That's the level of "intellect" I'm having to deal with here!>

That's because <mort> would have to give arguments as to why God does not exist before he can say that God can't raise Jesus from the dead.

<mort> is saying that people don't rise *naturally* from the dead. Who disagrees? Not me.

What we are saying is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and <mort> has not contested this, again, because he knows he'd have to have arguments for atheism - and he doesn't have one. Therefore he side steps with a red herring "Why do you bla bla bla Flying Spaghetti Monster".

See how that goes?

The god of the gaps.>

None of my arguments are God of the Gaps arguments at all.

God of the Gaps is saying, "We don't know how this or that happened, so God did it". You'll find none of that here.

Look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, - even the argument from the resurrection treats the bible not as a holy book, but looks at it through a completely historical perspective with an inference to the best explanation.

You make general dismissive statements, but you don't actually contend with the premises that the arguments are based on.

That is your fallacy.

You've done your work well, <mort>. You should be satisfied. You can sit back and laugh now. You've earned it.

However, you'll notice I'm not bickering with my fellow Christians, so I'm not included in this Christian against Christian nonsense.

Now that you've easily won that battle <mort>, you still need to deal with me.

What good reasons do you have for thinking that God can't raise Jesus from the dead?

Let's see. You claim that there is no evidence against God's existence, so you are not an atheist, you are flexible and open minded.

This means you are open to the idea that God exists.

If you are open to the idea that God exists then you think it's possible that God exists.

If you think it's possible that God exists, then it's possible that God could raise Jesus from the dead.

If you say that it's not rational to think so, then you need to give your arguments and reasons, lest you leave yourself with an empty assertion.

He's just repeating himself now because he has nothing else to say and won't give any serious coherent answers to legitimate questions posed to himself.

Back on May 30 <Big Pawn> wrote <<morts> sole purpose is to sow discord among us. He's an evil, ignorant being who hates what is good and loves what is wrong.>

At the time I replied <I don't agree with your description of <Colonel Mortimer> as "an evil, ignorant being who hates what is good and loves what is wrong"> however I'm now beginning to wonder about that?

Maybe you're right about him after all?

Maybe you're right about him after all? >

Proof is in the pudding, as they say.

<I previously answered <Colonel Mortimer>'s latest question regarding any apparent "inconsistency" back on May 27 as I had done numerous times before that!

He's just repeating himself now because he has nothing else to say and won't give any serious coherent answers to legitimate questions posed to himself.>

Indeed, you respectfully and patiently answered him, but he has no way of actually responding to you on your level, so he just says "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Santa Claus" and runs away.

But I've just asked him another question with no nonsense attached, a serious question with philosophical underpinnings, regarding the logic behind his reasoning in saying that positing the resurrection given theism is irrational.

He won't be able to answer, so he'll say:

God of the Gaps
Santa Claus
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Pagan Myths preceded etc...
There are other religions
Why are you so mean

And so on.

These people resort to dismissive generalities instead of engaging in the actual arguments. This is good because lurking readers can say to themselves, "Gee, this guy <mort> doesn't really have a response. I thought the God people were supposed to be the dumb ones?"

No one asked me to comment on any of the typical arguments put forth by theists to try to prove the existence of God. I was, obviously, just making somewhat random observations triggered by the interchange between <Colonel>, <OhioCF>, <SugarD>, <optimalp> and <pplayer>.

If asked, I will be happy to show why I believe that none of those arguments make a strong case for theism as the more rational position or to suggest an article or video that does a more comprehensive job at it. For example, in the case of the Kalam cosmological argument, this video ( specifically between minutes 6 and 12 )shows in a simple way some of the logical mistakes committed by apologists when trying to use it to prove the existence of their God. It is actually quite generous to theists because it doesn't even address the problems contained in the second premise.

You do your own philosophy here. We don't go around chasing videos because then in order to discuss an objection, we need to go to the author of the video for an explanation.

In this forum we do our own spade work <clemens>.

<No one asked me to comment on any of the typical arguments put forth by theists to try to prove the existence of God. I was, obviously, just making somewhat random observations triggered by the interchange between <Colonel>, <OhioCF>, <SugarD>, <optimalp> and <pplayer>.>

I asked you in the blitz tournament kibitz page, along with anyone else on that page, to follow me here if they wanted to continue to debate philosophical arguments for theism. So don't say no one asked you. That's how you got here in the first place.

I'm glad though that you realize that your dismissive generalities do not actually contend with the arguments and therefore amount to nothing more than expressioning frustration over them.

<The Arguments>

In the first place, theists can show that all of the evidence lies on one side of the debate and that is with the theist. That is to say that there are positive arguments for theism while there are no positive arguments for atheism.

Please keep in mind that we do not equivocate on the word atheism by switching in and out with agnosticism whenever the atheist comes up short. In order to prevent this from happening, I present all the debates in this direction as such:

1. There are good reasons to think that the proposition, "God exists" is true.

2. There are not good reasons to think that the proposition, "God does not exist" is true.

That is, there are good reasons for theism but not its *negation*.

Therefore, right away, if you are not going to defend atheism but rather seek refuge under agnosticism, then there is no debate between us because I seek to debate atheists. Agnostics claim ignorance, and ignorance needs no arguments obviously.

