"@TGM - "Right, so by the same token, we should jeer Bolt for taking over 9 seconds to run 100m, criticise doctors for not being able to ensure our eternal life and the newsagent on the corner of Old Kent Road for not stopping the crash of TWA flight 800, should we, even though all of these are impossible?

If you're God is going to damn me for being unable to do something that is impossible, I would quite like to find his son and crucify him myself, thank you very much."

You've changed parameters. Bolt's speed is no offense to you. Neither is the TWA flight; neither is a doctor. We have betrayed our creator. Bolt has not betrayed anyone."

We have betrayed our creator, who made us incapable of not betraying him? Frankly, he's only himself to blame when the inevitable happens.

"@TGM - "Bartdogg, not caring about the lochness monster doesn't get around the philosophical point about empiricism that was made."

I don't really get what you're saying. Nessie is not my creator, nor did any sane man claim him to be. Why should i care?"

Firstly, why shouldn't he be your creator. What exactly is the distinction between god and god in the form of nessie?

Secondly, the point was that when the carcass of the loch ness monster is dragged from the loch, you would believe he existed. When no carcass or monster is found, you likely wouldn't, so empirical evidence is much more useful than you seem to think.

@muni - This I don't get. I'd like to ask you to reword:

"Well what I dont understand about the all humans are immoral, is that Bart then states that, due this fact, the way you are saved is to believe. And if you dont believe, you are not saved. But then he denies that religion states that if you dont believe, you burn in hell; the flip side of that being "believe, or else". If this is true, then the argument that God doesnt show himself because he wants to foster free will in humans falls flat. How are you fostering free will by presenting what is essentially a threat ("Believe, or else")."

But regarding:

"The sigh wasnt meant to insult you. It ws meant to be a kind of a shake of the head, meaning "I just dont get it". Sorry if you took it the wrong way. But I agree with Zman in that i dont see how you can call someone a liar when they are simply stating their personal beliefs. It does, unfortunately, giave credence to what Zman and Aeglos are saying about how religious people feel they have a license to dish it, and a license to display righteous indignation at even a perceived slight."

A personal belief cannot be a lie? If I claim to believe I am black will that make me black? He was either lying or misunderstanding the philosophical reality I've been trying to discuss; that's what I said and that's where I'll stay.

Christians that display righteous indignation are among the most wretched beings in the Kingdom of God. A Christian recognizes he is saved by grace, through faith, and is crushed to his knees in humility. I may need some time away for a few, but I'm fairly certian I'm not spewed indignation due to a perceived slight. I was saying if you wish to continue in any discussion about these things I'd suggest knocking the superiority off.

Hehe. Reminds me of a comic I saw some time ago...

An atheist questions the existence of God, daring him to show himself, to prove that he exists.
God shows himself, saying "I exist only because people believe that I exist."
God has shown himself, and having proven himself to exist, faith is not needed. Thus, because God exists solely because of the faith in him, he ceases to exist.

Think I've got that right. >.>

@TGM - "We have betrayed our creator, who made us incapable of not betraying him? Frankly, he's only himself to blame when the inevitable happens."

We were not always "incapable" of not betraying him. See Genesis 3 and Adam and Eve. We chose rebellion.

@TGM - "Firstly, why shouldn't he be your creator. What exactly is the distinction between god and god in the form of nessie?

Secondly, the point was that when the carcass of the loch ness monster is dragged from the loch, you would believe he existed. When no carcass or monster is found, you likely wouldn't, so empirical evidence is much more useful than you seem to think."

Empirical evidence is very important, but it is not the be-all-end-all of belief and to demand so is utter philosophical failure. It is faith in its truest form.

And you say, "My teapot analogy (Russell's, actually) is demonstrating that the belief in the existence of a thing, without sound reason for believing in it, is nonsense. Believing in the existence of an object when no other such object has ever been found does legitimately require empirical evidence, otherwise you start having to worry about the great Wougal that orbits supernovae and holds the power of life and death over us all, do you not"

I say look into my "clues for Christianity" way back at the beginning. You seem to think belief in God and belief regarding Christianity is akin to the Flying Spaghetti monster simply because they cannot be empirically proven right now. What about the person of Jesus having an empty tomb? Does historical evidence count for nothing? In that regard Winston Churchhill and George Washington are myths until someone can empirically prove to me right now they existed.

