Adults Should Not Have Invisible Friends

If a grown adult tells you that he has an invisible friend with whom he regularly communicates, you are likely to refer him to the local mental health clinic. Yet millions of educated, evangelical Christians all over the world claim to communicate on a daily basis with an invisible friend; an invisible friend with unlimited supernatural powers; an invisible friend who fulfills their wish list requests and even performs magical health recoveries for them.

This irrational, silly belief should no longer be given any social respectability whatsoever. There is no good evidence that invisible beings exist. Human beings do not have “personal relationships” with ghosts/spirits. This silly belief should be denounced and mocked for what it is: superstitious nonsense.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

60 thoughts on “Adults Should Not Have Invisible Friends

  1. The phenomenon has a large system of reinforcement with institutions whose members meet weekly to encourage each other to continue believing, and grand proclamations from the leaders who often have masters’s degree’s or higher, that the imaginary friend is real, and belief justified. Someone who decides on his or her own that Napoleon is still alive and is their friend will have no one to encourage them. They will only receive scorn and mockery.

    Like

  2. Interestingly, those who choose to not believe in God must have more faith than those who do. After all, denying the evidence of His existence all around us is nothing short of setting the bar so unreasonably high that nothing can get over it, that’s more religious than to believe in His existence.

    It’s also interesting none of you can explain how everything allegedly came from nothing, and how disorder brought about order of the magnitude of intelligence and reason, ethics, etc.

    I do enjoy these cutsie little articles. They are amusing, but not in the manner you might think….

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hmmm … your proclamation about non-believers denying evidence that “exists all around us” is rather spurious, don’t you think? Especially when you (and others cut of the same cloth) base your evidence on an entity that is invisible and mute.

      We each make our own reality. Unfortunately, some folks seem to have difficulty determining what’s REAL … and what isn’t.

      Like

    2. I believe that a mad scientist in another universe created our universe. PROVE ME WRONG! If you can’t, then I must be right…

      Silly, right? Yet you use the same bad logic for your belief that your imaginary invisible friend, Jesus the Resurrected Christ, exists and is the creator of our universe. There may be evidence for a creator. I believe in a creator. But there is ZERO good evidence that your imaginary friend is our creator.

      Where is the evidence for the existence of your imaginary friend, Swordman?

      Liked by 1 person

    3. And who exactly is claiming that everything came from nothing? The only ones I hear making this claim are theists. I don’t think it’s coherent to talk about nothing as if it’s somewhere for something to come from.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Then you must not know many evolutionary, atheistic people. You see, when they discount God from their belief system, and place their faith in not only order arising from randomness, time and chaos, they’re left with no other conclusion than to say that everything came from nothing. The so-called big-bang theory still fails to address origins, as well as multiverses. It’s all fanciful BS they try to hold up as plausible in the face of something they simply don’t understand. They adopt the counterintuitive as if they can somehow make sense of it. It’s just a game. They’re running from a monster they simply can’t out-pace.

        Like

        1. “…when they discount God from their belief system, and place their faith in not only order arising from randomness, time and chaos…”

          This statement seems to assume that chaos and disorder are the default state of reality. I see no reason to accept that this is true.

          “they’re left with no other conclusion than to say that everything came from nothing”

          Got any examples of “evolutionary atheistic” (whatever the hell that means) people making this claim that everything came from an actual nothing?

          ” The so-called big-bang theory still fails to address origins,”

          So what? Evolution doesn’t even attempt to explain how life started, nor does atomic theory explain where the atoms came from, Just because a theory doesn’t do what you want it to do doesn’t make it any less scientific.

          “It’s all fanciful BS they try to hold up as plausible in the face of something they simply don’t understand.”

          I have to wonder how much of the problem is your lack of understanding.

          “They adopt the counterintuitive as if they can somehow make sense of it.

          Just because something is counterintuitive doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. Our intuitions are often wrong about a lot of things. Fortunately science doesn’t rely on intuition.

