I am an atheist thread 3

[c659smith]

What?

I responded to this, and then linked you to the post where I responded.

I know you responded along with oihers but either you all have side stepped the answer or I must not be communicating what I am looking for. Maybe this post wil help.

So then these are acceptable forms of evidence to you and the others. And you are looking for a perponderance of the evidence?

And of course the evidence must be Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Types of evidence

Testimony · Documentary evidence
Physical evidence · Digital evidence
Exculpatory evidence · Scientific evidence
Demonstrative evidence · Real evidence
Eyewitness identification · DNA ·
Relevance
Burden of proof · Laying a foundation
Subsequent remedial measure
Character evidence · Habit evidence
Similar fact evidence
Authentication
Chain of custody
Judicial notice · Best evidence rule
Self-authenticating document
Ancient document
Witnesses
Competence · Privilege
Direct examination · Cross-examination
Impeachment · Recorded recollection
Expert witness · Dead man statute
Hearsay (and its exceptions)
Confessions
Excited utterance · Dying declaration
Party admission · Ancient document
Declarations against interest
Present sense impression · Res gestae
Learned treatise · Implied assertion

Does this help to define the question?

The challenge I do have is that when one makes a comment that there is no evidence on the existence of God as that is a false statement. There is credible evidence as is defined in the definition of evidence.

That unless one knows what additional forms of evidence is acceptable by some on this thread then discussion on the opposing view is fruitless and futile.

I tried to show credible evidence and gave sources for mock trials that wwere conducted by unbiased and even atheists.

The answer I got back was the evidence (not by you was a ludicrous one)

This is why I would like a level playing field as to what accepted rules of evidence that are revelant would be admissable by the atheists in this forum.

 

[c659smith]

posted in another thread

The Case For Christ

OK, if I’m a lawyer, and I’m viewing the case for Christ through legal goggles, what am I missing? Anything…? Surely, other analytical legal minds have weighed the evidence in “the case for Christ”…

Again, I was truly stunned to find that great legal minds had already done this…

Check these guys out…

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."1 Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ’s resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists.

Let [the Gospel’s] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.2
Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He’s recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the “World’s Most Successful Advocate,” with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II – twice. Luckhoo declared:

I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.3
Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel’s area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD’s from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.

Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ…4

 

[c659smith]

this after I was asked to prove there were mock rials for the case of Jesus. I did and the answer I got back was Originally Posted by lkddav
Hi 659

These three christian apologetics are not very convincing to me.
This brings me back to my original question to you. If Greenleaf, Luckhoo and Stobel are right and the evidence is as overwhelming as you say, why isn’t the population of this planet not on it’s knee’s worshiping your god. Why isn’t the world convinced it’s true.

How would one answer that question and is just dweeling into a different subject line once the case is made.?

I have shown not one but 3 cases for Christ and I can post all night the last 200 years of these mock trials by unbiased and even past Atheists with the results that the case for Christ in a modern court of law has been proved through creible evidence with the bible in a court of law and with a jury,

The only true answer is I do not know as I can not read other peoples mind.

 

[c659smith]

Then when asked what more credible evidence I can show I get this type of answer’

Originally posted by Ikddav Hi 659

Evidence you ask? Your god recreating the first 6 days of creation on the moon. Don’t brush this off. If you have a god this is just mere child’s play for him or her. It is a god, correct. It can do this with a snap of a finger.

In the four gospels, jesus said nine times if you are a believer your prays would be answered. You are a believer. Pray that this happens. If it doesn’t your jesus was lying. He plainly said if you believe your prayer WOULD be answered.

This would be sufficient evidence for the world and myself.

Now that is unreasonable in an intelligent conversation.

 

[phooney]

@c659smith

Ah, that is formatted somewhat better. Yes, I agree those things listed are descriptions of kinds of evidence.

I think the things presented as evidence for god so far are better explained by other things, or are currently unexplained so I stick by my statement.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

PLEASE NOTE:

OK, something screwy happened with the forum, yesterday. When i or someone else quoted someone, the wrong user name was attributed to the quote. For example, this reply appears to quote me, when the quote is actually for CSmith.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3272463&postcount=1270

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:
Socrates4Jesus;3272273:

CSo you believe in truth?

…yes, and I don’t think that anything should stand in the way of trying to ascertain it. I believe in searching for the truth, questioning almost every assumption, and in relying on the most highly developed ways of verifying it, especially through modern science and investigation.

Yes, that makes sense to me, and sorry for all the confusion, yesterday. Perhaps you and i have more in common about the way we search for truth than you might think.

When i think about scientific truth, the scientific method comes to mind. The thing about the scientific method is that it can only be applied to that which is repeatable, through scientific experimentation. History, by definition, is not repeatable. One cannot, for example, use the scientific method to prove anything about the life, military victories, and death of Julius Caesar.

If you care to think this through with me, i hope you will answer the question: How does anyone know that Julius Caesar existed and became the first emperor of the ancient Roman Empire?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

@c659smith

Ah, that is formatted somewhat better. Yes, I agree those things listed are descriptions of kinds of evidence.

