Puck,
Because of your legal background, I added another name for you to my list of believers on post #64: 
I also thought you might resonate with Abhu Murray. I enjoyed hearing him debate the evidence for the resurrection, which I saw on YouTube. He was also trained as a lawyer.
Your words here do not give that impression. Nowhere did you indicate that it might be you that is âan honest person who is closed to new inquiry because you think you know the truthâ.
Yes. I am also as hard on my own views as I am on the views of others.
More relevant to this conversation, when I say there is evidence of something I almost always give some short overview of what that evidence is - because not doing so leaves open the possibility that I donât understand it, am incapable of presenting or discussing it, and cannot evaluate it.
That really depends on what characteristics are assigned to âGodâ. Some versions of God are easy to disprove. Others are impossible to disprove because they are so nebulous.
Frustrations can arise with people who insist on the existence of the former, but insist on disproof for the latter.
Having seen some of his broadcasts, I strongly disagree that Muggeridge is reasonable or rational.
Roy ~ Of course, words in this context can never give a complete picture of their author. Nor would it be reasonable to think they do.
John ~ You are saying you are not satisfied with the evidence you have seen. I am saying that if you are honest and open, and you keep looking for the evidence that is available, you will eventually be satisfied. This is exactly what Jesus taught.
In Matthew 7 Jesus said, âDo not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. 7Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.âŚâ
You just accused John_Harshman of being dishonest again. You owe him an apology. Having someone not accept your evidence doesnât make them dishonest.
More relevant to this conversation, when someone demands evidence that is readily available, or tells me there is no evidence, I am reasonable to point them to what they should already know.
If you want someone to accept your evidence you need to be able to present it (at least summarize it) and defend it yourself. Merely going âread this and if you donât agree with it youâre dishonestâ is the rankest form of intellectual cowardice.
Why do Christians care about myths?
We were taught in grade school that myths are fictional stories. No nuances about how some myths function in the culture to supply answers to big questions, or a sense of identity and connection. The sine qua non of mythology in the popular mind is - fiction.
Christians and other âpeople of the Bookâ care that their story of origins is not unthinkingly relegated to the dustbin of mythology misconstrued. And it is very easy to justify this when many (mostly uneducated) Christians adopt a kind of hyperliteralism that strains our credulity.
Thereâs no fresh evidence. The evidence is all historical.
Iâm not aware of any that are convincing at all. As I have pointed out, the existence of a paranormal entity of unbelievable power should be expected to be detectable in some way unless it is simply hiding. When one has to reach two thousand years back and assert that occurrences of a paranormal nature, which correspond well to the sorts of things which are invariably, today, found to be false, are the principal body of evidence for such an entity, âgrasping for strawsâ really fails to capture the futility of the thing. Historical evidence cannot establish the reality of the paranormal.
As Iâve said, the âpositiveâ ad hominem argument works for me no better than the negative. And apologetics, regardless of whether one likes the source or not, arenât helpful. Just as with ID, what we tend to have is a very large amount of argument, and no new evidence; but argument, sans evidence, has nothing to work with and cannot move the needle.
And Iâm not sure I am receptive to arguments by lawyers any more than arguments by anyone else. Law is a peculiar field and it makes particular sorts of demands in the working-through of evidence, but these are not particularly useful when one is asking what forms of empirical inquiry would yield evidence of the existence of paranormal beings. And lawyers are rather like doctors and engineers â they tend to assume they know more than they do about reason and science, and thus make a muddle of it. Reservation of judgment on matters un-demonstrated is the mark of a good lawyer, and of a good judge of facts; but lawyers who exhibit horrible judgment outnumber those who exhibit good judgment by quite a considerable margin.
Puck ~ That is an entirely plausible thought. But what if that Being wanted to create a world in which he didnât want to destroy people with his mere presence. That is precisely what we see in the Old Testament stories of YHWH. And to be clear the prophets viewed God as a hiding God. For example, see Isaiah 45:15. It should be obvious that such a creator-God is smart enough to design us with what Richard Swinburne calls âepistemic distanceâ precisely so that any interaction with man will limited and on his terms. I call this the epistemic horizon built into human nature. It is probably similar the the gulf between ordinary matter and âso-calledâ dark matter.
But you havenât done that. You havenât pointed to any evidence, or even given the vaguest description of any evidence. Youâve just named some apologists.
Craig et al have written a great deal. Iâve read some of Craigâs work and a bit of Wrightâs, and not found it convincing. Instead, Iâve identified flaws in their reasoning. Iâve no reason to think the rest of their output would be any different, so no inclination to read any more.
Unless you say which specific pieces of evidence you mean, I canât tell whether youâre referring to the stuff Iâve already read and rejected, or to something I donât know about because itâs only found in the texts I havenât read. You canât know either. I do know that some people are convinced by, but canât readily explain, arguments Iâve found wanting. You may be another. Which leaves me with nothing but the suspicion that I hinted at earlier, and which you deleted from your reply - the possibility that you donât understand this evidence, are incapable of presenting or discussing it, and cannot evaluate it.
It leaves you in the position of having evidence of your deityâs existence - evidence that you find convincing - but not sharing it with people whoâve asked for details. What would your deity think of that?
Fresh evidence is occasionally found - the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example.
Then he could use his omnipotence to prevent that? Why do I find Christians to constantly underestimate the power of God in their ad-hoc rationalizations for why we canât find him anywhere we look?
I HAVE, otherwise you would not be discussing it.
SO ⌠What is it you find problematic about Bill Craigâs work on the resurrection?
That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But the only evidence we have is that it says so in old books. That just doesnât cut it.
Surely this notion is in conflict with the Bible, where we can read that God walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve, and where we can read that Jesus walked the Earth and performed miracles in the presence of lots of people.
faded ~ That actually confirms my thesis. The world he created is a safe interface. God designed a safe interface in Jesus, but it rendered him unrecognizable to most people. But he tells us there is coming a time when the presence of Jesus will destroy his enemies.
Holy God and unholy men are not compatible. God placed us in a world where we can live temporarily without being destroyed. But the Bible is clear that destruction is coming for all who reject God.
What Iâm finding problematic is that you havenât pointed to any evidence, or even given the vaguest description of any evidence. Youâve just named some apologists. Repeating one of the names doesnât change that.
Iâm not discussing the evidence, Iâm discussing your failure to describe any evidence and the increasing probability that this is because you havenât got any evidence worth discussing.