          Like

          1. Perhaps you don’t see what cosmologists have said is chaos in this universe in relation to the amazing order of a living cell, reason and thought, so I will leave that to your personal, subjective understanding. Yes, there is amazing precision in this universe that cosmologists have also testified, but to think that the vast complexities of life and reason can arise from the comparative chaos within the precision balance of the universe, that’s just an adult fairy tale. Yes, there are those who will disbelieve that as well, which is fine. I’m content in the fact that all who disbelieve will one day know the truth after the point of their deaths. It will, sadly, be too late, but the truth indeed they shall then know.

            Like

            1. Your judgmental tone is really not very becoming to your faith. Especially considering those cautionary words in your Good Book … Judge not lest ye be judged.

              Like

              1. That same book also says, “Judge not according to the appearance, but JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT.” You, like so many others, take things out of context and try to apply it any way you so subjectively choose. Unfortunately for you, I know the contexts of the verse you ripped from its context, which shows your intellectual dishonesty.

                Also, calling the presentation of facts as some sort of judgement, well, that speaks loud volumes to your guilty conscience.

                Like

                1. No matter how you want to use it, the key word is “judge” which, in scripture usage, means To pass sentence on; condemn. So no matter what verse you choose to pull from, the meaning remains the same.

                  Oh … and personal insults are never a winning tactic.

                  Like

              1. Seriously? It’s unavoidable. What other alternatives are there? That’s like asking how one knows that falling off a cliff can be proven to end in ultimately landing on what’s at the base of the cliff.

                Like

                1. Unavoidable, you say? What other alternatives are there, you say!? Seriously!? It’s like you live in a world where only Christian thought exists, and you refuse to acknowledge anything else.

                  Even if there is a “God” (whatever this might be) it certainly doesn’t follow that we are able to experience anything after death.

                  Like

                  1. I realize you think that made sense, so I will leave it as is since you obviously missed the point, which wasn’t Christian-centric at all. Your straw man argument assumes what I never said, and because you think you know me, which you don’t.

                    Oh well….

                    Like

                    1. Rather than go into all the philosophical justifications, which provides the premises in support of the conclusion, I’ll just give it in a nutshell…when we all pass away from this life, and there is no afterlife, it won’t matter to any of us in the end since such an end is the cessation of existence for all, and therefore no thing and no one left to care.

                      If there is an afterlife, such as the one outlined in the Bible, then all unbelievers have everything to lose.

                      If there is an afterlife that is other than what we see in the Bible, then it will be what it is outside the control of any of us.

                      If there is an afterlife that we can control, having been given power to do so, then it will again be what it is.

                      All scenarios are outside our control, so whatever it is, we will all get there, and it will be what it is.

                      Roll the die, and take your chances….

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. If there is an afterlife, such as the one outlined in the Bible, then all unbelievers have everything to lose.Roll the die, and take your chances….

                      If Christianity or atheism were the only choices, then you might be right. But there are hundreds if not thousands of exclusionary religions on the planet. If you have to choose just one, and your eternity depends on it, your odds of making the correct choice are very, very low.

                      As someone who believes in the afterlife, that should make you very worried. How much sleep do you lose at night worrying that you may have chosen the wrong religion/belief system, and, that you will spend an unending eternity in another religion’s place of torment/punishment?

                      Like

                    3. Wow. You missed it again. I made mention of other alternatives in that response. I did not exclude them. Please read what I actually said.

                      Thank you.

                      Like

                    4. “If there is an afterlife, such as the one outlined in the Bible, then all unbelievers have everything to lose.”

                      But if you have chosen the wrong religion, you too are an unbeliever and you too have everything to lose. Bottom line: I don’t believe in the existence of 99 gods, you don’t believe in the existence of 98. Your odds of being correct are only very slightly better than mine. You should be worried, my friend. Why aren’t you?

                      Like

                    5. Gary, that would depend only upon which one was right. So, tell me, what does YOUR religion say will happen to unbelievers?

                      Like

                    6. My belief system tells me that in all likelihood, death is the end of one’s existence. If that is true, one’s beliefs have no effect on what happens after death. Human beings have feared death and what happens to them after death for millennia. I believe that to alleviate this fear, human beings invented imaginary “Never Neverlands”.

