Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's an assertion.

It's a statement of observational fact. Feel free to prove that the observation was not made.

I'll reject that person's claim until it's proved.

You can refuse to believe anything you like, but that is not evidence that the objective truth-value of the claim is zero.

I never said it was. I just said it's irrational to believe it. Something may be true, but still it may be irrational to believe in it.

like - the allegation that there are three headed fish that are as intelligent as humans living at the bottom of an under-ice ocean on Europe. It's irrational to believe that. Is it true? I don't know.

Do you get it yet?

Similarly - "God exists."

"I don't believe it."

Why not?

"Nobody has proved it or presented evidence for it."

"Well, might it be true?"

"Sure, it might, I suppose."

"So, why don't you believe it?"

"Because I'm not aware of any reason to believe it."

"Could there be a reason to believe it of which you are unaware?"

"Yes, of course. If I'm unaware of something, then I don't know it, and there are many things I don't know."

"So, why don't you believe it?"

"Because I don't have any reason to believe it. When I do, I'll change my mind."

"But, just because you don't believe it, that doesn't mean it isn't true!"

"Sure, I know that. A lot of things might be true. I just have no reason to believe it, so I don't believe in God."

[Seth]

It's an assertion.

It's a statement of observational fact. Feel free to prove that the observation was not made.

I'll reject that person's claim until it's proved.

You can refuse to believe anything you like, but that is not evidence that the objective truth-value of the claim is zero.

I never said it was. I just said it's irrational to believe it. Something may be true, but still it may be irrational to believe in it.

It's only irrational if you don't believe the evidence that exists. If you do believe the evidence that exists, then it's rational to believe in the root proposition. It's also the case that something may be untrue and yet it's still rational to believe in it. It may be a mistaken belief, but it's still rational. Prior to Copernicus it was rational to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. It was a mistaken belief, but not an irrational one because it was based on the evidence that was available at the time.

like - the allegation that there are three headed fish that are as intelligent as humans living at the bottom of an under-ice ocean on Europe. It's irrational to believe that. Is it true? I don't know.

Do you get it yet?

Similarly - "God exists."

"I don't believe it."

Why not?

"Nobody has proved it or presented evidence for it."

"Well, might it be true?"

"Sure, it might, I suppose."

"So, why don't you believe it?"

"Because I'm not aware of any reason to believe it."

"Could there be a reason to believe it of which you are unaware?"

"Yes, of course. If I'm unaware of something, then I don't know it, and there are many things I don't know."

"So, why don't you believe it?"

"Because I don't have any reason to believe it. When I do, I'll change my mind."

"But, just because you don't believe it, that doesn't mean it isn't true!"

"Sure, I know that. A lot of things might be true. I just have no reason to believe it, so I don't believe in God."

But that's merely an explication of your ignorance of, or rejection of the evidence that exists, not an impeachment of the truth of the root proposition or an impeachment of the rational beliefs of those who have better evidence than you do.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's an assertion.

It's a statement of observational fact. Feel free to prove that the observation was not made.

I'll reject that person's claim until it's proved.

You can refuse to believe anything you like, but that is not evidence that the objective truth-value of the claim is zero.

I never said it was. I just said it's irrational to believe it. Something may be true, but still it may be irrational to believe in it.

It's only irrational if you don't believe the evidence that exists. If you do believe the evidence that exists, then it's rational to believe in the root proposition. It's also the case that something may be untrue and yet it's still rational to believe in it. It may be a mistaken belief, but it's still rational. Prior to Copernicus it was rational to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. It was a mistaken belief, but not an irrational one because it was based on the evidence that was available at the time.

like - the allegation that there are three headed fish that are as intelligent as humans living at the bottom of an under-ice ocean on Europe. It's irrational to believe that. Is it true? I don't know.

Do you get it yet?

Similarly - "God exists."

"I don't believe it."

Why not?

"Nobody has proved it or presented evidence for it."

"Well, might it be true?"

"Sure, it might, I suppose."

"So, why don't you believe it?"

"Because I'm not aware of any reason to believe it."

"Could there be a reason to believe it of which you are unaware?"

"Yes, of course. If I'm unaware of something, then I don't know it, and there are many things I don't know."

"So, why don't you believe it?"

"Because I don't have any reason to believe it. When I do, I'll change my mind."