"@TGM - "We have betrayed our creator, who made us incapable of not betraying him? Frankly, he's only himself to blame when the inevitable happens."

We were not always "incapable" of not betraying him. See Genesis 3 and Adam and Eve. We chose rebellion."

At last I've worked it down to where we really are. Augustine's theodicy. Firstly, the Genesis story cannot be held true when considering rational enquiry, secondly, the idea of "seminal presence", necessary for us to be held guilty, is a totally unnecessary assumption, and only adds to the bloated mass of things we must believe in without justification, and thirdly, there is considerable room for criticism of the morality that Augustine proposes.

I have read a number of very balanced text books about this subject. Not one of them suggests that the Augustinian theodicy that you uphold at least a version of is sound.

"I say look into my "clues for Christianity" way back at the beginning. You seem to think belief in God and belief regarding Christianity is akin to the Flying Spaghetti monster simply because they cannot be empirically proven right now. What about the person of Jesus having an empty tomb? Does historical evidence count for nothing? In that regard Winston Churchhill and George Washington are myths until someone can empirically prove to me right now they existed."

That is not my position. I do give weight to historical evidence, but the existence of god is somewhat more difficult than the existence of a human. Winston Churchill was an human. We aren't asked to make new science, to break physical laws etc. to trust the historical evidence that he exists. We are with Jesus. I do value historical evidence. I don't value it over phenomena that we can test now, test tomorrow, and have tested yesterday. It seems to me very silly to do so.

Empirical evidence, I agree, is not the be all and end all, but when requesting a new phenomena, an object the like of which we have never seen, I am right to demand the highest form of evidence. In quantum physics (being the field I know best), when a phenomena doesn't match the known theory, when experiments go wrong, the whole theory isn't thrown out, a new law isn't invented, instead people look for a way of explaining it properly with the old laws, or restating the old laws very closely to how they were to explain it. We repeat the experiments, even when the experimenters are the best in the world, other people do it. If we don't let that kind change our view of how things are before exhausting every other option, do you expect a piece of 2 millennia old history to manage it?

In short, I am more demanding of my evidence, because if I wasn't, I could convince myself of anything. Somebody said they saw the loch ness monster, I believe it exists! Another person lost a teapot, it is between the Earth and Mars! You see- with something so earth-shatteringly different as the existence of god, you need to have strong evidence. In fact, you have none that would register in scientific enquiry, which is the realm we must consider this to be in.

And I'm off to bed now, so I shan't be offering more replies for a while.

@TGM - Before I sign off as well. Good evening:

"At last I've worked it down to where we really are. Augustine's theodicy. Firstly, the Genesis story cannot be held true when considering rational enquiry, secondly, the idea of "seminal presence", necessary for us to be held guilty, is a totally unnecessary assumption, and only adds to the bloated mass of things we must believe in without justification, and thirdly, there is considerable room for criticism of the morality that Augustine proposes."

I'm not familiar with what you call "Augustine theodicy." I'm familiar with Augustine, just not the term. The Genesis story need not even be more than metaphorical narrative in this argument. Besides, you and I and Adam and Eve have all chosen rebellion; we have chosen to be immoral and betray our creator. It is impossible to be perfectly moral.
I've explained it before in this way. You have even betrayed your own conscience and are damnable on that ground alone. Imagine you have carried around an invisible recorded that has recorded every judgment you have ever made; any judgment whatsoever. Then before the throne of God imagine the recorder played. Should you have proven a hypocrit, even once, you are guilty and deserving of punishment. Perhaps I should've just flushed that out a bit more.

"That is not my position. I do give weight to historical evidence, but the existence of god is somewhat more difficult than the existence of a human. Winston Churchill was an human. We aren't asked to make new science, to break physical laws etc. to trust the historical evidence that he exists. We are with Jesus. I do value historical evidence. I don't value it over phenomena that we can test now, test tomorrow, and have tested yesterday. It seems to me very silly to do so."

