Why does God hide himself?

[whatchamean?]

pianodwarf stated
That is, indeed, a most extraordinary claim.  What evidence do you have to support it?

The testimony of those who prophecied the event and the testimony of those who witnessed it.

[Mr. Blackwell]

The testimony of those who prophecied the event and the testimony of those who witnessed it.

Isn't that kinda like hearsay?

[pianodwarf]

pianodwarf stated
That is, indeed, a most extraordinary claim.  What evidence do you have to support it?

The testimony of those who prophecied the event and the testimony of those who witnessed it.

That is not evidence.  That is the claim that requires evidence.

[whatchamean?]

JeffPT stated
Right.  So why doesn't God save people who are also in danger of burning for all eternity in hell?  Does God not realize our eternal lives are in peril?

You don't want Gods help Jeff, so why are you complaining?

Because you people say God is good, that's why I would expect it.  If God is good, he would act like it.  He wouldn't act like a pissy little bitch who only cares for people when he gets what he wants from them.  If that's the God you believe in, that's fine.  Don't try to make it seem like God is good though.   If you want to say that God is an ass hole who does things his way no matter whether you like it or not, then you may be on to something.

If dying for your wrongdoing makes God a b**** and an a****** to you that's your right. 

Do you have kids?...do you love them and try to help them no matter what they do?

Of course, and the Bible says Christ died for sinners. Nobody loved him before he loved them.   

If I were God, I would give everyone evidence that I was real....I would simply give everyone whatever evidence they required.  The picture of God that you are painting makes him really seem like a prick.

What evidence that God is real could be greater than coming to earth in the person of Jesus?

He's like an overbearing boss who has no pity for anyone other than those who do exactly what he wants.

If God only loved people who did exactly what He wants, nobody would be loved, would they Jeff?

What a great Christian you are.  I hold out hope that one day you will turn into a nice person despite your belief in this type of God.

You sould like your angry because God chose to love you inspite of your hatred for Him. That's rather sad.

[whatchamean?]

pianodwarf stated
That is not evidence.  That is the claim that requires evidence.

You have it backwards. Any evidence requires a claim, so your own existence will be based on the testimony of those who knew you.

[curiousgirl]

pianodwarf stated
That is not evidence.  That is the claim that requires evidence.

You have it backwards. Any evidence requires a claim, so your own existence will be based on the testimony of those who knew you.

Whatchamean, maybe since you are new, you don't really understand how things work around here. From the Rules page:

•Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.

My bolding above. You need to provide evidence for the Bible as a historical document, and for the existence of God. Otherwise, you will probably end up being moderated like many other Bible-preachers in this forum.

[pianodwarf]

pianodwarf stated
That is not evidence.  That is the claim that requires evidence.

You have it backwards. Any evidence requires a claim, so your own existence will be based on the testimony of those who knew you.

OK, at this point, based on what you just said here, I'm starting to think that you're so irrational that you can't even be engaged in debate, but I'll try a little while longer...

The Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead.  This is a claim.  In order to have skeptics such as myself accept your claim, you need to provide evidence that your claim is true.  Your evidence must be (among other things) nonfallacious.  For example, you cannot say that your claim is true because the Bible says it is; that is called "circular logic", and it is a fallacy.

[jetson]

Hmmm...someone convince me that watchamean is not QM.  QuestionMark, is that you?  Are you back to taunt us again?

[Brakeman]

You didn't answer the big question. Why don't you pray for biblical clarity and explain it all for us?

Wouldn't it be better if you prayed for biblical clarity and then you would know for yourself?

Answer the question chicken ..

Yep Jetson I think this is QM. He knows that he can't answer the hard questions so he constantly parries and dodges. I wish he'd get a life..

[Mr. Blackwell]

Well shit, whatchamean? while we are at it....why did you skip right over this comment?

Isn't that kinda like hearsay?

Was it not confrontational enough for you?

How about this...Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B (the "declarant") told me that the defendant killed the victim." The definition of hearsay is not too difficult to understand.

To rephrase the emboldened part lets say;  Witness A, a few weeks after the crucifixion, claimed "Thomas told me that Jesus rose from the tomb and if HE says it, it MUST be true!"

Where is the evidence for the statement "Jesus was resurrected"?

This type of testimony is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law...for a reason.
 

[Anfauglir]

Point was the evidence is all around you, even if you never used the Bible. Even if nobody ever preached the gospel.