"But, just because you don't believe it, that doesn't mean it isn't true!"

"Sure, I know that. A lot of things might be true. I just have no reason to believe it, so I don't believe in God."

But that's merely an explication of your ignorance of, or rejection of the evidence that exists, not an impeachment of the truth of the root proposition or an impeachment of the rational beliefs of those who have better evidence than you do.

Fuck, dude. For the last time - I never said it impeached the TRUTH. You said yourself that we don't know the truth, and we can't know the truth ever. The truth may well be different than the overwhelming evidence. Of course the claim "God exists" may be "true."

Until someone presents evidence for it, then it is not based on evidence.

Just because somewhere in the universe there MIGHT be some evidence that hasn't been brought to light does not justify a belief in the truth of it.

I am not required to acknowledge that those folks your talking about have any evidence at all unless they present it. If they choose not to, then that's up to them. I can't prove their secrets wrong, nor would I try. But, it is irrational in the extreme to believe in something someone says when they say, "God exists, and I have the evidence, but I'm not presenting it to you."

I don't care about impeaching their beliefs. I only care about the beliefs I hold, and until I am presented with evidence of God's existence, it's irrational to believe in it. If you think you have that evidence, then fine, you are welcome to take the position that you have the evidence, and it proves god's existence. However, if you refuse to present the evidence to me, then I am not justified in believing in your asserted god, and it would be irrational for me to do so.

I don't believe in gods is the only rational conclusion when I don't have any reason to believe in gods.

What is true or not doesn't matter! I'm not "impeaching the truth." Even if there were overwhelming evidence of gods' existence, there still might be no gods, and even if there is no evidence of gods, there still might be. Just like there might be fairies and ghosts and UFOs. But, it is irrational to believe in them in the absence of that evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, don't forget, all you're relying on is the writing in the Bible. You called the Bible, in and of itself, evidence. As such, you must also credit the writings of Ingersoll, Lucretius, and Hitchens as evidence. Therefore, your claim that the only evidence we have is the Bible is wrong, and your subsequent claim that therefore the preponderance of the evidence must be that god exists is wrong.

[Seth]

Fuck, dude. For the last time - I never said it impeached the TRUTH. You said yourself that we don't know the truth, and we can't know the truth ever. The truth may well be different than the overwhelming evidence. Of course the claim "God exists" may be "true."

Keerect!

Until someone presents evidence for it, then it is not based on evidence.

Someone (a great many someones actually) has presented evidence. You just disbelieve the evidence.

I am not required to acknowledge that those folks your talking about have any evidence at all unless they present it.

They have, for just about 2000 years.

If they choose not to, then that's up to them. I can't prove their secrets wrong, nor would I try. But, it is irrational in the extreme to believe in something someone says when they say, "God exists, and I have the evidence, but I'm not presenting it to you."

It's also irrational in the extreme to deny the existence of two millennia of evidence.

I don't care about impeaching their beliefs. I only care about the beliefs I hold, and until I am presented with evidence of God's existence, it's irrational to believe in it.

Yes, it's irrational for YOU to believe in it. It's not, however, irrational for others to actually look at the evidence and find it credible and therefore to believe in it.

I don't believe in gods is the only rational conclusion when I don't have any reason to believe in gods.

Purposeful evasion or rejection of evidence does not create a rational conclusion. One can only draw a rational conclusion by evaluating ALL the evidence that exists. Anything less is just a belief, not a rational conclusion. Beliefs, you see, need not be rational. Conclusions do.

What is true or not doesn't matter!

Really? I thought the truth was the ONLY important thing.

I'm not "impeaching the truth." Even if there were overwhelming evidence of gods' existence, there still might be no gods, and even if there is no evidence of gods, there still might be. Just like there might be fairies and ghosts and UFOs. But, it is irrational to believe in them in the absence of that evidence.

And it's irrational to conclude that no evidence exists because you are unwilling or unable to examine that evidence which does exist objectively and without bias.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fuck, dude. For the last time - I never said it impeached the TRUTH. You said yourself that we don't know the truth, and we can't know the truth ever. The truth may well be different than the overwhelming evidence. Of course the claim "God exists" may be "true."

Keerect!

Then what have you been arguing with me about? I've been saying that over and over again.

