Prove God is not real
Offline Sup yall my name is Desmond and I am 17, new here I heard about this stuff on tv. Now I am a christian and have been one for like all my life. I've met alot of ppl of different faiths and beliefs but this atheist thing has gotten to me today.I am gonna say this, I am no perfect christian as no one is but I know God exists and I know Christ is God for certain. You hear about people saying you can't see em you can't smell em and you can't touch him so he's not real but let me ask you this can you see the planet Mars? Can you touch the planet mars? and lastly can you smell the planet? All these questions would be answered no. You may say you seen pictures well same thing with God I can say I heard him talk to me doesn't make it false or true. To say there's no God is saying that without reason why? Because let me ask you this? Do you know anyone or anything that was created from nothing? If you do I'd love to see it, it seems illogical to think that all this we have happened by chance. You may say with all the bad things in the world how can God allow it? Well he's not your babysitter, He's not gonna save everyone from certain doom. Life will go on and He will not stop it. I would like to hear anything from you guys if you would want to say somethin about how God does not exist and I will try my best to answer you. I am starting my own group against this atheist rising. Wanna be rational... let's get rational ;)
I don't know why a 3rd page hasn't opened yet. I'll be posting random stuff until the 3rd page opens.
[edit: Ok guys, here's the 3rd page!]
Evil is that which a rational man would choose to avoid. In other words. For example, I would avoid being shocked with electricity needlessly. Why? Because it pisses me the fuck off. But if it's for research on psychology, I might just consent. Or if I get paid a lot. Evil also quite deals with consent, as mentioned above, but consent is simply the way of determining said rational choices. Another good example is the doctor. I don't like going to the doctor, but I do it because it helps me avoid certain unpleasant things. If I could avoid going to the doctor and just pop a pill, my doctor would be evil for doing whatever he does to me, say like removing a tumor, rather than simply giving me the pill.
Why is evil evil? Quite simply. The word 'moral' comes from the latin 'mos', for custom, and 'ethos' also means custom. As we experiment with customs, we see which one works. The custom of greeting people by kicking them in the balls obviously never caught on. Instead, we handshake(well, we're also checking for daggers, but that's just cuz my friends and I are losers and do the Roman handshake still). Customs are a way of determining the efficiency and value of actions, as they can change as is demanded by their results. That is not to say customs are to go unquestioned, their usefulness whould be determined by their results.
The golden rule is pretty good an example of morality, but it is slightly too simplistic. But if you want a general moral rule, the golden rule is a pretty good categorical suggestion.
as for necessary and unnecessary, it's easy. Could you acheive the same results without the suffering? If not, the suffering was necessary, otherwise, it was unnecessary. Of course, the interpretation of what is good and bad is subjective, yes, and that is why philosophy is useful. But for the most part, the issues are pretty obvious. For example, getting raped is an unhappy feeling. I'm pretty sure we can come to that conclusion. If you want to get raped, you can consent to it(of course, then it's not rape). Consent is a pretty good qualifier. But if you want an easy morality that simply says, these actions are inherently right, these actions are inherently wrong, to hell with the circumstances, you won't find one here. Unless you're Peter Singer, at which point the right thing to do is give of yourself until you are on the same level as everyone else.
Sorry about the wait, AA1.
[quote]Evil is that which a rational man would choose to avoid.[/quote]
Firstly, define a "rational man." Is there some sort of standard for what constitutes a "rational man" or is this just you paying lip service to reason?
Secondly, do "rational men" avoid evil because the actions are inherently wrong, or because it's merely their own personal sentiment? If the latter, then you have no business applying the blanket statement, "Rational men avoid evil," to humanity, since personal sentiment or social taboos will be different for each person.
But if it's the first, then that means that some things really are inherently wrong apart from any other custom we have. So it objectively right for rational men to choose to avoid evil?
[quote]In other words. For example, I would avoid being shocked with electricity needlessly. Why? Because it pisses me the fuck off.[/quote]
So in your mind, something is "evil" because it makes you angry?
