Olive as for the possibility that the bones have already been discovered we will probably never know but one possibility is described at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23386857-details/I've+found+the+coffin+of+Jesus,+says+film+director/article.do

The names were common, that find is no proof but more substantial than much that is held up as proof of the resurection.

R0bert

Trav,

I see subtle difference between:

1. "The wide spread belief in a Personal God suggests (posits the proposition)that God actually exists."

However, if a proposition is intended, the statement should be written as:

"The wide spread belief in a Personal God suggests; that God actually exists." Notice the semi-colon. Otherwise, "suggest" can be taken to mean "cause".

and

2. "The wide spread belief in a Personal God proves (demonstrates as fact)that God actually exists." The statement in problematic in two ways:

- First, if one person makes a false claim and that false claim is repeated by a million others: It is still a false claim. Karl Popper put this case regarding Jungian psychology and aspects of Marxian theory. Repetition does negate falsity.

- Second, the notion that belief is widespread is irrelevant in philosophy. A widespread belief can be wrong. No authority is lent to, "widespead". To do so, is "argument from authority," which is an "illogical fallacy".

- One should strongly disagree an ilogical fallacy. Problematic construction of the statement. The second statement would suggest belief is causal.

"- The elimination of the Jewish people would falsify both God’s promise to Abraham and the eschatological events prophesied in the Book of Revelation.
- The discovery of Jesus Christ’s crucified skeleton.
- The linguistic unification of humanity.
- An external recording of the history of the human race provided by aliens, as proposed by science fiction authors Arthur C. Clarke and James P. Hogan.
- The end of war and/or poverty.
- Functional immortality technology."

None the above would prove the existence of god. The Bible is irrelevant because it assumes, a priori, whom god is. The existence of god could be outside Christianity. Sells makes this mistake all the time.

"Functional immortality" is interesting, because it would suggest overcoming the second law of thermodynamics. But would mastering physics prove the existence of god? The others are straw men.

Trav, You haven't reciprociated by answering the questions, I have posed. BB, Pericles and I, await.

Error (above):

Repetition does NOT negate falsity.

RObert,

Thanks. That discovery is very intersting.

One can note a sceptic rightfully gives a one to one-and-half out ten rating. Christians on the other hand would give the Bible a very high rating, I suspect. Surprising, given the claim regarding the tomb is merely about particular person, and the claim regrding Scripture is about a paticular god.

Pericles,

[So please explain in simple terms, why the existence of God is suggested by the belief of individuals.]

I’ll quote the man whose blog has created such a stir amongst some easily offended folk here on this forum:

“Widespread belief is simply data that merits further examination, and with no evidence to the contrary the correct thing to do is to accept the suggestion pending further information. If I'm inside and ten people come in and tell me it's snowing out, only a deeply irrational - or paranoid - individual would assume that either a) this information is worthless, or b) this information indicates that it is not snowing.

Now, it's always possible that people are lying, misinformed, or simply mistaken. Nor should widespread belief be taken for proof. But widespread belief in A is a reasonable suggestion that A is the case and certainly a more reasonable suggestion than the idea that such belief indicates not-A or that such belief is inherently of zero informative value.”

(Vox Day)

In other words, the fact that belief in God IS widespread means that people are saying SOMETHING about the issue.

[Is the existence of fairies similarly suggested by the beliefs of four-year-old girls? If not, why not?]

Four year old girls are a small subset of the population. “Widespread” would therefore not have the same meaning. Not a comparable example.

[Is the existence of Brahma suggested by the beliefs of millions of Hindus? If not, why not.]

No. Millions is, again, not widespread in the same context as the original statement.

[But most importantly, in what way does the "suggestion" of a God imply its reality. If it doesn't, then what was the purpose of your introducing the concept?]

Originally, I brought this up as one point in a response to Oliver to show that atheists are close minded. You can trace the origins above this post.

[Which questions and answers do you have in mind here?]
The question we’re discussing. The same question Vox was commenting on.

[When none appears, we are tempted to assume that there is, in fact, none available.]

Making that assumption would be unnecessarily jumping to conclusions….. atheism of the gaps, perhaps.

Oly,

[First, if one person makes a false claim and that false claim is repeated by a million others: It is still a false claim]

Correct. However, this has limited relevance to the example. People don’t believe because they “repeat” something, they believe it because they experience it for themselves. This is completely different to your example of people “believing” in a psychological or sociological theory.

- [Second, the notion that belief is widespread is irrelevant in philosophy. A widespread belief can be wrong. No authority is lent to, "widespead". To do so, is "argument from authority," which is an "illogical fallacy".]

That depends what you mean by “authority”.

We are not discussing whether “belief in a personal God” is logical in philosophy, we are discussing whether the existence of widespread belief suggests that God may exist.

If it doesn’t suggest that a personal God exists, what does it do? Suggest the opposite? Or not suggest anything? If it doesn’t suggest anything or if it suggests the opposite, how and why is this so?

[None the above would prove the existence of god.]

Nor were they intended to. They were intended to show that Christianity is falsifiable.

[The Bible is irrelevant because it assumes, a priori, whom god is.]

How does it assume this?

[ The existence of god could be outside Christianity]

It could be. What’s your point?

[Trav, You haven't reciprociated by answering the questions, I have posed. BB, Pericles and I, await.]

Which questions? I just answered Pericles post- were you referring to that

I was hoping for your own view, Trav. I'd already read - and rejected - Vox Day's.

>>I’ll quote the man whose blog has created such a stir amongst some easily offended folk here on this forum<<

(Incidentally, I personally am never offended by illogic, merely amused.)

"If I'm inside and ten people come in and tell me it's snowing out, only a deeply irrational - or paranoid - individual would assume that either a) this information is worthless etc."

Sounds somewhat plausible, except that he then suggests:

"widespread belief in A is a reasonable suggestion that A is the case"

Ten people constitute a "widespread belief"? Don't think so.

You come to the same conclusion yourself, Trav.

>>Four year old girls are a small subset of the population. “Widespread” would therefore not have the same meaning. Not a comparable example.<<

But it is. Precisely comparable. His entire platform is based on the views of ten people - which is most definitely a "small subset of the population".

Your man also makes the point that:

"Now, it's always possible that people are lying, misinformed, or simply mistaken."

That is a critically important issue.

What if those ten people had a particular motive to make you believe that it was snowing outside, even though it was warm and sunny?

How valid is their input in these circumstances, and does it still provide a true indication of the state of the weather?

You - and Sells, and many others - have a strong motive for wanting to believe in your religion. It is so strong that many of you cannot actually contemplate being without that belief, it would simply be too painful for you.

So the motivations of the people who constitute your body of views that "suggest" the existence of a God will necessarily taint the result.

Incidentally, if you would like to reflect for a moment on this little comment of yours:

>>Millions is, again, not widespread in the same context as the original statement.<<

Compared with ten people coming indoors? That deserves a gold star for chutzpah.