Why so friggin' confident?

I am asking for evidence of why I should believe your god is real. Unfortunately any time anyone asks this of you we get your circular reasoning that we won't get evidence of his existence until we believe. And then you contradict this by saying that evidence isn't needed anyways. So, if this is true than why should I believe in your God, versus Thor, Zeus or any other mythical deity.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

I don't honour gravity either but it's presence is quite obviously demonstrable. Actually I don't think that you and Bertot do worship the same God. Which suggests that in your view Bertot considers himself to be "his own God".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Modulous writes:Not at all, I was only pointing out that if one thing or another is unfalsifiable it does not follow that there is still not reasons to believe in a thing. There still may be very valid reasons. The point is Modulous, that you proceed at that moment and in the exact moment of crossing without having the exact information that requires absoluteness to make that leap of faith. You are proceeding on faith, before during and after. It does not matter that the bridge did not collaspe at that time or even during or after, it was with what mentality you proceeded. We procced in this life with the best of all possible information to know that our WALK is justified. In its strictist form the 'unfalsifiability', principle will not allow even this as a method of accepting a certain principle for a thing to be believed. Believe it or not this is a wonderful addmission on your part, because as I stated before those principles that the scientific method employs usually will not even allow such a way of proceeding. As you indicated in another post the scientific method does not accept anything that is not unfalsifiable. Typically the person that employs such methods will proceed in the same manner in all other beliefs, usually.You have confidence he fell off his horse becuse you believe the evidence suggests he actually existed. Your confidence level is bolstered by the foundational, yet non-complete evidence in said individual. Not to repeat myself, but my confidence level is bolstered by my foundaional evidence for his existence, omnipotence and foundational evidence in the scriptures that he was concieved miraculously. No absolute turth is necessary where the evidence suggest such confidence should exists. As we are now a the end of this debate and Percival Freakshow, has graciously allowed us to proceed with these same lines of reasoning, I must point out again that here is no evidence other than that which I have logically set out that you will percieve as rational. As we have proceeded I have demoonstrated that your position and beliefs are the exact same as others. The evidence that so many have set out here regarding the material evidence should in our mind should provide confidence for anyone. However, there will always be those that object to most if not all of it. It is my belief that the method they employ are slightly inaccurate and unreasonable to form a CONFIDENT belief in anything.I hope I have spelled out why a Christian has every reason to have such a confident belief in the things advocated in the scriptures. If the reasons are not enough for yourself, then I would ask you to take them collectively, as a whole, then they make more sense, instead of piece mealing them as sperate intities. Not a single one of the above assertions is valid from any respect. Please tell me why people would die protecting a lie, would you? Now if they were just mistaken and proceeded to death that would be understanable, but you are assuming they are deceptive and that they would follow that lie even if it meant death. Does that make sense to you Modulous.? If there is no reason to believe they died to maintain the lie, then there is no reason to believe they lied in the first place, correct?Everyone of these questions proceeds withthe attitude that these fellas were alone in this context. How can I as a believer disregard the obvious intervention and guidance of the Holy Spirit in these affairs. In other words you lift these events out of the context as if it says nothing of such intervention form God. Only the collective evidence regarding God can and will allow a confident belief in such matters. What does the COLLECTIVE evidence suggest? I am as confident as any person can be that these events took place. In other words I am 999% sure based on the evidence and eyewitness accounts as provided that they took place. If it gets narrowed down to supporting evidence I no competition for the scriptures. These are nothing less than interesting statements to me. What else could I do other than that which I have done in my arguments and rationale to demonstrate the level of confidence that I have and why I am so confident in them? Let me demonstrate. You state you are reasonably certain that Henry fell off of his horse. What you are actually stating is that you actually believe he did and there is certainly no reason to believe he did not. In other words you are as confident as one could possibly be that the event took place, even though you did not witnesses it. It is my guess you truely believe it happened correct?In the above paragraphs you ascribe to me a situation or status that is not true of myself or my position. You know full well the sense I am saying "beyond any shadow of a doubt", that is the sense anyone would use the expression. How do I at this point in history convince those that do not believe we landed on the moon, that we did beyond any shadow fo a doubt? What woould be the overwhwelming evidence to remove it from every single persons mind, that does not believe such. Your are simply manipulating my words. Essentially all of the above positions are correct and true as stated. How ever even before we were to move to the scientific, historical or archeological evidence supporting the scriptures it is my bet we cant even get passed point one that you make. In other words HOW important ist it to believe that God actually exists,the physical evidence supports it and that such a said being can acually perform the miraculous? Modulous, I ask you this direct question again, does God exist and do you believe there