There is just no reason to believe it. Well, I'll leave it to you to explain the reasons there are to believe it. An explanation that someone somewhere might have evidence that you or I don't know about is simply a truism on every issue everywhere all the time. We all know that. The question is, what is that evidence? If the answer is "I don't know," then there is no reason to believe the assertion.

Until someone presents evidence for it, then it is not based on evidence.

Someone (a great many someones actually) has presented evidence. You just disbelieve the evidence.

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I am not required to acknowledge that those folks your talking about have any evidence at all unless they present it.

They have, for just about 2000 years.

Haven't. But, I'm open to it. What is it?

If they choose not to, then that's up to them. I can't prove their secrets wrong, nor would I try. But, it is irrational in the extreme to believe in something someone says when they say, "God exists, and I have the evidence, but I'm not presenting it to you."

It's also irrational in the extreme to deny the existence of two millennia of evidence.

There isn't. There have been 2 millenia, but the "of evidence" part is made up by you. Again, if you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I don't care about impeaching their beliefs. I only care about the beliefs I hold, and until I am presented with evidence of God's existence, it's irrational to believe in it.

Yes, it's irrational for YOU to believe in it.

What planet are you on, Seth? An individual is only capable of holding beliefs for himself. So, yes, it's irrational for me to believe it. If someone actually meets god face to face and shakes his hand, and therefore has first hand evidence of god's existence, then he can rationally believe in that god. But, nobody else would be justified in believing him, unless it could be verified. Who is saying otherwise?

It's not, however, irrational for others to actually look at the evidence and find it credible and therefore to believe in it.

If they have the evidence, sure. I'm asking what it is. You haven't presented it.

This is no different than any other issue anyone ever debates, Seth. It's never irrational for someone to hold a belief based on evidence they know. So, if someone says that all cops are rapists, and they have the evidence, then it's rational for them to believe it. Even if they don't share the evidence with you, it's rational for them to believe it. And, it might be true. But, you and I would have no trouble say, "I don't believe all cops are rapists" if that person doesn't present their evidence. We'd say, "there isn't any evidence that all cops are rapists" and leave it up to the person making the claim to prove it.

I don't believe in gods is the only rational conclusion when I don't have any reason to believe in gods.

Purposeful evasion or rejection of evidence does not create a rational conclusion.

I'm not purposefully evading or rejecting evidence. Someone making the assertion can present the evidence. I have looked hard for many years. It's not there, as far as I can tell. Might it be? Sure. I'll let those making the assertions present it.

One can only draw a rational conclusion by evaluating ALL the evidence that exists.

Not true at all. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. Nobody knows "all" the evidence that exists on anything. You don't. I don't. Nobody does.

Now, let's assume, though, that you are correct, and "one can only draw a rational conclusion by evaluating all the evidence that exists." So, the claim "God exists" is made. Since no human being can have access to "all" the evidence that exists, and we could never know for sure that anyone had access to "all" the evidence anyway because there might evidence that they didn't know about also out there, then by your own argument, no rational conclusion can be drawn. Therefore, it would be irrational to conclude that God exists, and it would be irrational to believe something that was irrational to conclude.

Anything less is just a belief, not a rational conclusion. Beliefs, you see, need not be rational. Conclusions do.

I've said 50 times that belief doesn't NEED to be rational. But it's not rational to hold an irrational belief. Axiomatic, that.

Conclusions also don't have to be rational. You make irrational conclusions all the time. They're just irrational.

What is true or not doesn't matter!

Really? I thought the truth was the ONLY important thing.

It doesn't matter in terms of what to believe. I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that it might be true is irrelevant.

I'm not "impeaching the truth." Even if there were overwhelming evidence of gods' existence, there still might be no gods, and even if there is no evidence of gods, there still might be. Just like there might be fairies and ghosts and UFOs. But, it is irrational to believe in them in the absence of that evidence.

And it's irrational to conclude that no evidence exists because you are unwilling or unable to examine that evidence which does exist objectively and without bias.

I don't conclude that "no evidence exists" anywhere in the universe. Again, do you not pay attention to me? Why am I even talking to you? I never said that no evidence exists anywhere in the universe. For example, there may be evidence in the Andromeda galaxy or inside a black hole. Who knows?