                      Human beings fear the unknown. But there is no good evidence that human beings continue to exist in some form after death. We die and cease to exist just like the animals. Our beliefs matter in this life because they affect how we live and interact with others, but they are irrelevant once we are dead.

                      Do you have evidence for an afterlife?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    7. You keep asking the rhetorical question about evidence. The irrationality of the question itself, given that the afterlife is intentionally blocked from our life-experience, renders the question moot.

                      You subjectively deny the testimonial evidence of over 300 witnesses who saw Christ Jesus alive, drinking and eating with them, and nobody to date has proven that the Roman soldiers had no idea what death looks like, especially given the “swooning” theory in the midst of the testimony that the soldiers pierced His side up into the heart sack (proving He was dead).

                      So, try if you can, to disprove eyewitness testimony that most rational people accept at varying levels of trust. The testimony of Christ’s resurrection has a level of consistency across enough witnesses to render your doubts as being more irrational than rational.

                      What say you?

                      Like

                    8. Great. Thank you for providing your evidence for the existence of an afterlife.

                      You state that if 300 eyewitnesses claim to have seen Jesus of Nazareth alive, eating, drinking, talking, and being touched after his public execution, we should accept these eyewitness statements as proof that Jesus had returned from the dead, proving that the afterlife exists.

                      Eyewitness evidence is strong evidence. It is not the best evidence. DNA evidence has supplanted eyewitness testimony as the best evidence, but it is still strong evidence.

                      But what is eyewitness testimony? Eyewitness testimony is evidence given under oath in a court of law by an individual who claims to have witnessed the facts under dispute.

                      In order for testimony to be considered “eyewitness testimony” we need to be certain that the testimony presented actually comes from an eyewitness. Wouldn’t you agree? For instance, if someone claims to have witnessed a car accident, but evidence emerges that at the time of the accident, the person claiming to be an eyewitness was 2,000 miles away, that isn’t good evidence, right? You wouldn’t use this person’s testimony to determine what happened in the accident, would you?

                      And what if the person claiming to possess eyewitness testimony in reality did not witness the event himself, but is reporting what someone else who is now dead, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the event, reported to him? That is a second hand report, not eyewitness testimony. Is it reliable? How would we know? We will never have the opportunity to put the original alleged eyewitness on the stand and cross examine his story. He is dead. And what about someone presenting “eyewitness testimony” which in reality is a story he heard from someone, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, etc..? That isn’t eyewitness testimony, that is hearsay or rumor. The story has passed between too many people to be considered trustworthy.

                      I realize that as a conservative Christian that you probably believe that the four Gospels are eyewitness accounts, written by two eyewitnesses and two close associates of eyewitnesses. But many Bible scholars doubt this. You may disagree with them, but the fact remains that the alleged eyewitness testimony found in the Gospels is disputed, hotly disputed among the experts.

                      Testimony given by someone whose eyewitness status is hotly disputed, and who is dead, is not strong evidence.

                      So the claim that several hundred people witnessed the resurrected Jesus has poor supporting evidence. The eyewitness status of these people cannot be established. The fact that some of them may have died for the belief that they had seen a resurrected Jesus is not proof they did. Thousands of people throughout history have claimed to have seen dead people.

                      So your evidence for an afterlife is weak, my friend.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    9. Add to this, Gary, is the fact that the only “eyewitness” testimony related to Jesus is recorded in a book that’s over 2,000 years old. Not to mention it was several years AFTER any of the events took place that anything was written down.

                      Bottom line: people believe what they want to believe. Evidence helps, but when it comes to religious beliefs, it definitely isn’t the defining factor.

                      Like

                    10. So, if we break down your premises:

                      You admitted that eye witness accounts from that many people is strong evidence, but not as strong as that while sworn under oath. That assumes, then, that such a number of people may have had something to gain by giving false or misleading testimony, which has never been established anywhere that I have ever seen.