How is Churchill any different than Jesus? How is Thucydides any different than Jesus? Alexander the Great?

"when a phenomena doesn't match the known theory, when experiments go wrong, the whole theory isn't thrown out, a new law isn't invented, instead people look for a way of explaining it properly with the old laws, or restating the old laws very closely to how they were to explain it. "

How "old" of laws do you use to explain the phenomena? What if I, as many others, have found that atheism simply doesn't explain many of life's deeper questions at all? Why can't we realize that the naturalistic worldview will ultimately fail, and grab for something that has for ages proven reliable and trustworthy?

@OMGNSO the doctors had no power and did nothing unless it was given to him by God himself.

@bartdogg42:

Let's say my father killed a man. Now, the police, knowing that it was my father, arrest me, and strap me on to the rack or some other torture device. They then say that they won't torture me as long as I believe in something. Oh, and, I'm immortal and they'll torture me forever if I don't. Am I really free to choose whether to believe or not? Isn't that the same type of situation that you say we're in with God? He wanted us to have free will, so he gave us the alternative of suffering forever instead of believing him. That's like saying that I'm free to murder someone, when the police will lock me up for a very long time if I do. Also, I try to behave morally, so how can I be faulted if it is impossible for me to do so constantly?

Furthermore, if it is impossible for us to live moral lives, whose fault is that exactly? Could God not have made it possible for us to choose to behave perfectly, or choose not to, while still giving us free will? Why would God create people incapable of behaving perfectly, and then torturing them for all eternity when they don't?

In response to your point about hypocrisy, I believe things based on evidence presented, and say things based on that. That means that I change my beliefs based on evidence. This is not hypocrisy, it is reason. I could say now that God doesn't exist, then change my beliefs when he reveals himself to me, and I don't think that would make me a hypocrite.


"How is Churchill any different than Jesus? How is Thucydides any different than Jesus? Alexander the Great?"

I believe that there was a person named Jesus, just as I believe there was a person named Churchill. There are records, recordings, ect. for what Churchill did and said, but there is little evidence about what Jesus did or said, especially not enough to belief that something that has never been observed in any case except his, that he rose from the dead. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

@bartdogg - I do not think that you should be discouraged from believing in a God, if you have faith then no amount of 'proof' emperical or otherwise is likely to sway your belief. However, I can suggest reasons why you should perhaps keep an open mind which may help you understand others points of view.

I can't empirically prove that santa clause doesn't exist, I can conduct some experiments like not leaving any presents for my children on christmas eve and seeing if santa fills the void, but I'm not about to attempt that one. However, I assume that you will accept that Santa doesn't exist. However, he does in the minds of maybe 10% of the world's population and great deal of the non-believers continue to play their part in the falsehood believing that they are doing so for the best of reasons.

Now I happen to agree that Santa is a fantastic idea and I actively encourage the perpetutaion of the myth. Because I think the human race is better for it.

Now do you think that it is just possible that people though-out the ages have created their gods and continued to perpetuate the myths of Gods (with the best of intentions) and that it has now develpoed into our collective conscience?

So my empirical proof is not so much that God doesn't exist, but I have observed (empirically) that many people try to peretuate a myth. Knowing that it has happened once, leads me to question if it happens with religion?

bartdogg, there is a contradiction in your belief. You think it is impossible for a human to be moral, and you think we choose to be immoral. If immorality is inevitable, how can it be a free, proper choice? As I see it, it would be like saying that the penguin chooses not to fly.

"How is Churchill any different than Jesus? How is Thucydides any different than Jesus? Alexander the Great?"

Belief in the story of Churchill, say, does not require rejection of science as we understand it. Belief in Jesus does. What I am saying is this: historical evidence is weaker than scientific evidence, so when choosing between believing in a historical story and believing our science, we must choose the science.

"How "old" of laws do you use to explain the phenomena?"

When I say 'old', I could better say 'current', in contrast to 'new'.

"What if I, as many others, have found that atheism simply doesn't explain many of life's deeper questions at all?"