No evidence has been presented to me. No evidence has been presented here. After looking hard, I've determined that there isn't any available. I've told you many times now that I don't foreclose the possibility that I'm unaware of some real evidence.

I await the presentation of it by someone advancing the argument. Until then, I can not rational believe in God, and therefore, I don't. I might someday. I'll never foreclose that possibility. I don't believe in ghosts either, and I might someday. I don't claim to have "all the evidence", but all the evidence I have, and all the stuff that people have claimed to be evidence of ghosts that I've seen, read and heard has been "not evidence" in the scientific sense. To the extent we want to use legal parlance and call it testimonial evidence, if the person swears under oath to seeing a ghost, I find that unpersuasive in the extreme.

Fair?

[Coito ergo sum]

And, don't forget, Seth, that all you're relying on is the writing in the Bible. You called the Bible, in and of itself, evidence. As such, you must also credit the writings of Ingersoll, Lucretius, and Hitchens as evidence. Therefore, your claim that the only evidence we have is the Bible is wrong, and your subsequent claim that therefore the preponderance of the evidence must be that god exists is wrong.

You've ignored this after I've posted it a couple times. I'm interested in your response.

[Seth]

Fuck, dude. For the last time - I never said it impeached the TRUTH. You said yourself that we don't know the truth, and we can't know the truth ever. The truth may well be different than the overwhelming evidence. Of course the claim "God exists" may be "true."

Keerect!

Then what have you been arguing with me about? I've been saying that over and over again.

At the moment, your claim that there is no evidence supporting the claim that God exists and the nature of belief and truth.

There is just no reason to believe it. Well, I'll leave it to you to explain the reasons there are to believe it. An explanation that someone somewhere might have evidence that you or I don't know about is simply a truism on every issue everywhere all the time. We all know that. The question is, what is that evidence? If the answer is "I don't know," then there is no reason to believe the assertion.

Until someone presents evidence for it, then it is not based on evidence.

Someone (a great many someones actually) has presented evidence. You just disbelieve the evidence.

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

I am not required to acknowledge that those folks your talking about have any evidence at all unless they present it.

They have, for just about 2000 years.

Haven't. But, I'm open to it. What is it?

Ask them.

If they choose not to, then that's up to them. I can't prove their secrets wrong, nor would I try. But, it is irrational in the extreme to believe in something someone says when they say, "God exists, and I have the evidence, but I'm not presenting it to you."

It's also irrational in the extreme to deny the existence of two millennia of evidence.

There isn't. There have been 2 millenia, but the "of evidence" part is made up by you. Again, if you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

See, there's the problem. You evade the issue by denying that the evidence, however weak or strong, exists by saying "there isn't." It wouldn't matter what evidence I produced, you would simply claim it's not evidence. I could say that the miracle at Fatima is evidence observed by tens of thousands of people less than a hundred years ago and you would say "that's not evidence" even though observations and reports, along with investigations and interviews with people who were there by a priest over many years are in the record at the Vatican (and elsewhere).

So, there's one piece of evidence produced for you. What's your response?

I don't care about impeaching their beliefs. I only care about the beliefs I hold, and until I am presented with evidence of God's existence, it's irrational to believe in it.

Yes, it's irrational for YOU to believe in it.

What planet are you on, Seth? An individual is only capable of holding beliefs for himself. So, yes, it's irrational for me to believe it. If someone actually meets god face to face and shakes his hand, and therefore has first hand evidence of god's existence, then he can rationally believe in that god. But, nobody else would be justified in believing him, unless it could be verified. Who is saying otherwise?

You are. You don't say "I don't believe there is evidence," you say "There isn't [evidence]. There have been 2 millenia, but the "of evidence" part is made up by you." But there is evidence, and you refuse to admit that there is evidence because it evidently doesn't meet YOUR narrow definition of "evidence suitable to convince CES." But your incredulity is not the metric for "evidence." You don't seem to understand that point at all.

It's not, however, irrational for others to actually look at the evidence and find it credible and therefore to believe in it.

If they have the evidence, sure. I'm asking what it is. You haven't presented it.

