpresence.org/eucha…/lanciano.html

Dr. Odoardo Linoli scientifically examined a specimen of the tissue and published his results in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Here is a citation for the article:

worldcat.org/search?q=lan…t=results_page

Rather incredible, huh? To think that there is such attestation for it! You can get your hands on the journal through an inter-library book loan program.

I do not know how an atheist or skeptic can reasonably deny this without getting into baseless assertions of conspiracy and fraud. But even if they can find some reasonable way to deny it, it can no longer be said that a person cannot rationally assent to the truth of Catholicism since any person can look at the data and reasonably conclude that it lends credibility to the claims of Christianity. So the charge of “irrational belief” is simply emptied of any power it may have had. And so, as far as I am concerned, my belief in Catholicism is rationally supported and true, and that atheists who withhold assent do so on psychological grounds, not reasonable ones.

 

[Windfish]

. As I said, even if you could somehow prove beyond all doubt that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses the day after the events, they still would not be sufficient to demonstrate that the magical parts of the story are true – any more than my friend’s insistence that he was abducted by aliens is evidence that "the truth [of alien abductions] is out there."

I still think you are engaging in some rather crude epistemology that ignores so much. You seem not to believe your friend simply because of the category of evidence he provides. And that is just crude. In fact, there are all sorts of considerations that decrease one’s warrant to believing your friend, not just because he provides a specific category of evidence. If, for example, a journalist at Disneyland publishes the following morning in the county newspaper that he saw the saucer deliver your friend to the park and also quotes from other individuals who saw the same thing, we have more grounds for warranted belief than we did before. But without all of that, all we have is your friends say so that is easily dismissed because of what we should expect if there really were a flying saucer: 1) reports from others 2) widespread commotion 3) television news reports etc. etc. etc. etc. And so, I dismiss his say so because of these other things that decrease warrant, not because I think eyewitness testimony is, categorically, insufficient. That does not make any sense.

 

[AntiTheist]

I still think you are engaging in some rather crude epistemology that ignores so much. You seem not to believe your friend simply because of the category of evidence he provides. And that is just crude. In fact, there are all sorts of considerations that decrease one’s warrant to believing your friend, not just because he provides a specific category of evidence. If, for example, a journalist at Disneyland publishes the following morning in the county newspaper that he saw the saucer deliver your friend to the park and also quotes from other individuals who saw the same thing, we have more grounds for warranted belief than we did before. But without all of that, all we have is your friends say so that is easily dismissed because of what we should expect if there really were a flying saucer: 1) reports from others 2) widespread commotion 3) television news reports etc. etc. etc. etc. And so, I dismiss his say so because of these other things that decrease warrant, not because I think eyewitness testimony is, categorically, insufficient. That does not make any sense.

I agree that a number of independent eyewitness reports from a wide variety of people who do not share the same assumptions would be sufficient to confirm that something happened, perhaps something that looked like a “flying saucer.”

It would not be enough to confirm that aliens actually abducted my friend and brought him to Disney world.

In the case of the Gospels, you do not have independent eyewitnesses. You have a bunch of stories that came from a community of believers.

 

[FightingFat]

youtube.com/watch?v=KTpmlWPp3FA&feature=player_embedded

 

[AntiTheist]

To change examples slightly, we could obtain a very large number of eyewitness testimonies that will swear that David Copperfield made an elephant disappear right before their eyes. And indeed, these testimonies confirm that something happened that looked like an elephant vanishing.

But such testimonies cannot confirm that someone really used honest-to-goodness magic to make the elephant disapper. It would at best confirm that something happened – it wouldn’t be able to tell us about the source of the event. The testimonies, by themselves, could not confirm that supernatural nature of the event.

And, to reiterate, you don’t even have this kind of testimonial evidence in the Gospels.

 

[FightingFat]

I agree that a number of independent eyewitness reports from a wide variety of people who do not share the same assumptions would be sufficient to confirm that something happened, perhaps something that looked like a “flying saucer.”

It would not be enough to confirm that aliens actually abducted my friend and brought him to Disney world.

In the case of the Gospels, you do not have independent eyewitnesses. You have a bunch of stories that came from a community of believers.

What about the non-Gospel witnesses?

 

[Ismael]

So I’ll find that that the Church is just as critical, except for the fact that they’re not as critical. Got it.

So when theist quote facts that disprove some atheists claims they are deluded and when you state an opinion is suddenly fact?
So this is how the contorted anti-theist minds works? Got it.

You see I can play the dumb sarcasm game too… Are anti-theists so infantile that they need to hide in puerile jokes instead of giving solid arguments.

FYI: most of the statements you have made (such as those on the gospels) would be refuted even by non-religous historians and biblical scholars, except a small extremist minority.

If you cannot keep up regarding the things you are discussing (as it is clear from your dismissive attitude when you do get a good answer) what’s the point.

Perhaps we should not question the existence of God here but your ability to think critically…

In the case of the Gospels, the evidence is far worse because we don’t even have eyewitness accounts. We have texts composed by non-eyewitnesses removed from the events by decades, and we don’t even have any originals of the texts. We have copies of copies of translations of copies written by non-eyewitnesses.

That is not exacvtly a true fact but the opinions of some.

Of course if opinions of atheists are immediately a priori facts…

Since you refute things a priori it would not matter if we had a video of the resurrection, you’d refute it anyway… that’s rational!

If you’re not willing to believe that your friend went to Disney World in a space ship, then a bunch of stories should not be sufficient to convince you that a man did magic.