Do you have [i]any[/i] idea how shaky that is? By that token, you could say that losing a basketball game is evil, since it pisses you off. Or getting homework in Algebra class. Or your girlfriend breaking up with you. The "rational man," whatever that means, would choose to avoid all of these, wouldn't he?
[quote]But if it's for research on psychology, I might just consent. Or if I get paid a lot.[/quote]
So here we have you admitting that getting shocked for research or for money is "better" than being shocked needlessly. But if you don't believe in any sort of standard, then you can't make such a statement.
You're also mistaking your own terms. You wouldn't be shocked by electricity "needlessly" if it was for psychological research. The moment it has a purpose at all, it's not "needless," and so therefore you are not consenting to anything that is "evil" in your mind.
[quote]Evil also quite deals with consent, as mentioned above, but consent is simply the way of determining said rational choices.[/quote]
Question. Let's suppose a father wants to sexually abuse his six year old daughter. If the daughter doesn't know any better, and she consents, is what he doing "evil" by this definition?
[quote]Another good example is the doctor. I don't like going to the doctor, but I do it because it helps me avoid certain unpleasant things. If I could avoid going to the doctor and just pop a pill, my doctor would be evil for doing whatever he does to me, say like removing a tumor, rather than simply giving me the pill.[/quote]
Of course, such a pill probably wouldn't be 100% effective. Such a pill would probably have serious side effects, seeing as it would have the ability to completely dissolve a tumor. Unless you posit a perfect pill, which is impossible, then your doctor is no more evil than you are. Some people would undoubtedly prefer the old fashion way in the first place.
You're telling me that if, say, a brain surgeon could be replaced with a pill, then picking the surgeon is "bad" and the surgeon is "evil." But what if I trust human hands more than I do pills?
[quote]Why is evil evil? Quite simply. The word 'moral' comes from the latin 'mos', for custom, and 'ethos' also means custom. As we experiment with customs, we see which one works. The custom of greeting people by kicking them in the balls obviously never caught on. Instead, we handshake(well, we're also checking for daggers, but that's just cuz my friends and I are losers and do the Roman handshake still). Customs are a way of determining the efficiency and value of actions, as they can change as is demanded by their results. That is not to say customs are to go unquestioned, their usefulness whould be determined by their results.[/quote]
So, at one point, rape was a morally neutral act that ultimately became socially taboo? Under that definition, you have no business to say that it's "wrong." It's merely a custom to not rape people, and people go against their customs all the time, so what's stopping them from going against the "custom of rape?"
[quote]The golden rule is pretty good an example of morality, but it is slightly too simplistic. But if you want a general moral rule, the golden rule is a pretty good categorical suggestion.[/quote]
At least you don't take the Dan Barker stance here...
[quote]as for necessary and unnecessary, it's easy. Could you acheive the same results without the suffering? If not, the suffering was necessary, otherwise, it was unnecessary.[/quote]
And you say that unnecessary suffering is wrong? Is it inherently wrong, or is that merely a social taboo as well?
[quote]Of course, the interpretation of what is good and bad is subjective, yes, and that is why philosophy is useful. But for the most part, the issues are pretty obvious. [/quote]
[i]WHY[/i] are they obvious, AA1?
As far as I'm concerned, they're obvious because humans observe an objective standard. If betraying your friend is "obviously" bad to all humans, then we have reason to believe that there's a real standard.
[quote]For example, getting raped is an unhappy feeling. I'm pretty sure we can come to that conclusion. If you want to get raped, you can consent to it(of course, then it's not rape). Consent is a pretty good qualifier.[/quote]
Who cares if it's an "unhappy feeling?" If rape is wrong because it "pisses [the victim] the fuck off," then it's really irrelevant, since this is about domination in the first place. The rapist obviously isn't concerned with the feelings of his victim, so it really doesn't matter.
Why is rape wrong, AA1?
