Why is scientific evidence required for my belief? Why do you get to dictate that?
Where did I suggest (let alone dictate) that scientific evidence is required for belief? Find it. Quote it. Link to it. It did not happen.
YOU said you had evidence for God. That Jesus is Lord. Remember? Evidence is not belief, Joshua. Belief is necessary when there is insufficient evidence.
I never said I wasn't making assumptions regarding the New Testament. I assume the authors were honest.
To assume means to take for granted: accept as true without evidence.
Your initial claim was regarding "an amalgam of the evidence that led me to the conclusion" that Jesus is God (and thus that God exists).
You've reversed yourself. First you were led by the evidence. Now you've made (a rather large) assumption.
I don't care to be right with you so why waste my time demonstrating the errors you have made.
Yeah, that's it Joshua. You nailed it.
You could have been demonstrating my errors in your last half dozen posts in this thread.
You just don't care to. It would be a waste of your time. You know, as opposed to the good use of your time where you keep coming back for one bruising after another.
Would you accept them anyway?
I would accept supported claims or rebuttals, yes.
If you ever start caring to post any.
I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You've won the argument you're having with yourself. Congratulations.
I didn't argue with myself. I falsified your claim that you have evidence that Jesus is God.
Joshua, you DO realize we have photographs of Abe Lincoln, right?
What an odd comparison.
We don't even have accurate paintings of Jesus Christ. Compare his paintings and then you'll see Jesus had different colored hair and was also white or dark skinned depending the ethnocentricity of the painter.
Most Atheists will concede a man named Jesus existed. What we contest is all the extra magical "stuff" that is thrown in afterwards.
I've already explained myself several times and you still persist. Since you have meticulously poured over my posts ( something even if momentary I am unwilling to do with your posts not because you have mischaracterized me and you'll just continue to do so but because I don't care to dedicate more than a few moments to tap out a message.) Again you seem to think I'm arguing with you and I'm not.
Of course you're arguing with me.
Here you're repeating the same false charge that I have mischaracterized you. I did nothing of the kind. You only insist that I did and then refuse to specify how. If you don't support the point you haven't made it.
You're a liar, Joshua. Dismissed.
I do have evidence that has led me to the conclusion that Jesus is Lord.
No, you don't. You have faith and you're calling it evidence.
Mainly that the man Jesus was a real historical figure (as opposed to Thor and the tooth fairy)
A historical Jesus is not evidence that Jesus is God. The conclusion does not follow the premise.
and the bible is an accurate record of his life, death, and resurrection.
These are claims, not evidence.
I don't think you understand how we know things in history (hence the continued demand for scientific evidence). Can you scientifically demonstrate that Abraham Lincoln existed?
Do you know how many photographs we have of Abraham Lincoln?
Thanks for demonstrating my lack of understanding.
How is that testable and repeatable?
Claim: Lincoln existed.
Evidence: Photos of Lincoln. His grave. His corpse. His writings. His descendants. His genetics. Newspaper articles written about him during his time. The legislation he signed into law as President. The list goes on: thousands of independently falsifiable pieces of empirical evidence from thousands of sources, cross-referenced and mutually supporting.
Testable and repeatable: As needed.
Claim: God exists.
It's what I've said from the beginning you are committing a category error in demanding scientific evidence for God.
It's what I've said from the beginning: if the standard of "evidence" for God is so degraded that observation, reason and falsification (the scientific standards) do not apply then you're demanding a special category of "evidence" for God that isn't evidence at all.
Even philosophically that seems silly.
Don't be so hard on yourself, Joshua.
Sure I could william lane Craig this post
You wouldn't be the first Christian apologist to come to these forums having mistaken a powderpuff like Craig for a heavyweight champion.
or even worse go all you can't make sense of your question without God and presup but I'm not.
I'm not trying to convince anyone
That's good, because you're not at all convincing.
and reject the notion that I must provide anything you require.
I didn't say you have to provide me anything.
I said you haven't provided anything-- by way of evidence or reason-- to support the existence of God.
Plenty of others have done that and you can feel free to read their books.
If you haven't supported the point you haven't made it.
Those pictures [of Abraham Lincoln] are fake therefore not evidence.
You're making a claim here. Burden of proof, Joshua. What's your evidence that the pictures of Abraham Lincoln are fake?
If you don't support your point you haven't made one.
Not sure if serious
You don't seem like the trolling type - So you DO believe they are ALL fakes?
Your logic seems to be
A man named Jesus existed. Therefore, everything in the bible is true and ALSO he's the son Yahweh.
I hope you can see that proving a man actually existed in no way demonstrates he had magical powers.
Nothing in those wikipedia articles demonstrates he's magical. Only that there is evidence he may have existed as a real man.
Also, I think you'd be quite surprised how much atheists have learned about the topic of Jesus's historicity.
For one, I have watched dozens of debates on the topic from evangelists, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and the like.
I personally believe he existed.
Your turn to prove me that he's magical.
The deluded aspect falls into the category of lunatic.
Also, note that "Legend" can be an obvious 4th option.
Also note that 1 or more options can be accurate as well such as a lying lunatic or a Lunatic Legend or a lying legend.
Hell, for that matter "Lying Lord" or "Lunatic Lord" could be conceivable as well.
Without fools there would be no doGs.
Without the brainwashing of children there would be no Religion.
Hey Renee.Check out this Zeigeist documentary on religion. It blew my mind and seems to make so much sense. If anyone has any comments on it or has seen it before please let me know your thoughts on it!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZgT1SRcrKE