                      Eye witness accounts are said to be of this caliber according to nps.gov:

                      “Primary sources are “eyewitness” accounts or “on- the-scene” records, pictures, documents, or artifacts. They may be old or new, but must have been produced by people who lived during the period of study and were part of the experience. Examples of primary sources may include diaries, letters, photographs, tools, weapons, or ornaments. Secondary sources report the events or tell about the people who lived during the period of study, but they are produced by someone who was not “on the scene”. These sources may include biographies, historical accounts, re-enactments, or reproductions of documents or artifacts”

                      All historians rely a great deal upon eye witness accounts in order for them to piece together the history of events, objects and people. Subjectively claiming that because they were not under oath clearly brinks on the absurd. But, hey, you are free to believe as you wish, setting that bar of acceptance as high as you want, which you have done.

                      What liberal Bible scholars believe is of no great consequence because you do not have any consensus at which you can point where they all agree on that. Textual criticism has been around for a looooong time, and there’s nothing they won’t call into question.

                      You have chosen to pit your skepticism to the level of rejecting more than 300 eye witnesses, and you do that, given statistical analysis, to your own detriment.

                      So, in the end, what is…will be, and, as you stated earlier, there’s nothing any of us can do about it. So, spin the chamber, and take your chances on where the hammer drops…

                      Like

                    11. You admitted that eye witness accounts from that many people is strong evidence, but not as strong as that while sworn under oath. That assumes, then, that such a number of people may have had something to gain by giving false or misleading testimony, which has never been established anywhere that I have ever seen.

                      While it is true that testimony under oath is usually stronger evidence because the consequences of giving false testimony under oath are severe, corroborating testimony from multiple eyewitness with upstanding reputations for honesty and integrity who are not under oath is still very strong evidence.

                      I never stated that the eyewitnesses to alleged resurrected Jesus sightings gave knowingly false or misleading testimony. I believe that this is very unlikely.

                      But isn’t there another possibility? Isn’t it possible that the original eyewitnesses were simply mistaken? Thousands of humans throughout history have claimed to see dead people. Most of these people were very sincere in their belief that they had truly seen the dead person. I believe that this is probably the case with the early Christians. They sincerely believed that a resurrected Jesus had appeared to them when in reality what they experienced was an illusion, a case of mistaken identity, or a delusion/hallucination. Groups of people cannot have the same delusion or hallucination, but groups of people can be fooled by the same illusion or case of mistaken identity.

                      Example: A group of Jesus’ disciples are on a Galilean mountain, hiding out from the Jews and the Romans. It is early morning as they wake up. The mountain top is covered in fog. Suddenly the fog at the top of the mountain lifts and they all see a man, who looks like Jesus, at the top of the hill. The man turns and waves to them. Then he disappears as the fog once again rolls in. “It was Jesus! He has returned from the dead to establish the New Kingdom as he promised!”

                      Then individual disciples experienced vivid dreams, illusions, or hallucinations in which a resurrected Jesus appears to them. The Resurrection Story begins!

                      Over the decades, these stories become embellished with accounts of a resurrected Jesus eating food and being touched. And then non-eyewitness authors write down these embellished stories and the Christian community accepts them as historical facts.

                      Can I prove this is what happened? No. But can you prove that it did not? No. But the odds that the Resurrection Story is based on false sightings, vivid dreams, and illusions is much more probable based on collective human experience than that a three day brain-dead corpse really did come back to life.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    12. I didn’t say you had claimed their testimony was false. I’m not sure why you jumped to that when what I was actually saying is that not much else is left to reason as to why anyone would discredit any eyewitness accounts from ancient times. You said something about them not having been sworn in as is done in today’s courts.

                      So, pray tell, to say there is any measure of doubt that those 300+ witnesses saw a man who had been executed effectively by professional, Roman soldiers who knew death very well when they see it, what’s the basis for that? What of those who saw Him lifted up into the clouds? I’ve seen some claim that because they were up on a hill, that it was likely a low-lying cloud or fog bank that allowed him to slip behind a boulder out of their site…as if they were all dumb enough to not recognize a magician type trick with smoke and mirrors…et al.

                      So, did you see your god slip off into some other universe, leaving this one to run down on its own…given that is the usual claim of deists.

                      Like

                    13. So, pray tell, to say there is any measure of doubt that those 300+ witnesses saw a man who had been executed effectively by professional, Roman soldiers who knew death very well when they see it, what’s the basis for that? What of those who saw Him lifted up into the clouds?

