The Tension of Faith

First one could point out that there has never been an eyewitness account of Santa Claus (except obviously fictional ones of course: "the moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow gave a lustre of midday to objects below..."). Next one would point out all the references to Santa Claus as fiction, the story's origin in a legend for instance, the embellishments that can be traced to various cultural sources. There is evidence for all these things I believe. It shouldn't be terribly hard.But the miracles of the Bible are reported by very serious witnesses. John's very statement that he wrote what he did as evidence so that people might believe is very strong evidence in itself, something nobody would ever say who was not being honest, yet you deny it based on your own personal prejudice against the possibility of miracles and absolutely nothing else, and by making John out to be a liar or a writer of fiction. I'll refrain from describing the kind of mind that would make up such stuff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It doesn't need explanation or argument, just a statement of what you believe. You believe both that miracles are not real and that there is evidence of miracles. You've got it backwards. It isn't that things exist until we prove they don't but the other way around. It isn't my job to prove miracles don't exist but your job to prove they do. You think evidence of miracles exists, just as I assume you believe evidence of Santa Claus exists, but what you call evidence is just made up stories. You're arguing for the land of make believe. You may as well argue for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.--Percy

It's a fallacy that existence is a given until proven otherwise. You don't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Rather, the opposite is true. He exists when evidence for him is produced.There was a real Santa Claus (St. Nicholas) who lived a long time ago, but the Santa Claus who makes toys at the North Pole and delivers them to children all over the world in a single night is made up. There's no evidence for this Santa Claus, much as Modulous might like to think otherwise. Eyewitness reports are the most unreliable form of evidence, and the reports in the Bible are hearsay anyway.Modulous and I have been using the example of John, so if we're talking John then John doesn't report how serious the witnesses were, and besides, seriousness and credulousness and error are not mutually exclusive. You want seriousness? Go to Hyde Park and listen to some of the soapbox preachers. Anyone can write in the style of John. "I testify that what John wrote is false. I know that my testimony is true." Lies have been uttered in every manner and form possible. It isn't personal prejudice, and the way I feel is equal opportunity because I feel the same way about everything. You got evidence, I'll believe it. Well, let's not call John a liar, that seems a bit extreme for such a well meaning chap, but he certainly wasn't above changing the information from his sources to better fit the theology of his community. Why be so judgmental? John, whoever he was, was probably doing the best he could with the material he had given the requirements of his community.--Percy

How do you know that your fundamentalist friends aren't the ones who have departed from the faith?

If so, we first need o define what The faith is.

How is that even possible?

In which case so is your proposal. The issue is that we dont know...not this fiction you propose that we have found evidence not to believe.

Yes, I know you think it's obvious. But clearly that isn't a position we share. Could you please explain the contradiction? You wouldn't accept 'its obvious' as answer when a Creationist makes a claim and is challenged, I don't see why you should be exempted.I expect you can't show the contradiction, and that the reason is that no contradiction exists. I'm not asking you to prove non-existence. Though I suspect your argument, should you present it, relies on being able to do so.I'm asking you to prove that it is 100% certain that the Gospel according to John is fiction. Apparently you can't. Since you can't achieve this (and I'm highly confident this is true), my mathematical argument stands. If this is a satisfactory conclusion to you, that is fine by me.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It's self-evidently contradictory and requires no explanation. I can put it in other words, if you like. You believe evidence for miracles exists and miracles do not. Not that John is fiction, but that the parts about eyewitnesses to miracles are fictional. From Message 927: The land of make believe where you've taken up residence isn't subject to mathematical proofs. Because it's make believe.--Percy

No it is not self-evident. Please explain the contradiction. Please do not merely repeat that you think it is obvious. So go for it. Prove that it is 100% certain that the Gospel according to John is fiction, at least the parts about miracles.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Sorry for the second reply, but after posting I noticed that you changed this line from one about ontology to one about non-existence: Naw, that's what you're pretty much doing, asking me to prove non-existence. I don't have an argument. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your request that I prove the imaginary doesn't exist.--Percy

What was wrong with the rephrasing? The make believe cannot be mathematically proven to be make believe.--Percy

It did not contain an explanation as to the nature of the contradiction. I'll take this as a 'no, I can't show how we can obtain 100% certainty'. In which case my argument remains unrefuted.

---

You are the one that claimed 100% certainty can be achieved. I'm glad you arrived at the same conclusion I did: it's absurd.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It shouldn't need to be explained that declaring both a thing and its opposite true is a contradiction. Yeah, that seems your best option, declare victory.--Percy

I did not claim I believed in miracles and I do not believe in miracles.
I did not claim there was evidence and that there was no evidence.So I did not declare both a thing and its opposite. So, as I suspected, no contradiction exists. I have presented an argument. You have not refuted it, merely stated your opinion that it is incorrect. In a debate, that's as good as victory as one can hope to achieve.