I think the things presented as evidence for god so far are better explained by other things, or are currently unexplained so I stick by my statement.

Please tell me to mind my own business if i’m not welcome in this conversation, Phooney. I’m curious what kind of evidence for the existence of God you might find compelling.

Also, i cannot see to find the question you mentioned you had asked me earlier. If you want, please repeat it.

 

[1234]

If you care to think this through with me, i hope you will answer the question: How does anyone know that Julius Caesar existed and became the first emperor of the ancient Roman Empire?*

I am NOT using the quotes etc. correctly! Each time i try to select one passage I end up selecting the whole thing and then having to cut parts out! AArgh! Others cut and past with ease, sigh

Re Julius Caesar, there appears to be many reliable and independent accounts by contemporary historians of his existence, plus a lot of monuments. He was Roman and spoke and wrote in Latin (remember 9th grade?), and a lot of historians and other contemporaries appear to have described and documented his existence–in Latin. Statues were made of him when he was alive or shortly after his death. He had a lot of learned contemporaries who wrote about him and their works survive. I read his stuff in 9th grade. Veni, vidi, vici and all that.

I am not denying that Jesus lived; others do, and can make a persuasive argument. But he didn’t write anything down and he didn’t have a lot of contemporaries write about him, or at least in any detail, regarding the events of his life. Those that did write, wrote in Greek about Jesus’ life a long time after he died. Jesus spoke Aramaic and wrote–if he did write–in Hebrew. The fact that people wrote in Greek suggests to me that they weren’t Jews, and maybe didn’t have first-hand accounts of Jesus’ life from the Jews who knew him. The earliest gospel, Mark, dates from 30 years after his death at the earliest, I understand. This is all very technical and learned and far beyond my ken, which doesn’t go much beyond Wikipedia. Mark, the earliest, ends with the empty tomb. John, the most abstract gospel, with the most highly develope theology, is dated the longest after Jesus’ death, and only by a stretch can be related to young John the disciple. The theology of John is, to me, heavily Greek in its influence.

ANYway, there does not seem to be a lot of documentation of Jesus’ life or death outside of the gospels. Does Herodotus mention him? He describes the fall of Massada which was not much later. H. was a Jewish Roman citizen.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Uh,…

…you’ll have to rent the movie!

Is that because it is an offensive (to our hosts) reference you are making, and you are afraid to clarify it?

The actual “subject” in question is obvious from the reference that I made previously, but the explanation might well be rather offensive to some folks here.

It’s also a joke best explained by reference to the actual movie, which while really quite grotesque (“Borat Movie Guide: item #17”) was quite funny in a jaw-droppingly stupid way.

 

[_A]

this after I was asked to prove there were mock rials for the case of Jesus. I did and the answer I got back was Originally Posted by lkddav
Hi 659

These three christian apologetics are not very convincing to me.
This brings me back to my original question to you. If Greenleaf, Luckhoo and Stobel are right and the evidence is as overwhelming as you say, why isn’t the population of this planet not on it’s knee’s worshiping your god. Why isn’t the world convinced it’s true.

How would one answer that question and is just dweeling into a different subject line once the case is made.?

I have shown not one but 3 cases for Christ and I can post all night the last 200 years of these mock trials by unbiased and even past Atheists with the results that the case for Christ in a modern court of law has been proved through creible evidence with the bible in a court of law and with a jury,

The only true answer is I do not know as I can not read other peoples mind.

Saying that these apologists are right so your case is airtight is what is called ‘argument from authority’. I could seek out an authority in biology, and get the carefully considered professional opinion that much of the bible is impossible nonsense, especially the returning from the dead story.
Neither is a good argument. Asking why those three apologists have not convinced the wider world is perfectly valid.
There is evidence for much that is not true. If you want to present evidence for resurrection, you will need unusually good evidence, since it is such an unusual claim. Testimony alone would not be enough. A crew of medical professionals running tests to confirm that someone has died, then close observation of the corpse for three days, then another crew confirming the identity of the resurrected man. Make that three crews of each, checking independently. Observed by three other crews.
Would you like to provide evidence that resurrection is possible? Lets get professionals like J. Randi to help us check most carefully.

 

[_A]

Then when asked what more credible evidence I can show I get this type of answer’

Originally posted by Ikddav Hi 659

Evidence you ask? Your god recreating the first 6 days of creation on the moon. Don’t brush this off. If you have a god this is just mere child’s play for him or her. It is a god, correct. It can do this with a snap of a finger.

In the four gospels, jesus said nine times if you are a believer your prays would be answered. You are a believer. Pray that this happens. If it doesn’t your jesus was lying. He plainly said if you believe your prayer WOULD be answered.

This would be sufficient evidence for the world and myself.

Now that is unreasonable in an intelligent conversation.

What was unreasonable about it?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…

Apparently, The Big A hole overflowing atheistic wisdom is afraid to converse with me!

It is a shame. The orifice that is him has run dry, other than small rivulets of one-line noxious effluent.

Then again, do I really WANT large quantities of noxious effluent flowing from said orifice!?

Probably not.