I don't have to present it. You have said that it doesn't exist, therefore it is your burden to prove that no evidence exists. You ask me to present it and I have done so (the accounts of the Apostles in the New Testament) but you deny that those records of events witnessed by individuals and then recorded are "evidence," which is a convenient use of the Burden of Proof fallacy and an example of the fallacy of Hasty Generalization in that you take a sample of the evidence of the existence of God of size zero and then come to the conclusion that there is no evidence of the existence of God merely because you refuse to acknowledge that any evidence of the existence of God exists.

I will be interested to see how you evade and rationalize away the events at Fatima on October 13, 1917.

This is no different than any other issue anyone ever debates, Seth. It's never irrational for someone to hold a belief based on evidence they know.

But you claim that there is no evidence of the existence of God, and you cannot present any evidence of the non-existence of God, which makes your belief that God does not exist irrational.

So, if someone says that all cops are rapists, and they have the evidence, then it's rational for them to believe it. Even if they don't share the evidence with you, it's rational for them to believe it. And, it might be true. But, you and I would have no trouble say, "I don't believe all cops are rapists" if that person doesn't present their evidence. We'd say, "there isn't any evidence that all cops are rapists" and leave it up to the person making the claim to prove it.

But if they say "all cops are racists" and do not provide evidence of that claim, you cannot then logically conclude that all cops are NOT rapists without first producing evidence of your own that at least some cops are not rapists. You can disbelieve the claim, but you cannot yourself make the positive assertion that all cops are not rapists without providing critically robust evidence demonstrating that some cops, somewhere, are not rapists. You may not, contrary to what you are arguing, simply make assumptions about cops and rape based on no evidence whatsoever and then make a valid conclusion to the question "are all cops rapists?"

That would be an unsupported and therefore fallacious assertion on your part.

In the same way, you can disbelieve the claim that God exists all you like, but you cannot logically or rationally make the INDEPENDENT claim that God does not exist without providing some evidence to support this claim. Therefore, all you can say about the claim that God exists is "I don't believe it, but I don't know with any degree of certainty whether God does or does not exist."

I don't believe in gods is the only rational conclusion when I don't have any reason to believe in gods.

Purposeful evasion or rejection of evidence does not create a rational conclusion.

I'm not purposefully evading or rejecting evidence. Someone making the assertion can present the evidence. I have looked hard for many years. It's not there, as far as I can tell. Might it be? Sure. I'll let those making the assertions present it.

You haven't been looking very hard. What's your rebuttal of the events at Fatima in 1917?

One can only draw a rational conclusion by evaluating ALL the evidence that exists.

Not true at all. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. Nobody knows "all" the evidence that exists on anything. You don't. I don't. Nobody does.

So, what constitutes "enough" evidence upon which to draw a rational conclusion? Beyond a reasonable doubt? By a preponderance of the evidence? By a scintilla of evidence?

Now, let's assume, though, that you are correct, and "one can only draw a rational conclusion by evaluating all the evidence that exists." So, the claim "God exists" is made. Since no human being can have access to "all" the evidence that exists, and we could never know for sure that anyone had access to "all" the evidence anyway because there might evidence that they didn't know about also out there, then by your own argument, no rational conclusion can be drawn. Therefore, it would be irrational to conclude that God exists, and it would be irrational to believe something that was irrational to conclude.

It may be, but it is also equally irrational to conclude that God does NOT exist. See the conundrum? If there is evidence, no matter how slight, that evidence must be given due weight and it must be weighed against countervailing evidence tending to disprove the claim. I have provided several examples of evidence that God exists, and all you've done is deny that they are evidence and you've failed to provide any countervailing evidence tending to disprove the existence of God. But your denial of the existence of evidence, or your incredulity or skepticism about the nature of the evidence doesn't change the existence or nature of the evidence leading towards the existence of God, nor do they provide ANY countervailing evidence tending to disprove the existence of God. So, we once again end up with the ledger balance in favor of the existence of God and against your completely unsupported assertion that God does not exist.

So, for you to conclude that God does not exist based on your admitted dearth (absence actually) of evidence leading to your conclusion that God does not exist is an irrational act of unreason.

Anything less is just a belief, not a rational conclusion. Beliefs, you see, need not be rational. Conclusions do.

I've said 50 times that belief doesn't NEED to be rational. But it's not rational to hold an irrational belief. Axiomatic, that.