                      When looking at alleged eyewitness testimony, there is some basic information required to confirm the eyewitness status of the person making the claim:

                      (1) name of the alleged eyewitness.
                      (2) date or approximate date of the event in question.
                      (3) oral or written statement by the alleged eyewitness as to what he or she saw.
                      (4) the ability of third parties to verify that the oral or written statement actually comes from the eyewitness claimant; that the testimony has not been edited, supplemented, or invented by someone else.
                      (5) the eyewitness status of the alleged eyewitness is not disputed by most experts.

                      Please provide ONE eyewitness testimony for any alleged sighting of the resurrected Jesus (other than that of Paul of Tarsus, who gives us zero details in his Jesus sighting account in Galatians) which meets these very basic criteria for eyewitness testimony.

                      Like

                    14. All historians rely a great deal upon eye witness accounts in order for them to piece together the history of events, objects and people. Subjectively claiming that because they were not under oath clearly brinks on the absurd. But, hey, you are free to believe as you wish, setting that bar of acceptance as high as you want, which you have done.

                      I never said this. Corroborating evidence from multiple eyewitnesses who each have a reputation for honesty and integrity is very, very strong evidence. But this is not the case with the alleged resurrection of Jesus. The only undisputed eyewitness testimony we have is from Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians. And he tells us NOTHING about what he allegedly saw when he claims to have seen “the Christ”.

                      One eyewitness statement claiming to have seen a dead person, without any details of the event, is not strong evidence.

                      Like

                    15. Ok. So provide one eyewitness statement which meets the basic requirements of eyewitness testimony I just listed above. Just one.

                      I don’t think you can do it.

                      Like

                    16. What liberal Bible scholars believe is of no great consequence because you do not have any consensus at which you can point where they all agree on that. Textual criticism has been around for a looooong time, and there’s nothing they won’t call into question.

                      I expected you would say this.

                      If New Testament scholarship was divided on the eyewitness status of the Gospels purely along liberal and conservative lines, I could buy your argument that the liberal group is biased. But the fact is that this is not the case. Are you aware that a very large group of New Testament scholars who very much believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, his virgin birth, and all his miracles, doubt the traditional/eyewitness authorship of the Gospels? Who are these scholars? Answer: Roman Catholic scholars.

                      You can reject their views simply because they are “Catholic” but you cannot reject their views because they don’t believe in the supernatural, miracles, or the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

                      So your position has a BIG problem: You are betting that a minority of scholars is correct on the eyewitness status of your witnesses. Why would you do this? Are you a scholar? Imagine if an attorney did this in a court of law: “Your Honor, I am going to present a witness whom only a minority of experts believe is a true eyewitness.” Would the testimony of such a person be considered “strong” evidence? I don’t think so.

                      Based on these facts, it certainly appears to me that you accept the minority expert position on the eyewitness status of the Gospels purely due to your own biases.

                      Like

                    17. The number of scholars who question the resurrection of Jesus is, again, of no consequence. It’s always easy to doubt what one has never witnessed personally, and their objections don’t hold water from my perspective. Whatever the numbers are, both pro and con, that will never override personal experience. The Spirit of the Lord has more than confirmed to me His reality, and that you haven’t had that interaction with the Lord, well, that’s on you. You’re taking your chances, which you have the freedom to do.

                      Also, miracles do not upset the fine tuning, but if you have a case to make on that, then please do.

                      Like

                    18. Whatever the numbers are, both pro and con, that will never override personal experience. The Spirit of the Lord has more than confirmed to me His reality, and that you haven’t had that interaction with the Lord, well, that’s on you. You’re taking your chances, which you have the freedom to do.

                      Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere. What you are now saying is that subjective personal experience trumps objective historical evidence. Great. I’m glad we have that out of the way. I have asserted many times on this blog that most Christians, like yourself, do not believe in the alleged resurrection of Jesus due to historical evidence, eyewitness testimony, or scholarly opinion. Most Christians believe due to their emotions and their perceptions that they have a personal relationship with the spirit (ghost) of a man who lived 2,000 years ago. A man whom they believe to be the creator god.