Firstly, you need to assert that you are justified in asking these 'deeper' questions. I take the default position that you are not. You haven't actually cared to say what the 'deeper' questions are, so forgive me for guessing they are such things as "what is the purpose of life?"

Now, this question is not one that you should ask. It is akin to asking "Who is the king of the United States?". Before you are allowed to ask that question, you must ask, "Is there a king of the United States?". Here we must ask "Is there a purpose of life?", and then you get stuck. You simply cannot demonstrate the existence of a purpose of life, can you. No matter how much you feel that there is one, your rationality breaks down totally. So your saying that we need the supernatural to explain this phenomena, the very existence of which is without justification.

"Why can't we realize that the naturalistic worldview will ultimately fail, and grab for something that has for ages proven reliable and trustworthy?"

Because there is no justification for the position that the naturalistic world view will ultimately fail, because religion has not proven reliable for ages- look at Galileo, as an example, and religion has not proven trustworthy for ages, what of the incestuous relationship between pope Alexander VI and Lucrezia? You simply haven't the right to make that claim, and if you did, it would be irrelevant.


The problem you ultimately have in this discussion is that there was nothing that would make you turn on your belief. This makes it very hard for you to present rational argument, because you yourself don't require one- if you did, the presentation of an irrationality in your argument would be able to convince you.

Nobody "really knows"; anyway, the answer to your question is: No, there isn't.

@Maniac - I'd answer this with the study of the historical Jesus. He is much different than Santa Claus, or the teapot in space.

@TGM - "bartdogg, there is a contradiction in your belief. You think it is impossible for a human to be moral, and you think we choose to be immoral. If immorality is inevitable, how can it be a free, proper choice? As I see it, it would be like saying that the penguin chooses not to fly."

Again you're changing parameters with the Penguin. Immorality is inevitable and we are found guilty as a result. We have no excuse because we are destined to betray God. This is blame-shifting. "Seriously judge, I had to steal! We were poor!" The reality is you've still stolen. I'm not sure that's the best excuse, but there it is.

"Belief in the story of Churchill, say, does not require rejection of science as we understand it. Belief in Jesus does. What I am saying is this: historical evidence is weaker than scientific evidence, so when choosing between believing in a historical story and believing our science, we must choose the science."

I'm assuming you're refering to Jesus' miracles. Let's leave those aside for now, because they are considered miracles because they cannot be tested scientifically. That's what makes them miracles. The crux of your argument is this, "science must come before historical evidence." That is a valid argument. I would suggest you take virtually nothing as fact, though, that hasn't happened within the last, say, 100 years. Everything else for your system must be deemed conjecture. Are you really comfortable with that? Man historians worldwide are rolling over.

"Firstly, you need to assert that you are justified in asking these 'deeper' questions. I take the default position that you are not. You haven't actually cared to say what the 'deeper' questions are, so forgive me for guessing they are such things as "what is the purpose of life?"

Now, this question is not one that you should ask. It is akin to asking "Who is the king of the United States?". Before you are allowed to ask that question, you must ask, "Is there a king of the United States?". Here we must ask "Is there a purpose of life?", and then you get stuck. You simply cannot demonstrate the existence of a purpose of life, can you. No matter how much you feel that there is one, your rationality breaks down totally. So your saying that we need the supernatural to explain this phenomena, the very existence of which is without justification."

How would you like me to demonstrate whether there is a purpose of life? Empirically? In a lab? Your system is becoming more and more confined here; "I will believe nothing unless it be empirically proven." I again assert that you're living by faith.

"The problem you ultimately have in this discussion is that there was nothing that would make you turn on your belief. This makes it very hard for you to present rational argument, because you yourself don't require one- if you did, the presentation of an irrationality in your argument would be able to convince you."

I've not presented rational argument? Have you looked at the "clues for Christianity?" Refute the resurrection, I challenge you. I do require a rational argument, just not empirical proof. You don't either, actually. You haven't empirical proven that to believe something you must have empirical proof.