But it's not an irrational belief if it's based on evidence, which most theists will tell you they find and evaluate in favor of the existence of God in abundance. So, their beliefs are rational, and your incredulity or skepticism about their evidence does not change the rationality of their belief nor does it change the nature or truth of the evidence they have found and examined. It only affects YOUR belief, which is of little interest to anyone else.

Conclusions also don't have to be rational. You make irrational conclusions all the time. They're just irrational.

Well, to be a valid conclusion it needs to be a rational one. And I'd note that you make irrational conclusions all the time too.

What is true or not doesn't matter!

Really? I thought the truth was the ONLY important thing.

It doesn't matter in terms of what to believe. I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that it might be true is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant?

I'm not "impeaching the truth." Even if there were overwhelming evidence of gods' existence, there still might be no gods, and even if there is no evidence of gods, there still might be. Just like there might be fairies and ghosts and UFOs. But, it is irrational to believe in them in the absence of that evidence.

And it's irrational to conclude that no evidence exists because you are unwilling or unable to examine that evidence which does exist objectively and without bias.

I don't conclude that "no evidence exists" anywhere in the universe. Again, do you not pay attention to me? Why am I even talking to you? I never said that no evidence exists anywhere in the universe. For example, there may be evidence in the Andromeda galaxy or inside a black hole. Who knows?

No evidence has been presented to me. No evidence has been presented here. After looking hard, I've determined that there isn't any available. I've told you many times now that I don't foreclose the possibility that I'm unaware of some real evidence.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." Your claim to have "looked hard" for evidence is not credible I'm afraid. I'll be interested to see how "hard" you looked at, for example, the evidence of the events at Fatima in 1917. I'm quite interested to see your critically robust arguments and proofs that those events did not happen as described by hundreds of people and witnessed by tens of thousands of people. By the way, arguments from incredulity are not going to be allowed. Only hard science.

I await the presentation of it by someone advancing the argument. Until then, I can not rational believe in God, and therefore, I don't. I might someday. I'll never foreclose that possibility. I don't believe in ghosts either, and I might someday. I don't claim to have "all the evidence", but all the evidence I have, and all the stuff that people have claimed to be evidence of ghosts that I've seen, read and heard has been "not evidence" in the scientific sense. To the extent we want to use legal parlance and call it testimonial evidence, if the person swears under oath to seeing a ghost, I find that unpersuasive in the extreme.

That's all very interesting and junk, but it still doesn't say anything about the evidence for the existence of God that you have not "looked hard" to find and have decided to ignore because you don't think it's evidence. Your incredulity or lack of scholarship does not determine anything but YOUR belief or lack of it.

Fair?

Well of course. I'm not demanding or expecting you to believe anything, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of the claim that God does not exist because theists have not presented evidence of his existence. They have. You don't like or accept that evidence as sufficient, but your disbelief and incredulity are not valid premises in the argument for the non-existence of God, a proposition for which you have produce exactly zero evidence in support of.

[apophenia]

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

We don't even know who wrote the Gospels, much less that they are eyewitness testimony. I'm not aware of anywhere in the gospels where the author claims to have witnessed the events, though I'm ready to be corrected on the point — I'm certainly no scholar of the new testament. Moreover, textual analysis clearly indicates that there was copious borrowing amongst the authors, so only a portion of them can be reliably determined to be an eyewitness account (even if the borrowed parts were borrowed because of their accuracy, we have no way of separating this out from text which was borrowed and not witnessed). Moreover, there is plenty of internal evidence within the gospels to make a good case for taking them out of the genre of historical narrative, and thus depriving them of any validity as eyewitness testimony even if the author claims it to be so.

I can't believe you're seriously making this argument. You've got chutzpah, I'll give you that.

ETA: Matter of fact, here's the author of Luke explicitly declaiming himself as a witness:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fuck, dude. For the last time - I never said it impeached the TRUTH. You said yourself that we don't know the truth, and we can't know the truth ever. The truth may well be different than the overwhelming evidence. Of course the claim "God exists" may be "true."

Keerect!

Then what have you been arguing with me about? I've been saying that over and over again.

At the moment, your claim that there is no evidence supporting the claim that God exists and the nature of belief and truth.

We've already clarified that I make no affirmative claim that there is no evidence somewhere. I've already acknowledged that I'm open to seeing it.

