No, I would not want to be found guilty on anecdotal evidence or hearsay. I fail to see how that ties in with God. God has given all kinds of reasonable evidence, of which you are brushing off. I offered to debate you on the subject of prophecy, as to its reasonableness.
Prophecy would fall under 'spectral evidence' which you've noticeably neglected to mention, but this too is not admissible in a court of law.
I did not speak of it because I did not know what it meant and was busy so I did not take the time to look it up. Now I have and you must be joking. What was revealed in visions and dreams was witnessed in history. The history is the evidence that such things did come to pass as previously written about in the manner said.
Would you accept spectral evidence alone to convict you of a murder you haven't committed yet?
No, how could anyone be so stupid?A person cannot be convicted of a crime that has not been committed? You are conflating two different things, a conviction which works on what has happened and prophecy which works on something in the future that has not yet happened. The nature of prophecy is different.
I seriously doubt it. It seems you understand the standard of evidence you're advocating is insufficient for a court of law which would certainly make it insufficient to 'convict' the Biblical god of existence. Something to think about...
The standard of evidence was accepted by the man (also founded Harvard Law School) who wrote a treatise on evidence that is still in use today. In that treatise he deals with what constitutes legal evidence in regards to witnesses and he considered the writers of Scripture to fit into the category of reliable evidence. And that aspect is just one of many proofs available.
You are being ridiculous. One object plus another object equals two objectives. 1+1=2. It does not equal something else. If Christianity is true then all other gods and religious beliefs (of which I include atheism as a belief) are false. It is as simple as that. But it is difficult to convince and unbeliever since they have invested their whole outlook on another system of thought. Therefore, I have challenged you, based on atheism, to show yours is more reasonable than my Christian belief in the area of morality, of which you have to date avoided doing.
In that case, your reasons for belief are not impossibility of the contrary. How can you argue impossibility of the contrary without evaluating the "contrary"? Aren't you just assuming the truth of your view without going through the standard you claim?
Truth is the gauge by which falsehood is measured. For there to be a counterfeit there must be a real to compare the counterfeit against. Once I have the real I have the standard. As I have said, if you want to pick a religion to compare the reasonableness and impossibility of the contrary them make a thread. I do not know of one of the major religions that do not contradict others in its teachings or doctrines. Thus, it is impossible that all but one, if any, can be true. I argue that the Judeo-Christian belief system is the truth standard.
It is impossible that two contrary things can be true at the same time regarding the same thing.
I provided a response to your challenge in post #238.
I have responded to that post, but I am still making my way, in order, down the lists of posts. I am on page 10, where this post is found.
You are confusing God as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation is simple.
Nothing can be 'simpler' than an infinite being, amIright?!
That is not my argument. The explanation is simple. He merely spoke the universe into existence. Very simple in comparison to let's say the Big Bang.
How does 'subject' apply to God? I think you are confusing two different things, that a subjective being cannot be objective. Then how does God qualify? He knows all things. How would His knowledge be subjective?
Is it your position an omniscient being is incapable of subjectivity?
What do you mean by subjectivity? I think you are crossing two definitions, that which applies to us and that which applies to God.
- Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1]
- Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[2]
- Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.
These various definitions of subjectivity are sometimes joined together in philosophy. The term is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, and personal or cultural understanding of, and beliefs about, an external phenomenon, that are specific to a subject.
Subjectivity is contrasted to the philosophy of objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality that is free of any individual's biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.
How would God fit into that definition of subjectivity that is applied to you or I? He know all things. God knows the truth of reality. He created the physical reality.
How would you square that with the Biblical god having a "chosen people"?!
He is not a 'respecter of people. He could have chosen anyone. He chose Israel as the vehicle to make Himself known and supply the Messiah, from whom He would save His people.
Also, if you're willing to admit a subjective being can be objective...then you provide all that is needed for morality without the need for a god.
I am speaking of interpretation of the Bible and in understanding others. In the case of morality I question what the objective standard you profess that excludes God. You have still to reveal that objective standard you speak of.
Are you saying that something supernatural is not personal,
No. I'm saying all too often what cannot be explained by our current understanding of nature is considered supernatural or attributed to it.
Supernatural would exclude nature as an explanation. If it is not natural it must be a being - yes or no?
Or are you speaking of a force such as in Starwars? If a force lacks personhood what can it do and would that force not be considered natural too, since it owes no explanation to personhood?
