Sure. It *could* have been that. I'm not saying that it *couldn't* have been that. But mere possibility doesn't arise as a meaningful counterargument to anything.

Please show me where I did that.

Do you not see yourself bouncing back and forth between multiple forms of argumentation? I guess you don't because you keep doing it and you're not addressing the underlying issue.

(1) Your argument right now is talking about the existence of "real events"
(2) Your argument previously was talking about the existence of "exaggerated events"

It's *NOT* the same argument. No matter how many times you repeat it, it's *NOT* the same argument.

Oy. There are virtually no historians of significant value that reject the historicity of Jesus. Please see one of the many threads in this forum that discuss this. We *do* know that there was a historical Jesus. This isn't really a question.

I never said that you're not justified in claiming God doesn't exist. I'm claiming that the argument you're making to get there sucks.

(Incidentally, you're also committing a theological error in claiming that God is only involved in the extraordinary. There are many places in the Bible that suggests God is involved in the mundane as well, like feeding the birds and such.)

And here is where I'm getting on your case about the narrowness of your argument. You've identified *TWO* things about God and you're trying to extrapolate those *TWO* things to encompass some broad concept. And the only way you can narrow yourself to those *TWO* things is by pleading ignorance to the rest of the Bible. But you claim to be more knowledgeable than average with respect to the Bible, so you don't have access to that route.

I'm confirming the object and not the process by which the object was made. This distinction matters because only one claim is subject to the naive evidentialist approach.

If I saw "I drew a picture" and then brought out a picture, there's no way for you to confirm that I actually drew that picture. You might be able to infer whether I drew it based on the perceived quality of the picture, but there's no way to distinguish whether I drew it or whether someone of comparable skill to me drew it. You could always stand there and deny that I drew it, and there will be nothing I can do to prove to you that I drew it. (Even if I drew another copy of it, I couldn't prove to you that I made the original. Maybe I'm just good at copying pictures.)

If it is true that I drew the picture, then the picture is evidence of my having drawn it. The evidence confirms the act. And you can confirm that I have this picture that I'm showing you.

This is also where you're getting into trouble with your approach to truth and the Bible. If there was a global flood, and there was evidence of a global flood, you would always have the capacity to deny that God caused a global flood because you can always assert that it was some set of natural causes. But if there was a global flood and no evidence of a global flood, it would be impossible for you to become convinced that a global flood occurred, so that you can always deny that God caused a global flood (for lack of evidence). Notice how you can *always* present an argument to reach your desired conclusion, both with and without evidence. Therefore, your argument is disingenuous because you do not logically allow a conclusion other than the one you want to reach.

Yes they are, if there is a historical figure in question and we can not tie him to real events that happened and/or some sort of contemporary account we generally assume this person is made up.



I agree that most biblical scholars believe jesus was a real figure. However, most biblical scholars are also Christian. Dr. Robert price is one who argues jesus never existed. I however, don't agree with him but the reason why I think jesus existed is not the same reasons most historians use to address the existence of historical figures. My reason for thinking this is the fact that the gospels don't line up and they keep some events the same when it would be easier to just change the events to match up. This would imply that the events are based of some kind of real person.



I didn't say that.. Obviously we need more than just "mundane events" something like a slave revolt isn't really extra ordinary but if we could find evidence that happened then we could at the very least assume the bible paints an accurate picture of history. It can't even do that, let alone confirm the main character the book is about is a real one.


No, you are making unwarranted assumptions on my position. You are actually the one arguing from incredulity right now. You should know what I mean when I say that there are no events we can tie Yahweh too. I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse at this point.

Lol O geez.. So you are using the watchmaker argument. Someone already pointed out to you that this is a bad argument. We know pictures are drawn because we have examples of drawn pictures, we know writings are done by humans because we have examples of human writing. We do not know if universes are created because we do not have examples of created universes. We have one universe and you are assuming it is created to assume there is a creator. that is circular reasoning and bad logic.

You don't believe the same god as the people I am addressing with this argument. The way you see god could exist without the flood taking place.

Think of it this way.