                      Millions of people of other religions claim to have very intense emotions and subjective perceptions of interactions with their gods. How can you be certain that your intense emotions and perceptions are correct and those of millions of other people are wrong?

                      Like

                    19. So, you believe personal experience is subjective? Hmm. There goes eyewitness accounts out the door. Also, the Bible records more than just one writer having seen Jesus after His resurrection. I’m puzzled as to how you ever arrived at the idea that there’s only one.

                      Like

                    20. Please provide one eyewitness testimony from the Gospels which meets the basic criteria for eyewitness testimony listed above. I have asked you now several times and you keep stalling. Why? Please give us an example or admit that the alleged eyewitness testimony found in the Gospels does not meet even the basic criteria for eyewitness testimony.

                      Just because you keep calling it eyewitness testimony does not make it so. Provide the evidence or admit that all you have are rumors and hearsay.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    21. I’m not stalling. Nobody can supply the subjective, outrageously high level of what you define as “credible”. It’s futile. Your deistic beliefs are no more provable than the monotheistic writings of the Bible. So, stalling…..no. I just know when someone is demanding the impossible.

                      Like

                    22. Gary, good question.

                      Answer: Expert opinion doesn’t have anywhere near the effect upon lives as real life experiences.

                      MULTIPLE expert opinion said I was going to die from the cancer that had metastasized throughout my entire abdominal cavity and in my spine. After prayer, here I am, still alive and cancer free 30 years later…. They had never seen cancer that advanced and widespread disappear without a trace. Not even the markers were present any longer.

                      Card carrying skeptics said I had experienced an anomaly…a fluke that simply corrected itself in my body.

                      Always the conveniently flippant denial for denial’s own sake.

                      So, therein is why I don’t even attempt to prove anything to people who don’t really want the evidence in the first place, no matter how good it is. Creation is ample evidence, and when the bar is subjectively set at such a high level that it exceeds creation itself, that’s all anyone is going to get who are not walking in faith after the Lord.

                      Jesus blessed those who have not seen Him in person, and yet believe.

                      Like

                    23. Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons have stories of members of their religion recovering from terminal illnesses after prayer to their gods. Does that mean that their gods are real and answering prayers too?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    24. Do you have anything more specific…something personal? Never mind the generalities. Give me something specific.

                      In answer to your other question, God can heal cultists too if it serves His purposes. He can also heal atheists if it serves His purposes. So, what’s your point?

                      Like

                    25. My point is this: If “miracle” health recoveries occur in all religions and even among atheists, isn’t it possible that these miracle recoveries are not miracles but just rare, natural recoveries?

                      If every time a Christian with a terminal disease prays and is healed, that would be overwhelming evidence that prayers to the Christian god are effective. But if only a small percentage of terminally ill Christians recover after prayer, how can you be so certain that these few recoveries involved supernatural intervention by your god and not just that they are rare, natural recoveries?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    26. We can talk possibilities all day, and none of that will ever disprove God’s existence given that you see all of creation around you, which testifies of God and His reality. Your “gone” god has no testimony. Your god left no record of his existence that you have yet produced to show us.

                      Like

                    27. I agree with you that there is evidence for a creator but you have not given any good evidence that your god is the creator. Our complex universe could have been created by any god. Why should we believe your god did it?? Give us some evidence.

                      If you say your god is the creator because he cured you of terminal cancer that is a non-sequitur. Even if your god exists, and it is true that he cured you of terminal cancer, the fact that he cured you in no way proves that he created the universe. It just means he has supernatural powers. People of other religions claim that their gods have supernatural powers to heal terminal cancer. So maybe Allah, Yahweh, Lord Krishna, and Lord Jesus are all curing people of terminal cancer. But even if all these gods are healing terminal cancers, that again is not proof that any one of them is the creator.

                      Back to “miraculous” health recoveries: I know that you believe that your god, Jesus, healed you of terminal cancer, but can you admit that it is possible that your healing was a rare, but natural process? It isn’t as if you are the only person who has ever recovered after a diagnosis of terminal cancer. There are hundreds of such cases all over the world, involving not only Christians, but people of all religions.