And, I've made clear over and over again that belief does not equal truth, nor is truth dependent on belief.

However, do you agree that it is irrational to believe that something is, in fact, true, if you have no reason or evidence to believe it to be true?

[Coito ergo sum]

There is just no reason to believe it. Well, I'll leave it to you to explain the reasons there are to believe it. An explanation that someone somewhere might have evidence that you or I don't know about is simply a truism on every issue everywhere all the time. We all know that. The question is, what is that evidence? If the answer is "I don't know," then there is no reason to believe the assertion.

Until someone presents evidence for it, then it is not based on evidence.

Someone (a great many someones actually) has presented evidence. You just disbelieve the evidence.

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

You've said the Bible is evidence in and of itself.

I don't consider that to be evidence, but you do.

Fine, I also noted that if we assume it to be, arguendo, evidence, then we are still not justified in believing because your claim that it is the only evidence we have and is therefore the "preponderance" of the evidence is false, because YOU ignored the atheist writings, which is the same sort of evidence. Therefore, the Bible is not the only evidence.

Moreover, based on your own logic, the burden would be on you to prove Lucretius, and Ingersoll and Hitchens wrong. That is what you said was my burden in relation to the Bible. Logically, you can't have that one way.

Yes, no?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm going to clarify one more time. You keep lying and pretending that my argument is that "there isn't any evidence..." as if I'm saying there couldn't possibly be any evidence in the universe. That is not now and never was what I meant, and I have clarified this several times, so please stop arguing against a position I do not hold. The only thing I am saying is that I have not seen any evidence, and if you count the Bible as evidence then I don't find it persuasive for the reasons I have said. Further, I don't believe in gods because there I have no reason or evidence to believe in them. If there is some evidence somewhere, then someone needs to present it. You haven't.

And, don't forget, Seth, that all you're relying on is the writing in the Bible. You called the Bible, in and of itself, evidence. As such, you must also credit the writings of Ingersoll, Lucretius, and Hitchens as evidence. Therefore, your claim that the only evidence we have is the Bible is wrong, and your subsequent claim that therefore the preponderance of the evidence must be that god exists is wrong.

You've ignored this after I've posted it a couple times. I'm interested in your response. I'm not surprised you're dodging, though.

[Seth]

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

We don't even know who wrote the Gospels, much less that they are eyewitness testimony.

No, you refuse to believe that they are eyewitness testimony. But what you "know" does not impeach the truth of the claims, does it? It merely goes to your beliefs. And since you have not demonstrated with critically robust evidence that the claims are false, the preponderance of the evidence remains with the claims of original observations of phenomena and events, regardless of your lack of knowledge about the authors of the texts.

I'm not aware of anywhere in the gospels where the author claims to have witnessed the events, though I'm ready to be corrected on the point — I'm certainly no scholar of the new testament. Moreover, textual analysis clearly indicates that there was copious borrowing amongst the authors, so only a portion of them can be reliably determined to be an eyewitness account (even if the borrowed parts were borrowed because of their accuracy, we have no way of separating this out from text which was borrowed and not witnessed).

So? If two authors get together during a ghost-writing session and use material from common observations by the witnesses, does that in and of itself make the claims false? No, it does not.

Moreover, there is plenty of internal evidence within the gospels to make a good case for taking them out of the genre of historical narrative, and thus depriving them of any validity as eyewitness testimony even if the author claims it to be so.

Such as?

I can't believe you're seriously making this argument. You've got chutzpah, I'll give you that.

I've also got reason and logic.

ETA: Matter of fact, here's the author of Luke explicitly declaiming himself as a witness:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

[/quote]

And your critically robust evidence that Luke did not accurate recount the events as they actually occurred based on his careful investigation is....???

[Coito ergo sum]

Nope. They haven't. If you care to prove me wrong, present the evidence.

I have. You evade the consequences of that evidence by discounting it and denying that it is evidence, even though it is clearly and exactly evidence even according to your own argument because, in the case of the gospels, it's a record of observations of actual events set down by the observers of those events, which you yourself said constituted evidence.

We don't even know who wrote the Gospels, much less that they are eyewitness testimony.