I'm not qualifying a leap of faith here, understand me. I've presented clues for why the God of the Bible just makes more sense with life as we know it. I'm not asking anyone for a blind leap of belief in the flying spaghetti monster. Look at the person of Jesus and the historical empty tomb. This is no blind leap. I'm just asking that you cede the high ground of scientifically proving everything empirically. You reject God because he won't be tested and proven scientifically, or He won't whisper in your ear.

To affirm that everything that must be believed must be empircally proven is a faith-step akin to Christianity.

Firstly we need to deal with the term "Empirical proof". Nothing can be "proved" in the sense of being absolutely certain, in the same way that you can't prove that when I flip a coin it will land heads or tails (it might land on the edge), but something can be "proved" in the sense of it being 99% likely and unreasonable to expect anything else.

One point from earlier: Bartdogg, you keep claiming that God can't reveal himself to us because it destroys free will. If that is true, you have immediately and quite beautifully disproved Christianity (since in the Bible God reveals himself most of the time without any regard to free will), saving us atheists a lot of effort.

While a person who steals because they are poor is still blameworthy, so is the society who made them poor and did not provide relief. We would truthfully describe such a society that did not provide poor relief as barbaric and uncaring. God prevented us from being moral and is just as responsible for our crimes and deserves to burn in hell as much as his subjects.

I'll state my rational argument against the ressurection again: God would not have "sacrificed Jesus for our sins" since the effect would be absolutely nothing: killing jesus in no way either alleviates our punishment or administers more punishment in a way that could not be done without jesus.

@OMH -

"One point from earlier: Bartdogg, you keep claiming that God can't reveal himself to us because it destroys free will. If that is true, you have immediately and quite beautifully disproved Christianity (since in the Bible God reveals himself most of the time without any regard to free will), saving us atheists a lot of effort. "

God won't reveal himself in the sense of whispering, "Hey everyone I'm here." He will act and move and try to give clues. to embrace the clues or not is your perogative.

"While a person who steals because they are poor is still blameworthy, so is the society who made them poor and did not provide relief. We would truthfully describe such a society that did not provide poor relief as barbaric and uncaring. God prevented us from being moral and is just as responsible for our crimes and deserves to burn in hell as much as his subjects."

OMG I must say that from our small interaction it has become obvious the church has scorned you in some way. some religious leader or some religious crap has you messed you over. For this I apologize. Moving on: I agree the society is as much to blame, but that is hardly the fault of God. Adam and Eve chose rebellion and the entire world fell as a results. Just because we can shift the blame back further or higher up hardly means we are blameless.

"I'll state my rational argument against the ressurection again: God would not have "sacrificed Jesus for our sins" since the effect would be absolutely nothing: killing jesus in no way either alleviates our punishment or administers more punishment in a way that could not be done without jesus."

It would not be just to just alleviate punishment. Try doing that with your kids, I dare you. "Oh, Timmy you slapped that girl, that's ok I forgive you." Or more to the point, "Oh timmy you're developing a habit of kicking me in the groin? That's ok, I forgive you."
Biblically the doctrine is, "He made Him who had no sin (Jesus) to be sin on our behalf, that we may become the children of God." Jesus was capable and able to take the sins of the world (john 3:16) because He was God incarnate (John 1:1-2).

@Bartdogg - I'm not agueing that Santa is the same as Jesus, and I don't understand your 'teapot in space' referrence. My aguement is about how people can twist and manipulate history to suit their aims. Their aims may be laudable, but that is beside the point.

If you acknowledge that Santa (St Michael) existed and that from a real person many myths and legends have grown up and most impotantly have been perpetuated by probably a majority of humans, it is easy to see how the legend of Jesus could have started small and been embellished over time.

My argument remains, because we know that people can create myths which they want others to believe, then it is possible that the Jesus story could be the same.

Think about this for a while, when I was young my mother and father and older siblings all told me about Santa, I heard about him at school and saw him in television adverts. Every member of my extended family, aunts, uncles grandparents etc, all referred to him. I didn't even question that he didn't exist early on. Perhaps I had the same belief in Jesus at this age, probably for the same reasons, parents, school, church etc.