 

[_A]

Apparently, The Big A hole overflowing atheistic wisdom is afraid to converse with me!

It is a shame. The orifice that is him has run dry, other than small rivulets of one-line noxious effluent.

Then again, do I really WANT large quantities of noxious effluent flowing from said orifice!?

Probably not.

You are quite the flatterer, calm. Do you know what Dante said about flatterers?

 

[lkddav]

Then when asked what more credible evidence I can show I get this type of answer’

Originally posted by Ikddav Hi 659

Evidence you ask? Your god recreating the first 6 days of creation on the moon. Don’t brush this off. If you have a god this is just mere child’s play for him or her. It is a god, correct. It can do this with a snap of a finger.

In the four gospels, jesus said nine times if you are a believer your prays would be answered. You are a believer. Pray that this happens. If it doesn’t your jesus was lying. He plainly said if you believe your prayer WOULD be answered.

This would be sufficient evidence for the world and myself.

Now that is unreasonable in an intelligent conversation.

659

You asked me what evidence i would accept as proof to your god.
This is the evidence i asked for.

If jesus told the truth about answering prayers this should be no problem.
All it takes is one believer and one prayer.

What is unreasonable about that???

c659

This is the question again.

What is unreasonable about that???

les

 

[1234]

But other than Evidence other than actualy having your own 5 senses personally affected by God or personally knowing in advance and witnessing a miracle by God.

What type of evidence would you accept?

 When people argue for the existence of a god, they argue that their god is all-powerful and all-loving. Most people cannot reconcile these attributes with the evil and calamity they see in the world, much of it man-made, but a lot of it not man-made, such as earthquakes and tsunamis. 

 Theists argue that their god created humans with free will so that they can do evil, make a free choice. I counter, and I suppose others do also, (I don't read a lot of atheistic writings) that a god could create humans with free will and a strong desire to do good. I know a number of such people; none of them is religious.

 

[Pax]

Apparently, The Big A hole overflowing atheistic wisdom is afraid to converse with me!

It is a shame. The orifice that is him has run dry, other than small rivulets of one-line noxious effluent.

Then again, do I really WANT large quantities of noxious effluent flowing from said orifice!?

Probably not.

Is this sort of thing really necessary? Is this at all helpful? We can all do better than this.

The apostle Peter tells us how to do apologetics.

He says:

1 Peter 3:15-16
Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear;

Please, let us show the Christian love that we are called to.

 

[1234]

So lets get this straight .

I could be wrong?

You make a statement that there is there is no God?

You are asked other than Evidence of actualy having your own 5 senses personally affected by God or personally knowing in advance and witnessing a miracle by God you would accept.

You do not have to accept any other evidence and that is your right. “your rationalization”.

But I am sure you agree that brought to any trial / court of law your rationalization would let 99% of the guilty free and as such is not to be considered a lone form of evidence.

The challenge I do have is that when one makes a comment that there is no evidence on the existence of God as that is a false statement. There is credible evidence as is defined in the definition of evidence.

That unless one knows what additional forms of evidence is acceptable by you then discussion on the opposing view is fruitless and futile.

I don’t know what the credible evidence for the existence of a god is. All of the evidence that I have seen has had its detractors over the centuries. The Biblical evidence is very thin, as the gospels were written in Greek, apparently for Greek readers by Greeks or others who weren’t Jews. The structure of Christianity appears based on Jewish and Greek models of sacrificing something or somebody (else) for one’s own sins, a concept alien to modern thought. The earliest gospels are at least 30 years after Jesus’ death. Arguments for the existence of a god are the first cause type, unmoved mover, etc. have nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity in the usual sense. Many of these arguments are densely philosophical and I can’t follow them. Even if they persuaded me to believe in an unmoved mover, that would have nothing to do with Christianity anyway.

My position is that there is no credible evidence to support belief in a god–for me.
*
I* don’t know.
You don’t know. (You might think you know, but you don’t. You believe).
No one knows.
It is unknowable.

 

[_A]

Is this sort of thing really necessary? Is this at all helpful? We can all do better than this.

The apostle Peter tells us how to do apologetics.

He says:

1 Peter 3:15-16
Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear;

Please, let us show the Christian love that we are called to.

Thanks, Pax, but I think everyone is better off if calm continues to feel free to express herself (himself?). I for one would not want to stifle anyones speech.
I just hope their posts are not in conflict with forum rules.

 

[1234]

Is this sort of thing really necessary? Is this at all helpful? We can all do better than this.

The apostle Peter tells us how to do apologetics.

He says:

1 Peter 3:15-16
Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear;

Please, let us show the Christian love that we are called to.

Hear, hear, Pax! (or is it “Here,here”? Can ANYone answer this question?!)

To which I add the following:

As long as this is such a lofty thread, filled with brilliant people reasoning brilliantly, let’s be civil and also articulate! And use correct grammar and spelling–(there’s a spell check feature of some sort on my word processor which keep me honest).
You’re not going to persuade anyone–well, you won’t persuade them anyway–but you have no chance at all if we can’t understand what you’re saying.

AND now that the Giants won–hee,hee- we can all go back to arguing!