Yes but there is more than a claim than the claim itself.
Your argument is nothing more oversimplifing ad absurdum.

Perhaps you THINK you are doing some epistemological critical thinking… but you are not doing anything of the sort.

There is a LOT in claim by itself that goes beyond the mere words uttered.
If someone makes a claim he must also have a motive for such claim.
Hence: From a claim itself several things can be known

So if you have a “a sane and well-respected friend” and he makes such claim than there are a few options:

1- He went crazy overnight (or he was always crazy?) and he’s deluded, but then you must prove he is crazy to abide by this explaination.
After all a sane person does not get confused and think he went up a spaceship just like that.

Most people who claim to have been ‘abducted by aliens’ are usually mentally unstable (perhaps not all of them, I am not an expert in ufology), that is why most of their claims (which still might be true, in spite of the crazyness, btw) have been dismissed by most skeptics.

2- He has malicious intent to trick you. But that would require even a further motive with you should provide to assure that this is the answer. Since he’s ‘well respected’ one cannot assume he desires to trick you for ‘the lulz’.

After all some people who claim some ‘weird stuff’ (like aliens abducting them) usually capitalize on it, they do not die for it (unless they are BOTH crazy AND skillfull merchants…)

3- He’s telling the truth: if 1 & 2 can be reasonably excluded, then 3 is quite the most reasonable possibility.

So, my friend the burden of proof falls on you as well. Since you are making an affermative statement, i.e. that your “sane and well-respected friend” is lying to you, while he has no apparent motive to do so.

You say:

I neither have “faith” that they were mistaken, nor do I attempt to “prove” it.

But then you are lying. You are asserting that they did not tell the truth, for some reason or another. So you do believe in something: they were making a false claim.

Since you are as your name suggests an ANTI-theist (and true-neutral agnostic), you are taking a stand, and, if you think your stance does not need to be defended, than it probably means it’s not even worth considering.

Either that or taking a stance of pure agnosticism: avoid all questions and answers.

 

[Windfish]

AntiTheist:

I agree that a number of independent eyewitness reports from a wide variety of people who do not share the same assumptions would be sufficient to confirm that something happened, perhaps something that looked like a “flying saucer.” It would at best confirm that something happened – it wouldn’t be able to tell us about the source of the event. The testimonies, by themselves, could not confirm that supernatural nature of the event.

That all depends on an examination of the evidence. Since we are speaking hypothetically, we really cannot examine anything. But let’s say the journalist describes the craft and its movements as being uncharacteristic of earthly craft - that, combined with your friend’s testimony, if he is reliable, does increase epistemic warrant for believing in the event as described, especially if there is no evidence to the contrary. And that is another thing I did not get into in my last post - the reliability of your friend and the presence (or lack thereof) of contrary evidence are also factors when weighing epistemic warrant. If there really was no saucer, than evidence of that in the form of conflicting or contrary testimony should surface, but since there is no such evidence in this hypothetical example, that is evidence in and of itself that increases epistemic warrant in the event as described by your friend.* What you would have would be a confluence and synchronization of evidence that lends credibility to your friend.* This is a huge point.

So all of these considerations factor into epistemic warrant. A crude categorical dismissal is simply bad epistemology.

And so, that all depends on an examination of the evidence. It simply cannot be said that testimony, categorically, is insufficient to confirm that. There is no grounds for that, no technical justification for that epistemological claim. And that has been my whole point all along. A categorical dismissal of testimony is just crude and bad epistemology.

And, to reiterate, you don’t even have this kind of testimonial evidence in the Gospels.

But we do. The argument for testimonial evidence utterly blows away the opposing argument, and, in the end, the opposing argument has more to do with philosophical commitments against miracles than anything based on historical study of the texts themselves.“Bu bu bu but the texts just cannot be written by the disciples”, well, why not? Dig deep enough, and it has nothing to do with historicity, but because of their aforementioned philosophical commitments - they have to allow enough time and enough separation from the disciples for the miracles to “develop.” But for us believes, we can look at the history as history without philosophical prejudice against miracles. We have a long history of miracles in the Church (see my post to Brenlae), so we do not have to arbitrarily date the gospels or ascribe their authorship to anonymous people so that we can have these miraculous stories “develop.”

 

[AntiTheist]

So if you have a “a sane and well-respected friend” and he makes such claim than there are a few options:

1- He went crazy overnight (or he was always crazy?) and he’s deluded, but then you must prove he is crazy to abide by this explaination.

…]

2- He has malicious intent to trick you. But that would require even a further motive with you should provide to assure that this is the answer. Since he’s ‘well respected’ one cannot assume he desires to trick you for ‘the lulz’.

…]

3- He’s telling the truth: if 1 & 2 can be reasonably excluded, then 3 is quite the most reasonable possibility.

Or option 4) He’s being sincere but is mistaken.

Now, if my friend came to me and told me that he had been abducted by aliens, I would not necessarily know which of those four options is the correct one, but I know that I would not accept his claim. Whether I eventually decide to believe one of the options is irrelevant.

So, my friend the burden of proof falls on you as well.

No.

Since you are making an affermative statement, i.e. that your “sane and well-respected friend” is lying to you, while he has no apparent motive to do so.

Again, my not believing my friend is not the equivalent of claiming that he is lying.

All I’m saying is that I do not accept his claim. Whether he is lying or crazy or mistaken or stupid or confused or any combination of the above is a separate question, and I do not have to assert any of those claims in order not to accept his claim.

The burden of proof remains squarely on the person making the claim, as ever.