<Big Pawn> <So why is it not rational to say that God can raise Jesus from the dead?>

The god of gaps, forever denied, yet incessantly affirmed.

While I don't think it was your intention, you just made <Clemens Scheitz>'s point.

Wait just a second! Isn't this the same poster that said, <You are still coming here <Colonel>? I wonder if you read what I posted in the Rogoff page a couple of days ago, did you ? Don't you see that some people are so invested in their own belief systems that not matter what you put in front of them, they are just "not going to get it" ( blind to the evidence, cognitive impenetrability, Ken Ham,... get the idea?).

There are a couple of very good reasons why almost nobody visits and/or post in this forum ( hint, it's not because the subject is uninteresting). Think about what those good reasons may be Colonel, is a real eye opener.>

Now you're "happy to show"?

Aren't you the same person that said, <Hi <Colonel Mortimer>, I have a question for you. Why do you keep trying to extract objectivity and common sense from <BigPawn> and <OptimalPlay> in religious matters?

I admire your dedication, but, isn't it time for you to realize that, when confronted with fanatics of that caliber with apparently unlimited time to publicized their deep cognitive and emotional biases and delusions, is a futile effort...>

Now you are here and "happy to show" and so on?

What happened to your advice to <mort>? Why aren't you taking your own advice? Why waste your time here, if you go around saying that it *is* a waste of time to debate here?

First you say one thing and then you turn around and do the exact opposite.

I think I have the answer to this strange behavior of yours. I think you wanted to debate all along but didn't know what to say, so you tried to hide behind all that baloney you said to <mort> about it "not being worth the time" and "pointless" and all those lies.

We know you lied because you are here now and "happy" to "waste your time"!

What you really did was watch an internet infidel youtube video, get all booked up on atheism, and now you're ready to put me away!

LOL!

LOL!

God of the gaps would be this:

The world including scientists and atheists: "Wow! Jesus rose naturally from the dead! How did this happen?"

Theists, "Since we have no naturalistic explanation, God must have done it"

But this is not the case <mort>, and it is not God of the gaps. You really need to know what your cliches mean.

No one is saying that Jesus or anyone rises naturally from the dead! We are saying that God rose Jesus from the dead.

Now, your refutation is that this is not an intelligent or rational thing to say.

But I said,

<What good reasons do you have for thinking that God can't raise Jesus from the dead?

Let's see. You claim that there is no evidence against God's existence, so you are not an atheist, you are flexible and open minded.

This means you are open to the idea that God exists.

If you are open to the idea that God exists then you think it's possible that God exists.

If you think it's possible that God exists, then it's possible that God could raise Jesus from the dead.

If you say that it's not rational to think so, then you need to give your arguments and reasons, lest you leave yourself with an empty assertion.

So let's hear it.>

But you did not respond to my points. So I will take that as an admission that you have no response.

Thanks for the debate.

Either respond to my points and establish a real back and forth or I'm just deleting - and I will delete like crazy. I will just flush your comments down the toilet over and over again. I will enjoy it too.

<mort>, stay on topic or I will delete the next one too.

Why? If I accept that God could exist, what makes you think it's the God you believe exists and who purportedly resurrected Jesus?

And say if I believed in the same God as you, how does that make it rational that a man dead for 3 days can be made alive again?

You admitted as much yourself..

<Big Pawn> <mort is saying that people don't rise *naturally* from the dead. Who disagrees? Not me.>

However, by highlighting the "naturally' you are implying that a dead man can become alive again through the agency of God.

Because God is a maximally great being who is omnipotent. God created the universe, the laws of nature, time, space, life and death.

Given these qualities, what reason do you have that God could not raise Jesus from the dead?

(Your question, by the way, is not an argument for your assertion that God can't raise Jesus from the dead. A question is not an argument.)

First, it's not inexplicable or implausible *given* theism. If one believes that God exists then concluding that God raised Jesus from the dead is not God of the gaps at all. Again, I don't claim that people rise naturally from the dead, therefore no scientific explanation will ever be sought. There is no gap to fill.

Saying that God rose Jesus from the dead is an inference to the best explanation of the facts surrounding Jesus' life, radical claims of being God (forgiving sins, saying that when you see him you see the Father, speaking as God, having authority to change the Law), his crucifixion, burial, the discovery of his empty tomb by a group of women, post mortem experiences of Him by many people, and the desciples new belief that He had risen.

No one is saying that Jesus or anyone rises naturally from the dead! We are saying that God rose Jesus from the dead.>

Where you and <Opt> fail is in this logistical gap:

Given these qualities, what reason do you have that God could not raise Jesus from the dead?>

No reason at all. No reason to think Adam & Eve were not real and that that Noahs flood was not either - except that you and <optimal play> don't believe in the last 2 and you invoke science for your unbelief, which you suspend when it comes to raising people from the dead.

I'm not saying it's true because the bible says so. I'm looking at the resurrection through a historical perspective just as any historian would about any other historical figure. I'm not treating the bible in this argument as any sort of holy book at all. I'm merely looking at it as a historian would, as a group of texts handed down to us from the first century.

In no way is biblical inerrancy a part of my argument. In no way is the general reliability of the gospels a part of my argument either. Instead, I am looking at specific passages and comparing them with others independently attested.

No reason at all.>