is direct evidence for such a belief?Such a belief is paramount before proceeding to any direct historical or factual corroboration and how that will be interpreted. To demonstrate that you have no sense or belief in the supernatural, or a supreme being, I point you to the silly statement that you make when you say, "How would they know anything about her sexual history", you ask. Such a comment demonstrates a completely humanistic standpoint and position. How could anyone ever come to a confident belief in these matters if they reject outright the initial and concrete belief and evidence that supports a claim in the first place. A discussion of the historical accuracy out of this context is ridiculous. In other words, am I justified and can I hve confidence in my beliefs in the first place. You reject in theory the evidence in theory then ask me to demonstrate my position in a historical setting, that is nonsensical.What confidence would you say that Daniel was divinely inspired when in his book he indicates that Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon, when before it was discovered, that every one thought it was Nabonidus, they thought the scriptures were inccurate, in its claim. When in fact a clay tablet discovered indicated they were co-regents. The in Daniel 5 the the king says I will make you third ruler in all the land and this would make sense only after having such knowledge from a historically accurate writing. To what will you attribute this accuracy Modulous, lucky guess, it was written after the fact, etc, etc, etc. My point is friend you dont even believe point one, how will we discuss the others with any frame of reference. You disregard the only point that would make any connection in Marys context.It will do you no good to assert that you will accept point one for sake of argument, it has to be believed or rejected for very valid reasons. Now are you starting to see why our confidence level if so friggin? Question, would it be necessary to witness the event if point one were true?I will state it again, you do not understand what evidecne is in this connection, you do not understand how a certain thing is believed or not believed. Your methods do not reflect reality on the common usage of what constitues a belief system. Those two wittnesess historical accuracy, having not seen the event, is to be believed if point one is real and can be demonstrated from an evidential standpoint. The confidence level is justified. I hope I have now made myself perfectly clear in my position. Listen to me carefully Modulous, no item or collective evidence will be sufficent from the humanistic standpoint, to achieve your request from myself. I could present item after item, like that in the book of Daniel, the rest of the Old Testament, or the New testament and you will dismiss any and all of them as inccurate, inadmissable, or ficticious. Without the proper framework for the belief in the existence of God or the supernatural, none of this will ever make any sense to you. In other words you can provide no physical evidence to demonstrate that even my point one, as you set them out, is insufficient much less the rest of the evidence in the scriptures, history, etc.So tell me plainly, Modulous, since you are kinda of vauge with your 700-800% sceniero, tell me, given all the things I have discussed, what is it excallly that I could say or provide other than what I have to make you believe it or to say, oh yes Bertot now I see what you are taliking about. You understand this is a bit facitious really, knowing there is nothing that could be offered to change your mind. If I said to you that about 100 yeas ago the Academy of sciences put out a list of 50 or 51 scientific discrepncies in the Bible and that not a single one of those discrepencies remains or that any scientist will back those diescrpencies anymore, would that help you. Maybe its science that needs to catch up with the Bible and not the opposite. The substance of the points that I have made are the heart of this issue, not some fact of history connected with the miraculous. Any evidence of this nature brought up will be dismissed. You had another comment about the book of Koran before this one, but since I have easily demonstrated my point in that connection and with that book, I see no need to discuss it further, unless you would like to extract out of it that which the Bible touts.My point was that the writers of the New Testament in harmony with each other and as eyewitnesses, in conjunction with the other writes indicate that he fulfilled these prophecies. In connection with your reference to voo doo or anyother source document I would simply ask you as I have before to bring forth the document (as you did with the Koran) and we will compare it to the Bible. If my estimations about what constitues a valid belief system are correct and I see no reason to believe they are not, atleast you have presented none, then the premises that I have set out in this connection are more than valid to have confidence that Mary was a virgin or anyother miracle stated in the scriptures.In your argumentation methods here you piece meal your contentions. In other words you seperate point one from the others as you proceed. If you were to make statements like the one about the Apostles not knowing her sexual history in the context of inspiration and guidance, would the assertion that she was a virrgin then make sense to you? Or shall we leave it with points 2-10 and assume the other is in no way possible, as seems to be the manner in which you are proceeding. Now, if it comes down to facts and history about things 2 to 6000 years ago verses another source about the miraculous then set out that source that implies both at the same time and I will give it a fair comparison.D Bertot

So nothing at all like the evidence for gravity is it?I don't have to search or seek out gravity in order for it to be witnessed. If I step oof that 100ft building then gravity will splat my ass whether I believe in it or not. Nothing at all like your incompetent Yahweh. Just did, He failed again to respond.I also just let go of a book and it fell to the floor, gravity does that you know. Far superior evidence to useless Yahweh. As soon as Yahweh apologises for His evil treatment of the Human race I will consider it.

