Evidence, Rationality, and Christianity

Like demanding physical proof for the existence of the immaterial or demanding that someone you don’t want to meet show up and knock on your door are both entirely rational.

If you really want not to believe, denial is easy.

…neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.

1 Like

Indoctrination is a good thing, if the doctrine is true. (You can’t run highly technical and sophisticated equipment without good indoctrination.)

I have done neither.

First things first. Let’s see someone rise from the dead.

He didn’t say that at all.

At your demand. Right.

In effect you have.

If you think so, you have misread.

Hey, you’re the one saying I wouldn’t believe it if it happened. How can you know unless it happens?

What did he say, then? Are you his official spokesman?

I quoted what he said, and will again:

That is pretty plain English and does not need a spokesman to interpret it.

Since you quite apparently are not a searcher and more than wanting to say that it’s irrational, but rather demanding it, I will concur with him that there is not much point in arguing with you.

It did happen, there is evidence and it is not irrational. It is not at all irrational to understand that the Creator of all that is physical could enter his creation and supersede and countermand the physical laws he had instituted, just like an engineer could to any device he had built.

Suit yourself.

As you say, there is not much point in arguing, which perhaps is why you don’t try.

1 Like

You like to exclude context.

Says the man who has excluded all context from his retort.

1 Like

The context you excluded:

Surely you understand that putting “It is not at all irrational” in front of a statement does not make the following remarks rational. You need to demonstrate that something is rational instead of just asserting that it is rational. For example . . .

It is not at all irrational to understand that Santa Claus can send himself down a chimney and put presents in stockings.

1 Like

That is not analogous, because there is evidence for the Creator of the universe.

That’s not evidence. It’s just a hypothetical. Sure, if there were a God he could perform miracles. But a claim that God could perform miracles is not evidence that miracles happened, and a claim that miracles happened is not evidence that miracles happened.

1 Like

There is evidence that the Christ rose from the dead and all that is is not only material. You just choose to disbelieve it. Denialism is easy.

Evidence for a creator of the universe is not evidence for your god. I’d say there’s copious evidence against your god. But I would also say there is no evidence for a creator of the universe. Could you briefly summarize your evidence? Is it “hey, look at all the stuff in the universe”?

1 Like

That evidence would be the New Testament? Are the Eddas evidence that Thor makes the thunder? Is the Iliad evidence that Aphrodite helped destroy Troy?

1 Like

Since you do not allow for the existence of the immaterial or allow evidence for the existence any god, that argument is silly, coming from you.

Plenty of evidence by expositors better than I has been presented here at PS across the months, you have denied it and I am not going to try and repeat it. Denialism is easy and makes further discussion with you pointless.