Person 1: believes in a "historical Jesus"

person 2: believes in "jesus the messiah"

Although, both are based off the same idea do they both really believe in the same person?

No. They aren't. One is arguing *FOR* the existence of an entity and one is arguing *AGAINST* the existence of an entity. Notice how the argument you're presenting right here says *NOTHING* about the nature of exaggerated claims.

Furthermore, this is a *TERRIBLE* standard for historicity of persons. Absolutely horrendous. Tying people to events like this would negate the vast majority of the persons we believe to have existed. We accept the existence of persons by as little as a name on a log somewhere, even if we have no idea what the log referred to. We would even accept the existence of a person by a reference to a person, without having any way to verify that person.

This is just bad.


I want to point out the deep absurdities of this.

(1) You, a non-historian, think you're going to establish a more reliable standard of historicity than that which historians set? Really?
(2) You really don't think that historians do exactly what you say you're doing? That they don't make reasonable inferences based on the available information to try to reach reasonable conclusions about persons and events?

It's like your fixated on a cherry tree to deny George Washington's existence. You really can't see what you're doing?

No. You've literally pointed to *TWO* events and this isn't the first time I've said this of your argument. You are making your argument based on

(1) Global flood
(2) Slave revolt

I am responding to the argument that you're making in this thread, not the argument that exists in your head.

Do you know what it means to argue from incredulity? I've not actually advanced much of an argument about anything, which is intentional. I'm just trying to get you to see that your naive argumentation is far from sufficient.

Nah. It's just you. You've got a philosophical positioning that you can use to always deny God's involvement in anything. I've already elaborated on that in detail. But since you seem to struggle with the basicstructure of your own argumentation, I'm doubtful that you'll be able to understand something that has any level of nuance.

I wasn't making the watchmaker argument.

You have a terrible habit of selective reading. I have no idea what you're talking about.

This has nothing to do with what I was saying. Try again.

Aside from the fact that this statement is irrelevant to the statement I made, repeating your bad argument doesn't make it better.

Yes.

Person 1: Believes in a George Washington that was the first president of the United States
Person 2: Believes in a George Washington that cut down a cherry tree

I would say that they both believe in the same George Washington.

Aaron read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem

Do you see how these same problems can be applied to Yahweh? Although the claims of yahweh are extraordinary (unlike Socrates) the problem is that there are no reliable events or contemporary accounts to tie him to.

and yes, you certainly did use the watchmaker argument. It was not even cleverly hidden lol. You are arguing just because something exists it needs a designer.. You then use analogies of things that need a designer and try to compare them to things that may not.

Quit comparing George Washington to Yahweh. I have already explained why this is silly. We have contemporary accounts of George Washington, moments in history that are tired to George Washington, documents with the signature of George Washington etc... This is how we know he existed. It has nothing to do with a few legends that came from his name.

We have NONE of these things for Yahweh except the legends of course.

Ugh. This doesn't really work at all. You're mixing so many things together that you're making an incoherent argument. If we were to follow the "logic" (if it can be called that) you're presenting, we would conclude that Socrates wasn't a real person. But scholars agree that Socrates was a real person. So the problems don't apply to the God of the Bible in the way you need it to apply.

Mixing up this "extraordinary" bit into arguments that don't really rely upon it in any meaningful way is not helping you.

No. That's not what I'm arguing at all. The watchmaker argument relies upon the complexity of the universe to make an inference. But I've made no argument about the complexity of the universe.

My argument is addressing your naive evidentialism, that it's an underdetermined methodology and that you're limiting yourself to what things you might reasonably be able to conclude, and the extension of that is that you've established a standard for which it is logically impossible for you to conclude the existence of God.

You've tried, but you've failed. The comparison is apt because it addresses the ARGUMENT you're making. The way you're arguing is that you're starting with the conclusions you desire (George Washington exists, God does not), and then trying to work backwards from heuristics to support what you already believe.

Would it blow your mind to know that you believe George Washington exists because you were told all your life about a guy named George Washington? And then the details are filled in backwards based on whatever reading you did of independent resources? It's not as if the existence of George Washington was *ever* a real question in your mind.