Satan or satanic spirits may come to you in a dream and ask you to kill your neighbor and his family. But I would not do so because of God of the Bible says this in Ex 20:13, To make the journey of knowing and serving God more rewarding.

And I have given you the evidence that the God of the Bible has revealed in the wonders of creation and gives to those who search for Him, find Him, and honor Jesus as Lord. It's you who thinks this is circular reasoning, not I.Blessings

On this matter, it's not what you think that counts.Bertot and I both honor Jesus as Lord, and it's what the Lord thinks that counts. A wise man once said this: "There are two truths I know. There is a God and I am not."Bertot honors Jesus as Lord. Therefore, he is not his own god. Those that do not honor Jesus as Lord are their own gods.

I didn't say murder (unjustified killing). I said kill. What if God told you to kill and gave you the justification i.e. your next door neighbor is an unbeliever, a homosexual, a palm reader, etc.According to God an uneblieving man and his family should be killed: Or what if your neighbor was a homosexual, God wants you to kill him: Fornicator's are to burned alive: Adulterors are also to be killed: If you curse your parents you also have to put these people to death: What if your neighbor is a fortune teller. You have to kill them as well: Women who are discovered by theire "husbands" not to be virgins on there wedding nights are also ordered by God to be stoned to death: And what about these scriptures? So evidently God says it is ok to kill the defendent at trial if he is uncooperative.You have a lot of blood to spill, commanded by your almighty God, you better hop to it!Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

That would be fine if there was any corroborative evidence to the statement other that the Bible, which is prejudiced toward the God of Abraham.Edited by bluescat48, : typo (what else)

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Johnboy may remember the prophets of Baal, but I remember Chemosh, the Moabite God, kicking Yahweh's divine butt. Relevant lines: 17. For I had devoted them to destruction for (the god) Ashtar Chemosh. And from there I took the
18. vessels of Yahweh, and I presented them before the face of Chemosh. And the king of Israel had built
19. Yahaz, and he stayed there throughout his campaign against me; and Chemosh drove him away before my face. And, of course, there's the famous incident in Judges 1:19 when the inept Yahweh again showed how useless He is: The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots. Think I will get myself a chariot of iron for Judgement Day! Edited by Brian, : whisky infusion!

Hi Bertot,
I hope life is getting a little less busy and worrying and I hope your friend is well or at least getting better. There are a few things you raise that could be addressed, but in the interests of wrapping up the discussion I'll cut to the heart of things.

Before you understand, you must believe

This seems rather telling. For ease of reading I will reiterate point one: "The material universe is evidence of the existence of God".Now, first of all - are you suggesting that I am incapable of following an argument unless I agree with the premises? That doesn't seem to follow any rules of logic I've ever seen. The alternative, as I will set out here, is that you are about to become circular in your reasoning. Further, it seems to rather insult my intelligence, don't you think?Point one does not refer explicitly to YHWH - who, for the sake of argument, we will assume is the deity described by the books of the Holy Bible. Point one simply says that the existence of the material/physical attests to a creator of that material/physical. I don't believe that such a creator exists (to answer your direct question a second time).What you might be saying is that before I can have confidence in the miraculous conception of Jesus I must first accept the existence of YHWH and his character as described by the Holy Bible. This should be self-evidently circular reasoning. I am asking why you are confident in the claims laid out in the Holy Bible and you reply "Because I believe that the claims laid out in the Holy Bible are true".

---

Next Day Edit:It occurred to me that there might be an yet another explanation for your quote above (and related comments), you might be suggesting that I won't believe in the miraculous conception unless I first believe in God. To this, I believe I have already agreed - it was a point I think you raised some time ago. This thread is not about you trying to convince me to believe, it is about you explaining why you think you have good grounds to believe as confidently as you do.I hope you can see the significant difference between the two.