I repeat:

Like I said - there are thousands of possible gods out there, most of whom make the same "you must seek me sincerely and wholeheartedly" demand.  But without them making the first move, there is no way to decide where first to devote my energies.  And before you bring it up - no, the Bible is NOT a valid first move, because if it is then so is every single story of every single other god there is, was, or will be - and once again, we are back to there being no standout reason to choose to consider YOUR particular god.

The "evidence" all around us is - at best - evidence of a god.  Not your particular tribal god, just possibly evidence of a god in general.

If you want to use "the evidence is all around you" to prove YOUR particular god, then you need to show that that "evidence" of the world ONLY matches the way your religion says the world should be, and that of no other god that may be claimed to exist.  Otherwise, saying "look at the world" is just as good evidence for the Great Green Arkleseizure.

So what is there specifically about the world that could ONLY have come into being if your chosen god existed?

[whatchamean?]

pianodwarf stated
OK, at this point, based on what you just said here, I'm starting to think that you're so irrational that you can't even be engaged in debate, but I'll try a little while longer...

What is irrational about the fact that without testimony, evidence is nothing?

The Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead.  This is a claim.  In order to have skeptics such as myself accept your claim, you need to provide evidence that your claim is true. Your evidence must be (among other things) nonfallacious.  For example, you cannot say that your claim is true because the Bible says it is; that is called "circular logic", and it is a fallacy.

Uh, apparently you really don't know what circular logic is. While it would never be possible to verify by external means even a few claims about any one person during a given period, to say that using historical documents which mention werfied persons, places, times  and events is circular reasoning is retarded. I suggest you look up circular logic and use a site with has no ties to atheism for  a correct definition.

[jetson]

Uh, apparently you really don't know what circular logic is. While it would never be possible to verify by external means even a few claims about any one person during a given period, to say that using historical documents which mention werfied persons, places, times  and events is circular reasoning is retarded. I suggest you look up circular logic and use a site with has no ties to atheism for  a correct definition.

Errr...pot, meet kettle.

[whatchamean?]

Originally posted by Brakeman
Answer the question chicken ..
YepJetson I think this is QM. He knows that he can't answer the hard questions so he constantly parries and dodges. I wish he'd get a life..

Actually I have a life which is why I can't spend too much time on this site speaking to you. The answer to your juvenile question is that God has given me alot of incite into His word, but I don't know it all.  I wasn't aware of your belief grade school belief of the fate of Sodom, which has been discovered by archaeologists. What are you, 12?

[pianodwarf]

What is irrational about the fact that without testimony, evidence is nothing?

Umm... because it isn't true?

Uh, apparently you really don't know what circular logic is.

I'm sorry, but yes, I really do.  I majored in philosophy, and one of the requirements for that is to study logic.  I took two three-credit courses in it and got A's in both of them.

While it would never be possible to verify by external means even a few claims about any one person during a given period

Of course it would.  That's ridiculous.

to say that using historical documents which mention werfied persons, places, times  and events is circular reasoning is retarded.

{Emphases both mine}

The boldfaced section is question-begging, the italicized is an ad hominem.  Which fallacy are you going to use next?

[jetson]

Watchamean, please provide evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.  Otherwise, I will consider your reply to pianodwarf trolling, which is against the forum rules.  If you do not have evidence that is extra biblical, that Jesus, the one and only Jesus, rose from the dead, and you can refer only to the Bible, then you are using a circular argument.

Please PM me directly if you have any questions.

Jetson

[whatchamean?]

pianodwarf stated
Umm... because it isn't true?

Just one example and I'll concede my point

[whatchamean?]

Jetson stated
Watchamean, please provide evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.  Otherwise, I will consider your reply to pianodwarf trolling, which is against the forum rules.  If you do not have evidence that is extra biblical, that Jesus, the one and only Jesus, rose from the dead, and you can refer only to the Bible, then you are using a circular argument.
Please PM me directly if you have any questions.
Jetson

I must confess that I did not read your rules before joining your forum Jetson and I'm unfamiliar with the term trolling. It seems very important to your members to discredit historical documents which span centuries simply because at one point they were compiled into one book. Sounds illogical, as all of history is depends on writings. 

[Gnu Ordure]

whatchamean:

What is irrational about the fact that without testimony, evidence is nothing?

Umm... because it isn't true?

Just one example and I'll concede my point

Anything we know about pre-history would qualify. We know from the evidence that dinosaurs walked the earth a long time ago, but we have no testimony to support it.

[whatchamean?]

Gnu Ordure stated
Anything we know about pre-history would qualify. We know from the evidence that dinosaurs walked the earth a long time ago, but we have no testimony to support it.

I thought it was a given we were speaking about people, historical figures, or anyone after they drop over.