Later on I asked questions; how does Santa come into our house, we don't have a chimney? The story was modified so that now, Santa had a magic Key that opened all doors. Later on I asked how he could possibly deliver so many presents on the same night. The story changed again, now Santa could stop time to enable him to deliver all the presents. Eventually I stopped believing in him as a person, yet I still believe in the idea of Santa and perpetuate the myth to my children. Santa, to me exists in the sense that it enables us to share a joyous occassion with our families. One day each of my children will know the truth and probably perpetuate the myth themselves.

My faith in Jesus was also subjected to my scrutany as I grew older, I stopped believing in the some aspects, Adam and Eve, the Virgin Birth etc. At this point the story changed, I was told that the bible isn't to be taken literally, but the meaning is still clear. You may be surprised to know that many bishops in the UK do not believe in the virgin birth.

If you look at things objectively one can see similarities between the Santa story and the story of Jesus. An historical approach is important, but it doesn't help much unless we can separate all the myths and embellishment out. We know that even very recent stories such as Robin Hood have been embellished out of almost all proposrtion in a very short space of time. Do you not see that it is possible, just possible that the same thing has happened with Jesus?

"Try to give clues": thats an understatement of the year especially since in the bible god is basically roaring his existing out.

The thing the corrupt society was a metaphor that may have been too subtle for you to get so I'll spell it out. With the theif, society (through the judge and jury) is judging but they are to blame equally. God judges us by toturing us in hell but he is responsible for our crimes as much as we are because he made humanity (please stop saying Adam and Eve, that is a myth) unable to avoid committing sin. That is why god is to blame also. We are not blameless, but god is not blameless and he gets away scot free which is unjust.

You say that the point of the ressurection was to make us closer to god. However if god can make us closer even if we still reject him, why does he need to use jesus: he just has to welcome us. If he can't bring us back to him unless we agree then Jesus should not have died because more people would learn to be closer to god by his preaching than his futile death.

Religion hasn't scorned me anymore than it scorns humanity as a whole by demeaning us and destroying or consuming all other value like that worst narcotic.

"@TGM - "bartdogg, there is a contradiction in your belief. You think it is impossible for a human to be moral, and you think we choose to be immoral. If immorality is inevitable, how can it be a free, proper choice? As I see it, it would be like saying that the penguin chooses not to fly."

Again you're changing parameters with the Penguin. Immorality is inevitable and we are found guilty as a result. We have no excuse because we are destined to betray God. This is blame-shifting. "Seriously judge, I had to steal! We were poor!" The reality is you've still stolen. I'm not sure that's the best excuse, but there it is."

Ok, lets take this step by step. Do we choose to be immoral?

"I'm assuming you're refering to Jesus' miracles. Let's leave those aside for now, because they are considered miracles because they cannot be tested scientifically. That's what makes them miracles. The crux of your argument is this, "science must come before historical evidence." That is a valid argument. I would suggest you take virtually nothing as fact, though, that hasn't happened within the last, say, 100 years. Everything else for your system must be deemed conjecture. Are you really comfortable with that? Man historians worldwide are rolling over."

No, they are considered miracles because they can't be explained scientifically, because they go against recognised scientific phenomena. There are things that cannot be empirically tested, althropology, for instance, that are not miracles. Your definition is wrong.
As for leaving them aside, we can't. I accept that Jesus, the man, existed, and had a significant following. That is history that is very hard to deny. The miracles are equally hard to deny, historically, but straightforward to deny scientifically, and as you agree is valid, I place scientific evidence before historical evidence, because it is stronger.

You develop, I don't doubt unwittingly, a straw man argument here. I am not rejecting the value of history, I am just saying that we cannot give it the weight necessary for it to overhaul science, because science is a stronger form of evidence. I can and do accept ancient history, I am convinced of the existence of Nero, Socrates and Homer, but if you said that they could fly by flapping their arms, I would reject it, because my science says that that cannot be true. I follow the same path with rejecting the miracles of Jesus, which are vital to your faith.

"How would you like me to demonstrate whether there is a purpose of life? Empirically? In a lab? Your system is becoming more and more confined here; "I will believe nothing unless it be empirically proven." I again assert that you're living by faith."