---

Harmony

There is one thing you do hint at, which I think is important enough to cover. You write, "...the writers of the New Testament in harmony with each other and as eyewitnesses..." and you have made mention of this harmoniousness previously. Do you believe that this harmony should be explicitly added to the reasons that you are so friggin' confident?I am assuming you are aware of the problems with this thinking, so I'd like to hear how you have resolved them in a fashion that enables you to maintain the high degree of confidence you do have. For instance, the Holy Bible is just a collection of writings that various people have agreed at various times are harmonious. Those writings that are not harmonious are discarded. It seems obvious that if you collect writings from self-described eye witnesses that only agree with one story (and systemically ignore or destroy those writings that disagree with that story), then that story will be consistent or harmonious.How do you conclude that 'harmony' is justification for having confidence in certain claims, with that in mind?Naturally this also assumes they are in harmony, but multiple significant discrepancies exist between these witnesses accounts. Thousands of years of apologetics have managed to come up with various patches to try covering these problems up, do you find these discrepancies increase or decrease your level of confidence in the miraculous conception claim?Finally, the harmony claim is surely undermined by evidence of collusion. When the police are gathering data they seperate the witnesses as early as possible so that they don't purposefully or accidentally harmonise their stories with one another. False memories can be created or holes in stories can be deliberately patched otherwise.If you ask a witness to produce such an open ended report as 'give me as complete a biography of person x as you remember it' you would be suspicious if those witnesses include something like this:

quote:

---

And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

---

quote:

---

And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey

---

I am not looking to argue each of these points, but I am wondering how you have come to have such a high degree of confidence in the claims made by these witnesses given these issues which would give pause to just about any teacher or police officer or parent?

What I was looking for

Well I've been studying this subject and exploring it from multiple angles for the past decade and a half (give or take). You would be astonished at the kinds of things that I very confidently believed were true during that time period. I am not asking you to convince me that the miraculous conception of Jesus actually happened, just tell me why you believe it as confidently as 99.9%.You didn't, unfortunately, give me any comparisons. Are there any claims that you believe with a confidence of more than 99.9% are true? What is your confidence in the claim that the planet earth exists? What is your confidence in the claim that Abraham Lincoln was president of the USA. What is your confidence in the claim that Henry VIII fell of his horse?If I was going to believe a claim which relies heavily on eyewitness testimony, I would have to be able to give good reason as to why I believed they were a) eyewitnesses and b) reliableAnd even with those assurances I can't understand how you have the degree of confidence that you have. It seems wildly disproportionate to the quality of the evidence even if I accept that the YHWH of the Old Testament is a real entity and even if I accept that Jesus was really a miracle worker, it seems unreasonable to me to take Matthew and Luke's word about Jesus' birth with the level of confidence that you have proclaimed. I was hoping you would be able to explain, step by step, why you have the degree of confidence you do have.If you have given as complete an account of your confidence as you can do - then I suppose the topic is done. I do not think that there is good reason to have a high degree of confidence in these propositions.

Future threads

Do you have anything else you'd like to add? Here are two threads maybe we could try1. Why should we believe what Matthew says. We might look to the hypothetical question: What if somebody (the devil, a wicked man, a deluded man, a liar, a mistaken man) found the account of Matthew, copied it (paraphrasing so it wasn't identical) and added a single spurious claim that was not entirely inconsistent with other texts (or even worse, one that was entirely consistent with other texts). Would Bertot's system of confidence in belief mean he'd be compelled to believe this spurious claim?2. Why are we so confident in evolution?We can look at the various elements that give justification for believing that life on earth has changed over billions of years and the common ancestry of all life etc. We'll discuss some of the key evidences and the reasoning that leads to the conclusions. At the end - anybody can compare what reasons believers in theistic miracles give for being confident as per this thread with the reasons to be confident given in that thread.You want me to start them both?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi Bertot,I'm not going to engage your arguments because they seem very nebulous and circular to me, but I will note some errors, some of a factual nature, others of a logical nature. You claimed that your evidence was of the same nature and quality as that for evolution, but that kind of evidence can only lead to falsifiable conclusions. If your evidence leads to unfalsifiable conclusions, then by no means can it be of the same nature as the evidence for evolution. You're rejecting probability as a means of assessing risk. Good luck with that.Mod's "Henry VIII falling off a horse" example was just setting the stage for his next paragraph, which you ignored, so you end up addressing a point Mod wasn't making, but you say: History is not unfalsifiable. Tomorrow we might uncover the diary of a nobleman recounting how the king's guard was able to successfully carry off a ruse that the king had fallen off his horse, a measure taken to disguise his departure on a secret tryst with his next intended. Obviously the "falling off a horse" example is falsifiable. I think you might be confusing "hasn't been falsified yet" with "unfalsifiable." Mod wasn't making any claims to absolute truth - that's your realm. You must have great confidence, faith one might almost say, in my equanimity to keep this up. You've demonstrated the opposite. Not even close. You're asking the wrong question. People don't willingly die for a lie, but they die all the time for lies they think are true. In 1997 all member's of the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide because they believed the lies of Marshall Applegate about the meaning of the approaching Hale-Bopp comet. Every week we hear news from the Middle East of suicide bombers who believe the lies of Islamic martyrdom guaranteeing glory in heaven. And here at this website you're committing intellectual suicide with long irrational diatribes inspired by the lies of Christianity. You can use Mod's scale of 1 to a 1000, or you can use percentages, but you can't be "999% sure." You keep asserting how rational your position is, but arguing that belief should precede evidence is the opposite of rationality, and it certainly isn't the way anything in science works. A rational position would be that each case of validated information is evidence for accuracy, while each case of invalidated information is evidence for inaccuracy. Your irrational position is that each case of validated information is evidence for accuracy, while each case of invalidated information is just something we haven't found the evidence for yet but it's true anyway. Prove me wrong and name some cases of Biblical error that you acknowledge. Maybe the problem is that you're confusing evidence-based science with a belief system. Evidence-based science is John 10:10's example of stepping off a 100 story building. It doesn't matter whether you believe in gravity or not. Your belief system is irrelevant and you *will* fall. Science isn't a belief system. Scientific methods were developed to avoid the pitfalls of belief systems. Science and belief systems are not the same thing, and you're now trapped in a tangle of irrationality because the position you advocate requires that they be equivalent and equal. I think the errors in your thinking are perfectly clear. Once more with the Tinkerbell argument of you have to believe, then you will see. Again, it was a scale of 1 to 1000. There's no such thing as 700-800% certainty. This would make a great thread. Please find the list of discrepancies and create a thread proposal around them. Uh, no. You again repeat the mistake of assuming that the qualities the Bible has, or at least that you think it has, are the defining characteristics of scripture. Your beliefs are an accident of geography and family. Had you been born in the Middle East to an Islamic family you would be advancing the same arguments of legitimacy in favor of the Koran. I suspected you weren't really reading anything in this thread, nice to see it confirmed. Inspiration and guidance are part of your evidence? How long are you going to maintain the transparent charade that your evidence is of the same nature and quality as that for evolution, which does not accept "inspiration and guidance" as evidence?--Percy