[jetson]

I must confess that I did not read your rules before joining your forum Jetson and I'm unfamiliar with the term trolling. It seems very important to your members to discredit historical documents which span centuries simply because at one point they were compiled into one book. Sounds illogical, as all of history is depends on writings.

Read the rules, simple.  Second, we are here to discuss our views, and we already know there is disagreement.  So what we strive for is intellectual honesty as much as possible.  My last post to you was bold green, which is my moderator voice.  Now I'm speaking as a member, and I will reply to your assertion that the Bible is considered "historical documents".  Is that what you are claiming?

[Brakeman]

Originally posted by Brakeman
Answer the question chicken ..
YepJetson I think this is QM. He knows that he can't answer the hard questions so he constantly parries and dodges. I wish he'd get a life..

Actually I have a life which is why I can't spend too much time on this site speaking to you. The answer to your juvenile question is that God has given me alot of incite into His word, but I don't know it all.  I wasn't aware of your belief grade school belief of the fate of Sodom, which has been discovered by archaeologists. What are you, 12?

in·cite/in?s?t/
Verb:   

   1. Encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).
   2. Urge or persuade (someone) to act in a violent or unlawful way: "he incited loyal subjects to rebellion".

Is that a Freudian Slip or what.. The term you were probably looking for is "insight"

When and why would god give you insight that he does not give to anyone else? How do you know it's god?

Sodom, the God destroyed city of the bible has not been discovered by archaeologists, unless you're speaking of Ron Wyatt, and if you are, then HA Ha HA ha HA!

No I'm not 12, I'm 48 and well educated, and I'm not afraid to have a straight on discussion or debate without dodging or misleading to defend any precious delusions.

Any of the readers of the forum can easily see who is the 12 year old in this conversation.
Why won't you answer if you are the poster that used to go as the moniker Question Mark?

[whatchamean?]

pianodwarf stated
I'm sorry, but yes, I really do.  I majored in philosophy, and one of the requirements for that is to study logic.  I took two three-credit courses in it and got A's in both of them.

And you used examples of extra biblical historical documents containing verifiable people, places, events such as 1st century Christian persecution etc. which are also mentioned in the Bible and your prof told you using the Bible to prove claims not mentioned in extra sources was circular logic? BS.

[whatchamean?]

Brakeman stated
No I'm not 12, I'm 48 and well educated, and I'm not afraid to have a straight on discussion or debate without dodging or misleading to defend any precious delusions.

My spelling does work, but anyone who would say Lots wife like to watch couldn't be over 12. Unlike most of your members so far, you really aren't worth talking to

[pianodwarf]

I asked:

Which fallacy are you going to use next?

And you responded:

And you used examples of extra biblical historical documents containing verifiable people, places, events such as 1st century Christian persecution etc. which are also mentioned in the Bible and your prof told you using the Bible to prove claims not mentioned in extra sources was circular logic? BS.

So now I have my answer: Strawman.

[whatchamean?]

Jetson stated
Read the rules, simple.  Second, we are here to discuss our views, and we already know there is disagreement.  So what we strive for is intellectual honesty as much as possible.  My last post to you was bold green, which is my moderator voice.  Now I'm speaking as a member, and I will reply to your assertion that the Bible is considered "historical documents".  Is that what you are claiming?

I will go thru your rules Jetson and yes, the Bible is a historical document, in fact many. I'll be signing off for now.

[whatchamean?]

pianodwarf stated
So now I have my answer: Strawman.

That was about your philosophy class. Still waiting for your one example. (need to go to bed now)

[jetson]

Jetson stated
Read the rules, simple.  Second, we are here to discuss our views, and we already know there is disagreement.  So what we strive for is intellectual honesty as much as possible.  My last post to you was bold green, which is my moderator voice.  Now I'm speaking as a member, and I will reply to your assertion that the Bible is considered "historical documents".  Is that what you are claiming?

I will go thru your rules Jetson and yes, the Bible is a historical document, in fact many. I'll be signing off for now.

OK, now I will ask you to cite sources, which are extra-biblical, that support your claim specifically.  And I would ask you to point out which parts of any of the books or letters in the Bible are historical, and which are not.

[Omen]

I will go thru your rules Jetson and yes, the Bible is a historical document, in fact many. I'll be signing off for now.

Modern historical scholarship does not treat the bible as 100% historical.  The only individuals that do are fringe evangelical religious apologist.

Much of the bible has no historical support and is in fact contradicted by actual archaeological and historical scholarship.  Noah's ark, the tower of babel, exodus, and the rest of the more 'pivotal' assertions of biblical myth are completely rejected by historians.