No they don't.. Did you read the article? The answer is "unknowable"

The watchmaker argument does not necessarily rely on complexity. It relies on using patterns from human made objects that are "created" and compares them to things we see in nature arguing that because the same patterns exist a creator is needed, it completely ignores the fact that we only know those things are created because we have examples of this creation. What you need to do, is find a way to demonstrate the universe is created and needs a creation for your argument to work. The closest attempt at doing this is the "fine tuning" argument but that fails for other reasons imo.

True, but God was never a real question in my mind until I was 16 or so.. I imagine if there were reasons to not believe in George Washington I would have been made aware of them by now. So I do not think this is an issue of confirmation bias.

The answer to what question? Maybe you ought to declare (in your own words) what the "Socratic problem" is and what you think the "answer" is, because it's far from clear that you even know what you linked to.

Ummmmm... so you have absolutely no clue about anything that I've been arguing.

You seem to have little idea what I'm saying in multiple arguments. We'll come back to this later so that you can focus on Socrates.

it is a problem with conflicting sources and ideas that he had. It is not know whether he is made up or a real figure in history because of this. Because these sources are all we have as evidence for his existence.

Ive asked you at least 5 times to provide evidence we are created and you just keep saying stuff like: You're living in a creation, how can you not be created? Where is the evidence this is a creation? that is what I am asking....

Okay. So you really don't know what you're talking about. Historians agree that Socrates was a real person.

From the Philosophy Stack Exchange:

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/...ented-by-plato

From online course notes from college level classes:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl2...y_comment.html

http://philosophycourse.info/lecsite/lec-whoissoc.html

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entire section dedicated to the historical Socrates:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/so...isDraDatPlaDia

This, of course, leaves us with the question of what the Socratic problem is. From the wikipedia link you provided:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem

And from the SEP link:

The issue is that there are multiple sources of information about Socrates that contradict each other. And the "unknowable" element is that we probably won't know which one is the most accurate.

So... you don't actually understand the Socratic problem and it doesn't apply to the God of the Bible in any way.

Right... so you have no clue what I'm arguing.

I can extend this language to the idea that the Grand Canyon was created by water. There's no sense in which I'm implying anything about intelligence, intentionality, or anything when I say that an object was created.

OK, fair enough. I concede my argument about Socrates. I admit I had a few things wrong about the historical method then. I am going to also withdraw my argument that "god did not exist" based on my original concept. I am going to move to " I don't believe he existed".

I do want to get back to one thing though.

This is where the "creation" conversation started:


Originally Posted by fraleyight View Post
Give me one example of something the God of the bible did that has been confirmed.
"Creation is confirmed created."

Can you elaborate on how this applies to what you are saying now?

because this is much different: "I can extend this language to the idea that the Grand Canyon was created by water. There's no sense in which I'm implying anything about intelligence, intentionality, or anything when I say that an object was created."
Imo

Sure. I'm getting at something quite a bit more subtle here. It's the matter of how evidence is interpreted.

Here's the analogy I gave:

There is no doubt about the picture that I'm showing you. The doubt is whether *I* did it or whether someone else (or maybe even something else) did it. And no matter what, there are always ways you can doubt *my* authorship if you weren't privy to the direct witnessing of me drawing it. You can always speculate other possibilities about the origins of that picture. Maybe I just found it and I'm claiming it as my own. Maybe I commissioned it to be drawn and am taking credit for it. You don't know, and there's no way to confirm that I did it. You can simply remain incredulous about me being the author.

If it's actually true that I did it, then the drawing would be evidence of me drawing something. The drawing is a confirmation of my having drawn it. "Did you draw something?" "Yes, here it is."

That was my question, this was your answer:


This would seem your original point was god created the world as described in the bible, the world exists so it is evidence for god..

Now it seems you are using existence and creation as sort of a homonym. Help me understand what I am missing. If my interpretation of what you're saying is correct, how does this address the first question in this post?

Believing in God is not logical no matter what spin Aaron puts on it.

Actually there is a logic to it no matter what you say.