I won't attempt the explain the law to you since you seem to be such an expert in the things of the law.When you are willing to consider the "grace and truth" of the Lord Jesus Christ, then maybe you can understand what the law was given to the Israelites for.

So God wasn't TRUE when he commanded that all these people should be killed???Yes, I understand how modern Christians (such as yourself) rationalize away the horrific attrocities COMMANDED by your God: infanticide, genocide, muder, rape, slavery, etc by talking about grace. This is the same God who states that he is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. And since you believe Jesus Christ is part of the triune Godhead i.e. and Than he too, according to your Bible, COMMANDED these attrocities to occur.So why is he (God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) COMMANDING and KILLING people left and right in the OT, and then all peaceful and speaking about grace and truth in the NT?This is an evident dichotomy brought about by two very different and diverging worldviews being thrown together: the ancient semetic religious beliefs of early Judaism in which Abraham, Moses and other early Jewish patriarchs whitled down from a pantheon of human-like, emotional (and sometimes angry & vengeful) gods (such as El, Baal, and others) to the monotheistic religion of early Elohim/Jehova-worsphip (which could be construed as two seperate and very different ancient Semitic god). Versus, the Zoroasteristic and Hellenistic philosophical/religious esoteric and mystical mindset which Jews of the 1st century AD adopted from there previous exposure in while in captivity in Babylon and Persia.This Greek and Persian metaphysical/philosophical influence is evident in the writings of the Rabbidic literature of the captivity and in Jewish literature pre-dating Christ as well as in the early Church literature. For example, Zoroasterism is religion built around a central theme of a pluralistic godhead and dualism, the struggle between light (good) and dark (evil). Plato talked about the "Perfect Man", Aristotle talked about an "Unmoved Mover" which is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Much of what modern Christianity uses in apologetics to rationalize its beliefs itself comes from Greek philosophical thinking from the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Zoroasteric elements such as heaven vs hell, angels vs demons, good vs evil are lacking in the Torah and are not written into Judaic literature until after the Jewish captivity in Babylon and Persian and upon returning back to the now Hellenized Palestine of the 3rd, 2nd and 1st centuries BC.I know you are going to disregard everything I am saying but if you truely study the surrounding religions and cultures around the time of the origins of the Judaic and Christian religions you will see the truth in this. And no I am not the only one to see this, even many open minded Jews (like my brother in law) see this as true.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Yes, please! With a citation leading us to which Academy of Sciences put out the list, and where it was published. I'd love to see it!

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD