Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[joobz]

DOC,
I suggest stop reading Geisler. Your arguments have become much worse since you started presenting his POV.

 

[DOC]

DOC, how is that a strawman?

1. You affirm that "people will only put themselves in danger to defend something that is actually true."

Never said or affirmed this.

2. Someone brings up an example of people giving up their lives for a belief.

Doesn't that, by your logic, prove that what they died for is true?

Your premise in #1 was incorrect, so this is incorrect.

If you see this "strawman" as misrepresenting your belief, then please clarify.

When I talk about 11 of the 12 apostles being martyred, that is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the Resurrection was true. In and of itself, it doesn't prove the resurrection is true, but when you add it to all the other facts that I've been bringing up, it increases the likelihood that it was indeed true.

 

[DOC]

DOC,
I suggest stop reading Geisler. Your arguments have become much worse since you started presenting his POV.

You have the right to your opinion. And I have a feeling you will respond to this with more opinions.

 

[DOC]

You use that word {strawman} a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I know exactly what it means. If people would refer only to my posts instead of making conjectures about what I believe then I wouldn't have to use it as much.

One way to prevent these false conjectures is to respond directly to my posts.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

When I talk about 11 of the 12 apostles being martyred, that is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the Resurrection was true. In and of itself, it doesn't prove the resurrection is true, but when you add it to all the other facts that I've been bringing up, it increases the likelihood that it was indeed true.

First, we do not know that 11 of the 12 apostles were martyred. There are traditions in which John, for instance, was not. There are alternate traditions concerning Thomas, and the Acts of Thomas are clearly not historical.

The logical issue of a statement lending support to the likelihood of a proposition being true is that if a necessary condition of the proposition is proved true, then it is more likely that the proposition is true. Martyrdom is not a necessary condition of the resurrection, so martyrdom of the apostles does nothing to advance the truth of the resurrection.

If the apostles were martyred, then it is true that they believed what they preached, since belief is a necessary condition for someone to die for a belief.

 

[Hokulele]

When I talk about 11 of the 12 apostles being martyred, that is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the Resurrection was true. In and of itself, it doesn't prove the resurrection is true, but when you add it to all the other facts that I've been bringing up, it increases the likelihood that it was indeed true.

No, you are still wrong. It is only proof of their belief, not proof that their belief is founded on anything real. Simply repeating your claim does not make it true.

Heaven's Gate would have just as much evidence for "truth" by Geisler's standards.

 

[DOC]

So? Have you or most Americans read the Koran? "It's hard to have confidence in something you haven't read yet."

Would you like me to link to how fast Islam is growing in the good old US of A?

I have made an attempt to read the Koran, but it is very difficult reading, and I did not get much from it. I'm not saying there isn't "some" truths in the Koran, though.

And Islam might be growing in the US but personally I don't think a large percentage of Americans will kneel and face Mecca five times a day. But the fervent prayer life of many Muslims should be admired, just like the many activities of the Christian Amish should be admired.

 

[Lothian]

I have made an attempt to read the Koran, but it is very difficult reading, and I did not get much from it. I'm not saying there isn't "some" truths in the Koran, though.

And Islam might be growing in the US but personally I don't think a large percentage of Americans will kneel and face Mecca five times a day. But the fervent prayer life of many Muslims should be admired, just like the many activities of the Christian Amish should be admired.

Personally I think Christianity will continue its decline with more and more people abandoning it each year.

 

[joobz]

I have made an attempt to read the Koran, but it is very difficult reading, and I did not get much from it. I'm not saying there isn't "some" truths in the Koran, though.

And Islam might be growing in the US but personally I don't think a large percentage of Americans will kneel and face Mecca five times a day. But the fervent prayer life of many Muslims should be admired, just like the many activities of the Christian Amish should be admired.

None of this actually addresses the argument made against you.

Allow me to rephrase this exchange:

Crazy Orange Guy(COG): "Orange is the one true fruit because it contains Citric acid."

Non-COG:"But Limes contain citric acid as well, why are not limes the one true fruit."

COG:"well, Limes contain some citric acid, this is true. But, personally, I don't think a lot of people will be eating limes anytime soon."

 

[joobz]

1. You affirm that "people will only put themselves in danger to defend something that is actually true."

Never said or affirmed this.

Well, ok. So you agree then that people will won't only put themselves into danger to defend something that is actually true.

When I talk about 11 of the 12 apostles being martyred, that is just one more fact that adds weight to the "likelihood" that the Resurrection was true. In and of itself, it doesn't prove the resurrection is true, but when you add it to all the other facts that I've been bringing up, it increases the likelihood that it was indeed true.

This sentence requires premise 1 to be true. Since you agree that premise 1 isn't true, then we can also assume you agree that this statement isn't true.


Like I said, You need to stop reading the Geisler.

 

[DOC]

No, you are still wrong. It is only proof of their belief, not proof that their belief is founded on anything real. Simply repeating your claim does not make it true.

Heaven's Gate would have just as much evidence for "truth" by Geisler's standards.

Yes, but Heaven's Gate did not result in the greatest selling book in the History of the world like the Bible is. and Heaven's Gate founder did not have 42 or 43 presidents attend worships services in honor of its founder or have someone like Thomas Jefferson say it has produced the greatest moral teachings the world has ever known. And I would assume its founder's grave or ashes are accounted for. And its founders birthday did not affect the calender (e.g. B.C. -- a.d.)

 

[Worm]

argument from popularity?

The point Hokulele made was not 'Heaven's Gate is as much of a cool religion as Christianity', but 'Heaven's Gate (by Geisler's standards) is as true as Christianity'

When will you realise that 'X thousand other people believe this - so it must be true' is a really pointless position to take?

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes, these are all accounts of the popularity of the bible.
How is it not possible for something popular to be untrue?
By what mechanism does popularity=truth?

How about the idea that slavery is acceptable?
It was incredibly popular, practiced on every inhabited continent, even by Jefferson!
Many passages in the greatest selling book in the history of the world condone slavery.
Many Many Emperors (Covering much more history than 43 presidents, and exercising much more power) owned slaves and saw nothing wrong with it.
The remains of many slaves and slaveholders are unaccounted for, and many of them didn't have 2000 years of hearsay to go missing.

I'll give you that the calendar isn't divided by slavery, so if your remaining argument is that things that change the calendar must be true, we can talk about that.

 

[paximperium]

The Lord of the Rings were read by millions, therefore it is true.

All of DOCs arguments involved jumping from inane logical fallacies to the next logical fallacy.

 

[SDC]

Yes, but Heaven's Gate did not result in the greatest selling book in the History of the world like the Bible is. and Heaven's Gate founder did not have 42 or 43 presidents attend worships services in honor of its founder or have someone like Thomas Jefferson say it has produced the greatest moral teachings the world has ever known. And I would assume its founder's grave or ashes are accounted for. And its founders birthday did not affect the calender (e.g. B.C. -- a.d.)

Not yet...

 

[joobz]

Yes, but Heaven's Gate did not result in the greatest selling book in the History of the world like the Bible is. and Heaven's Gate founder did not have 42 or 43 presidents attend worships services in honor of its founder or have someone like Thomas Jefferson say it has produced the greatest moral teachings the world has ever known. And I would assume its founder's grave or ashes are accounted for. And its founders birthday did not affect the calender (e.g. B.C. -- a.d.)

It took christianity a good few centuries to really take off.

 

[six7s]

It took christianity a good few centuries to really take off.

And now... the sky's the limit

 

[DOC]

argument from popularity?

The point Hokulele made was not 'Heaven's Gate is as much of a cool religion as Christianity', but 'Heaven's Gate (by Geisler's standards) is as true as Christianity.

Strawman -- Geisler does not use any argument from popularity. And Houkele's post was a stawman also. Notice Houkele doesn't specifically say what is wrong. She just starts out her post by saying this is wrong. Houkele tell me exactly what is wrong that I said and from which post it came from.

When will you realise that 'X thousand other people believe this - so it must be true' is a really pointless position to take?

Strawman, I never said or believe this.

 

[DOC]

All of DOCs arguments involved jumping from inane logical fallacies to the next logical fallacy.

You lose credibility when you use words like "all". I have over 80 posts in this thread, would you like me to show you where your incorrect in that statement.

 

[paximperium]

You lose credibility when you use words like "all". I have over 80 posts in this thread, would you like me to show you where your incorrect in that statement.

Amazing irony!!! Is that "all" you have left?

Actually, I'll take you up on that challenge. Post a single argument you have posted in this entire thread supporting your claim that isn't an inane logical fallacy. Try hard.