Quite my point. You can't demonstrate the existence of a 'purpose of life' at all. It is an impossibility to do so; and when we have no evidence for the existence of something, we must reject the fact of its existence, just as we reject Russell's teapot, so too we must reject the 'purpose of life' as something external to our own minds and imaginations. The 'purpose of life' is nothing more than what we choose it to be ourselves.

I will believe in things that aren't empirically proven, but I won't believe in some totally new abstract concept without empirical proof. If I am told that there is an oil company in Asia of which I haven't heard, I will believe it, because I understand the idea of an oil company, I know that they exist, and I can see it being perfectly reasonable that there is an oil company in Asia. With 'God' and 'the purpose of life', I don't know of anything even remotely similar, and that's why I demand more evidence, just as if you told me that there was a company in Asia specialising in the fuel, "Toulsang", of which I have never heard, I would want more evidence to make me believe it.

"I've not presented rational argument? Have you looked at the "clues for Christianity?" Refute the resurrection, I challenge you. I do require a rational argument, just not empirical proof. You don't either, actually. You haven't empirical proven that to believe something you must have empirical proof."

The resurrection can be rejected on the principle that historical evidence is weaker than scientific evidence, which states that it is impossible. Furthermore, your 'clues' are not a rational argument, because they are invalid, either by having premises that are weak (such as the 'clue' about beauty) or because the existence of god does not follow from them.

This leaves you with nothing by faith, faith in invalid arguments, or just direct faith in god.

@TGM - Here we are at an impass. All your last comment says essentially the same thing. Summarily you say:

"The resurrection can be rejected on the principle that historical evidence is weaker than scientific evidence, which states that it is impossible"

That is your position. The resurrection can hardly be challenged historically, but we can climb the ivory tower and just say science trumps it. I'm ok with that solong as you recognize that you, in fact, are holding the trump card and demanding God play on your terms.

@maniac -

"If you look at things objectively one can see similarities between the Santa story and the story of Jesus. An historical approach is important, but it doesn't help much unless we can separate all the myths and embellishment out. We know that even very recent stories such as Robin Hood have been embellished out of almost all proposrtion in a very short space of time. Do you not see that it is possible, just possible that the same thing has happened with Jesus?"

This is a common argument. I'd challenge you to look into the historicity of new testament scritpure. Look here: http://www.theopedia.com/Historicity_of_the_New_Testament. and then the pages therein. Jesus was no Santa Claus figure. This was no game of telephone, nor was this person's story developed over time. Look into it.

I think we can press the point further. I cannot challenge the resurrection historically because I haven't tried, and feel no need to. I don't know if I could if I tried.

But since you oppose me, you must presumably oppose the assertion that I make that historical evidence is weaker than scientific evidence? That I think we can continue to discuss that further.

bartdogg, what of the other points and questions?

@TGM - I rest on the truth that you cannot empirically prove that to believe something it must be empirically proven. That is your trump card. You're essentially saying, "historical evidence isn't always empirical proof (or at least it is not of the same order), so I will not even look into the reliability of it. I will wait for empirical scientific proof."

You are forming an entire worldview around something that is not empirically provable yourself!. You will NOT believe something just because it cannot be empirically proven. Do you not see that you are making demands of God to come to your terms?

Being a historian, I obvioulsy assert that reliable, accurate historical evidence is equal to empirical scientific evidence. Regardless, most of the time, they measure different things. Could you scientificially empirically prove that, should the conditions be exactly the same, the US would have won the Revolutionary War if it we redone somehow? That would be an impossible thing to scientifically prove. You could prove historically, though, that the US, in fact, won the war. In that regard, obviously, historical evidence has won the day. On the flip side, a historian could hardly empirically prove many things a scientists proves. Do you see the difference?

gonna workout and shower. Be back in a bit. @TGM - What other questions?

@bartdogg, the Revolutionary War example doesn't apply here. If I found numerous historical document that said that gravity doesn't exist, and, therefore, people are capable of flight, then I would not conclude that people used to be capable of flight until gravity came along, because that isn't really possible. I would instead conclude that the historical evidence was inaccurate.