No, you refuse to believe that they are eyewitness testimony. But what you "know" does not impeach the truth of the claims, does it? It merely goes to your beliefs. And since you have not demonstrated with critically robust evidence that the claims are false, the preponderance of the evidence remains with the claims of original observations of phenomena and events, regardless of your lack of knowledge about the authors of the texts.

No, you refuse to believe in Robert Green Ingersoll's writings. But, that doesn't impeach the truth of his claims. It merely goes to your beliefs. And since you have not demonstrated with critically robust evidence that the claims of Robert Green Ingersoll are false, the preponderance of the evidence remains there, regardless of your lack of knowledge or lack of belief in Ingersoll's texts.

You keep making this argument, Seth, and you pretend that contrary writings to the Bible do not exist. On what basis do you make this "preponderance" claim, and on what basis do you keep claimign that the Bible is the "only" evidence, when it simply is not?

[Seth]

Fuck, dude. For the last time - I never said it impeached the TRUTH. You said yourself that we don't know the truth, and we can't know the truth ever. The truth may well be different than the overwhelming evidence. Of course the claim "God exists" may be "true."

Keerect!

Then what have you been arguing with me about? I've been saying that over and over again.

At the moment, your claim that there is no evidence supporting the claim that God exists and the nature of belief and truth.

We've already clarified that I make no affirmative claim that there is no evidence somewhere. I've already acknowledged that I'm open to seeing it.

And, I've made clear over and over again that belief does not equal truth, nor is truth dependent on belief.

However, do you agree that it is irrational to believe that something is, in fact, true, if you have no reason or evidence to believe it to be true?

That depends on what you mean by "no reason or evidence." It's something of a non-sequitur because one cannot form a belief about a thing unless one has some evidence or reason to believe it exists, even as a philosophical concept. If one has absolutely no knowledge of a thing, or concept, then one has "no reason or evidence" and one would not therefore even conceive of the thing. So your question is something of a tautology.

Clearly, one must have some reason or evidence upon which to base any belief. In this case, you have both evidence (the god-claims of theists) and a reason (your skepticism regarding their claims) to hold a belief about the god claims. Your belief happens to be that the god-claims are insufficiently supported with independently verifiable scientific evidence for you to be able to give them credence or assign them a high degree of confidence.

Other people look at the evidence of the god-claims of theists and come to an entirely different conclusion than you do. They are looking at the same evidence you are: the god-claims of theists, which include all the various claims made about God documented in the record as well as knowledge of supposedly miraculous events like Fatima (which I note you've chosen to carefully and studiously ignore), but they come to an entirely different conclusion than you do and assign a much higher degree of confidence to the propositions of theism.

So, the question is not whether it is irrational to believe in something for which you have no reason or evidence to believe it to be true, the question is whether it is irrational to come to a particular conclusion based on the evidence you DO have to believe the proposition to be true. You claim to have insufficient critically robust evidence for the existence of God to allow you to believe that God exists. But, you may not have the correct evidence, or you may be discounting evidence for reasons of your own (like Atheistic religious zeal), or you may be ignoring evidence for the same reason. But all of that is utterly irrelevant to your claim that there is "no evidence" for the existence of God, a claim you have previously made but are now backing away from.

You have plenty of evidence before you, and you have admitted that you have examined the evidence and found it wanting, so you form a belief about the proposition based on the level of confidence you have in that proposition, which is zero. But that's just your analysis of the evidence and your conclusion, which is based on your own prejudices and biases, and is not determinative of the actual truth-value of either the evidence or the root propositions.

It is not irrational for you to hold the belief that God does not exist based on your analysis of the evidence, but it is irrational to make a positive claim that God does not exist without some critically robust evidence supporting that conclusion, which you have never provided. What you are saying now is, in essence, "there is not enough independently verifiable scientific evidence in the record of which I am aware pointing towards the existence of God for me to assign a high degree of confidence that the proposition that God exists is true."

Again, your skepticism is not determinative of anything but your own beliefs, and it is irrational for you to conclude, merely based on your claim of "no evidence" or a lack of sufficient evidence, that God does not exist. Again, the best you can rationally conclude is that you don't know whether or not God exists because there is insufficient evidence in EITHER DIRECTION. You may BELIEVE anything you like, but if and when you make a positive assertion like "God does not exist," the burden of proof lies upon you to provide evidence in support of that claim.

That's all I'm saying.

Now, about the events at Fatima...??