Reasonable Doubt

[tdgesq]

A neutral position is saying I don’t know if the NT is true or false so I will just look at the evidence.

Do you know if your definition of a “neutral position” is true or false? If you say that you know it is true, then your definition of a “neutral position” is not a neutral position. If you say your definition is false, well, the result is obvious. If you say you don’t know whether your definition of “neutral position” is true or false, only then can your definition of “neutral position” be a neutral position. But then you don’t really know if your definition of “neutral position” is correct.

So we are all required to take a “neutral position” that we can’t know is correct in order to satisfy you. Does that seem reasonable to you?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Do you know if your definition of a “neutral position” is true or false? If you say that you know it is true, then your definition of a “neutral position” is not a neutral position. If you say your definition is false, well, the result is obvious. If you say you don’t know whether your definition of “neutral position” is true or false, only then can your definition of “neutral position” be a neutral position. But then you don’t really know if your definition of “neutral position” is correct.

So we are all required to take a “neutral position” that we can’t know is correct in order to satisfy you. Does that seem reasonable to you?

The neutral position is not a statement that can be judged to be true or false. It is a methodical starting point.

Let’s say you are deciding if the theory of atoms is correct. You would not from the position that theory of atoms is correct until shown to be false. Nor would you take the position that it is definitely false until proven true. You would start from a neutral position and say let me see the evidence.

 

[tdgesq]

The neutral position is not a statement that can be judged to be true or false. It is a methodical starting point.

Really. Is it true that the neutral position is not a statement that can be judged to be true or false? Is it true that it is a methodical starting point? You want to start from a position where you don’t have to claim the truth value of anything, but that is not possible. Go ahead and keep trying. It doesn’t matter how many times you push back. Eventually we will get to your presuppositions that you hold as dogmatically true.

Let’s say you are deciding if the theory of atoms is correct. You would not from the position that theory of atoms is correct until shown to be false.

You are begging the question. You first have to assume that your definition of neutral position is correct. Otherwise, it doesn’t work with atoms, God, crackerjacks or anything else. You have given no justification for this definition. In fact, the definition you’ve given is self-defeating as I’ve demonstrated above.

Nor would you take the position that it is definitely false until proven true. You would start from a neutral position and say let me see the evidence.

Begging the question again. The “neutral position” is exactly what is at issue. I’ve shown that your definition is self-refuting. You’ve done nothing here except claim that it isn’t without providing any of the evidence that you are so fond of mentioning. It’s worse than that for you though. Your definition makes any claim to truth immediately a non-neutral position. And now things get really bad. How can we even suspect that you are making this patently irrational argument in good faith when we’ve seen this?

If we are as a society going to say that it is reasonable to believe that God became a man, was crucified, died, and rose from the dead after three days, don’t we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant?

And this . . .

The other hand, we only have to look at the defendant’s story story as being reasonably possible (all we need is doubt). If it is reasonable to believe a bunch of wild story about a carpenter from two thousand of years ago that contain magic and other crazy elements, why not believe that anything is reasonably possible in the defendant’s case?

and this . . .

Catholics believe a wafer can literally turn into the body of this carpenter. This is despite the fact that if the wafer is tested it can be shown to be just a wafer. If you believe the waifer is really the body of a carpenter from two thousand years ago, why not believe defendant if he says the physical is not what it appears?

and this . . .

Gamaliel did not whip, persecute, or kill people who spoke up for Jesus. Gamaliel is known for his sympathetic treatment of early Christians. This even described in Acts. Your slander of this man is damn lie and is shameful.

and this . . .

I am willing to acept eyewitness testimony for some matters in regard to Christianity. But such as extraordinary claim as God came to Earth, died, rose from the dead requires more than just testimony from non-eyewtinesses. I do not accept the claims of eyewitnesses (or second accounts of eyewitnesses) of other religions either.

You ask us to accept an irrational position, and one that you yourself have not been following throughout this thread.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

You need to go back and read what I wrote again.You are either not thinking about what I wrote or you are purposley twisting it.

It is real simple, can you demonstrate the factual correctness of the position that God is real and that God is Jesus by presenting evidence without assuming the correctness (or incorrectness) of whether God exists and that God is Jesus?

Do you think it is better to try to determine the factual correctness of something:

1. by assuming that it is factually correct unless shown otherwise
2. by assuming that it is factually incorrect unless shown otherwise
3. by not assuming that it is factually correct and not assuming that is factually incorrect, but instead to examine the evidence without bias

 

[Valke2]

How about until it is directly answered? Or until someone can in a neutral manner present the evidence that God is real and that Jesus in God. Or can the case only be made from a position of bias?

The case can be made only from a position of bias. As with other beliefs, such as love, hate, afterlife, souls, trinity, oneness, choseness, Allah, Moses, Mohammed('s visions), Jesus, ressurection, exodus, redemption, power of prayer, power of sacrifice, creation, Eden, purgatory, heaven, hell, …

all require an element of bias.

 

[clmowry]

Well by your requirements the theory of atoms has not yet been proven.

You couldn’t accept the testimony of anybody who believes the theory, so you’d be looking for evidence to confirm a theory from scientist that don’t believe in the theory.

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Right about the time you build your own device that lets you see the particles that make up an atom you’d be good to go.

Chuck

The neutral position is not a statement that can be judged to be true or false. It is a methodical starting point.

Let’s say you are deciding if the theory of atoms is correct. You would not from the position that theory of atoms is correct until shown to be false. Nor would you take the position that it is definitely false until proven true. You would start from a neutral position and say let me see the evidence.

 

[jmcrae]

The neutral position is not a statement that can be judged to be true or false. It is a methodical starting point.

Let’s say you are deciding if the theory of atoms is correct. You would not from the position that theory of atoms is correct until shown to be false. Nor would you take the position that it is definitely false until proven true. You would start from a neutral position and say let me see the evidence.

It’s not possible to be “neutral” in this sense. What the scientist would actually do is he would begin with a hypothesis (either that it’s true or that it’s not true), and then he would test his hypothesis using whatever criteria makes the most sense to him.

Anyway, I think we have drifted a long way from the original subject.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Anyway, I think we have drifted a long way from the original subject.

Ok. I will start a new thread to see if anyone can establish through evidence that God is real and that Jesus is God without starting from a biased position.

This thread can be closed.