Og3 wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:43 pm
so you're objecting to a modern day tourist rip-off, and conflating it with a historical argument from silence.
Yes, and it is a very strong argument from silence as most Christians assert that there was a Jesus of Nazareth with very little evidence to support a thriving city or town. Or hamlet.
Anyway, you've got the facts wrong: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Nazareth. Far end of the country.
There are no facts, there is no archaeological evidence of Bethlehem existing at the time of Jesus either.
Honestly, SEG, I'm starting to give up on a reasonable discussion. You are fixed in your belief that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, and you are fixed further in your belief that there is no God.
Not at all, change my mind with some verifiable evidence outside of your storybook.
If God met with you and spoke to you like Morgan Freeman in Bruce Almighty, you'd write it off as a hallucination or a magic trick.
Correct, that's what most rational people that haven't been indoctrinated into believing invisible supernatural powers would deduce. Why? Because we have evidence that people have hallucinations everywhere and in all cultures. We also have evidence that people have been tricked by clever magicians. We don't, and never had any evidence of gods existing or having supernatural powers.
There is literally nothing that would convince you, because you have so firmly fixed the fore-drawn conclusion in your mind.
Wrong. Show me the evidence and I will believe. Whereas it is very unlikely that you will ever stop believing in gods with invisible supernatural powers.
I've shown you that your type of reasoning -- judging evidence by whether it agrees with you, instead of judging your conclusion by evidence -- is known as Kripkean Dogmatism, and that it's poor reasoning.
Which I am not guilt of it. You however, will never be convinced that your life long obsession with the Christian gods of Jesus and Yahweh don't exist. Do you consider yourself to be a Kripkean Dogmatist, and if not, why not?
I've shown you that a person who is not willing to be reasonable can lock onto any belief set -- for example, that there is no Australia -- and can follow the same kinds of arguments that you use when you refuse to consider that you may be wrong.
It boils down to this Og. There are mountains of all types of verifiable evidence of Australia and there is none for ANY gods, supernatural events, or archaeological evidence for Nazareth or Bethlehem existing as cities or towns in the 1st century. So why should I believe any of those?
I've shown you by example, naming times in my life when I have rethought and sometimes changed very deeply-held convictions, based entirely on evidence
You should know by now the value of emotional anecdotal evidence. It doesn't rate as anything convincing. Just because something happened to you that was unusual and affected your emotions doesn't equate to it being true.
I've even challenged you and the others to name a time when they analyzed beliefs objectively with a resolution to belief what they concluded to be true in spite of prior convictions.
I think that the trouble with your beliefs is that the criteria isn't well established. You keep talking about a god, spiritual beings or events when you can't define what those things actually are. For example if you tell me that God is love, or spirits and souls are energy, they are meaningless phrases unless you clearly define what these "things" are or why they are important to my life.
I'm open to being convinced of anything that may be valuable to my life, but you and other believers have not come up with anything at all convincing.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.