                      Like

                    28. Wrong. Credible eyewitnesses present credible eyewitness testimony in courts of law all over the world every day. The testimony of these eyewitnesses is considered credible because:

                      (1) we can verify the identity of the witness.
                      (2) the witness can provide the date or approximate date of the event in question.
                      (3) the witness can provide an oral or written statement as to what he or she saw.
                      (4) third parties can verify that the oral or written statement presented actually comes from the witness and that there has been no opportunity for the testimony to have been edited, supplemented, or invented by someone else.
                      (5) the eyewitness status of the alleged eyewitness is not disputed by a majority of experts (for instance, if experts can provide evidence that the alleged eyewitness was 1,000 miles away when the event happened, that greatly weakens the witness’ claim that he is an eyewitness).

                      You know that the stories in the Gospels cannot meet these very basic standards for eyewitness testimony. That is why you continue to stall.

                      Mormonism has better eyewitness testimony, by far, than traditional Christianity. At least Mormons have multiple persons, whose identities are unquestioned, who signed legal documents (affidavits) claiming to have experienced a supernatural event. THAT is eyewitness testimony, not the collection of rumors and hearsay found in the Gospels.

                      So: How do you know that your intense emotions and perceptions of Jesus in your life are true and that the emotions and perceptions of millions of people of other religions of their gods is wrong?

                      Like

                    29. You have chosen to pit your skepticism to the level of rejecting more than 300 eye witnesses, and you do that, given statistical analysis, to your own detriment. So, in the end, what is…will be, and, as you stated earlier, there’s nothing any of us can do about it. So, spin the chamber, and take your chances on where the hammer drops…

                      Wrong. I accept majority expert opinion on all issues. I accept majority expert opinion that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. I accept majority expert opinion that he was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate. I accept majority expert opinion that some of Jesus followers sincerely believed that he had appeared to them after his death. I accept majority expert opinion that Paul of Tarsus was a real person who wrote letters to the churches he established. And on this issue (the authorship of the Gospels, the only books that give us any details of the alleged resurrection of Jesus) I accept the majority expert opinion.

                      Why don’t you??

                      Answer: You know that without eyewitness testimony of people touching Jesus, watching him eat food, and talking to him in a group, all the stories of people seeing Jesus can be written off as ghost tales. And for you and other conservative Christians, that would be devastating. So you will stand by your position that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts no matter what the experts say because if you don’t, your entire belief system collapses.

                      You are biased, my friend. Admit it.

                      Like

                    30. Your acceptance of what YOU call “majority expert opinion” I would wager has limits. There is still a great degree of subjectivism within that compartment of your acceptance.

                      When I look at any body of so-called “experts,” I also take into account the enemy of our souls, and his ability to sway large bodies of unregenerate professors in whatever direction he chooses; which is to say, there are more influences in bodies of “experts” than what meets the eyes. You can take that or leave it. It’s entirely up to you. If you don’t believe in his existence, then he has you right where he wants you.

                      Like

                    31. In your previous comment you mentioned that your subjective perceptions trump objective evidence and scholarly opinion so I don’t think we need to address these forms of evidence. Please tell us about your subjective personal experiences with the Devil.

                      Like

                    32. I also take into account the enemy of our souls, and his ability to sway large bodies of unregenerate professors in whatever direction he chooses;

                      Who is the “he” you are referring to in this statement?

                      Like

                    33. Again, you’re creating lines of connection that I never made. I said my experiences are with God Himself in my life, and many others I have heard testify to such. What I said about the enemy of our souls is that disbelieving his existence is exactly what he wants people to believe.

                      Like

            2. I agree with you that there is amazing precision in our universe. Scientists refer to this precision as the laws of physics (the laws of the universe). This is why I believe that our universe had a creator.

              However, as I stated above, your religion claims that your god has violated the precision (order) of our universe countless thousands if not millions of times. Scientists have never found any evidence that the laws of the universe have ever been violated since the beginning of creation. This eliminates your god as our creator.

              Like

              1. Yes, and they will continue to not see the evidences for those things. No wonder, right? After all, God said that He uses the simplest of things to confound the wise.

                Pretty much a no-brainer, if you ask me.

                Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s