[quote]But if you want an easy morality that simply says, these actions are inherently right, these actions are inherently wrong, to hell with the circumstances, you won't find one here. Unless you're Peter Singer, at which point the right thing to do is give of yourself until you are on the same level as everyone else.[/quote]
It's not that it's an "easy" morality. It's that it's almost self-evident that rape is inherently wrong, and we all operate in our daily lives as if something is really "wrong" instead of "socially taboo."
Oh yeah? Well I know that he DOESN'T exist.
Dave, you honestly claim to [i]know[/i] that God [i]doesn't[/i] exist? I'm not sure you understand the predicament you landed yourself in. You're claiming to know that something does not exist anywhere in the universe. But that sort of statement requires absolute knowledge.
If you were to say, "There is no gold in China," then you would have to have been to China and inspected every square inch of it, including people's mouths for gold teeth. If you found none, then that statement would be true. But if you found even one piece of gold in all of China, that would be false.
If you were to say, "There is no invisible teapot in between Jupiter and Mars," then you would have to have investigated such a space to determine whether it really existed or not. Until then, you're expressing your belief that there is no invisible teapot, but you're not making a statement of knowledge.
To say, "I know that God doesn't exist," then you would have to have an incredible knowledge of the universe. Until you have investigated the universe and determined conclusively that there is no God (which no one has done), then you are merely expressing your belief rather than a statement of knowledge.
Besides, you didn't even answer his objection. If I were to use the same sort of reasoning you just did to establish God's existence you'd laugh me out of the room.
Dave_G: "Prove that God exists!"
P-Dunn: "Oh yeah? Well, I KNOW He exists."
This thread is asking you to prove that he doesn't. This is very difficult, and most likely not even possible. But it is certainly not accomplished by saying, "Well I know he doesn't exist."
~P-Dunn
[quote=P-Dunn]Dave, you honestly claim to [i]know[/i] that God [i]doesn't[/i] exist? I'm not sure you understand the predicament you landed yourself in. You're claiming to know that something does not exist anywhere in the universe. But that sort of statement requires absolute knowledge.
If you were to say, "There is no gold in China," then you would have to have been to China and inspected every square inch of it, including people's mouths for gold teeth. If you found none, then that statement would be true. But if you found even one piece of gold in all of China, that would be false.
If you were to say, "There is no invisible teapot in between Jupiter and Mars," then you would have to have investigated such a space to determine whether it really existed or not. Until then, you're expressing your belief that there is no invisible teapot, but you're not making a statement of knowledge.
To say, "I know that God doesn't exist," then you would have to have an incredible knowledge of the universe. Until you have investigated the universe and determined conclusively that there is no God (which no one has done), then you are merely expressing your belief rather than a statement of knowledge.
Besides, you didn't even answer his objection. If I were to use the same sort of reasoning you just did to establish God's existence you'd laugh me out of the room.
Dave_G: "Prove that God exists!"
P-Dunn: "Oh yeah? Well, I KNOW He exists."
This thread is asking you to prove that he doesn't. This is very difficult, and most likely not even possible. But it is certainly not accomplished by saying, "Well I know he doesn't exist."
~P-Dunn
[/quote]
OMG you get you're arguements from Ray Comfort? LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!LO!L!!!LOL!!!! Just the whole gold in china thing made me stop reading I've seen every episode of WOTM and heard all of Ray's messeges so give me YOUR arguements then we will talk.
[quote]OMG you get you're arguements from Ray Comfort? LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!LO!L!!!LOL!!!![/quote]
For all that fluff and laughing, you didn't actually show Comfort's argument to be invalid, did you? Sorry, but that's simply not going to cut it with me.
I'd like to point out that in no way do I consider Ray Comfort to be the epitime of Christian apologetics. I think, for the most part, his reasoning with atheists falls short. But I think this argument is valid in respect to strong atheists.
So go and show me that it's invalid, please.
[quote]Just the whole gold in china thing made me stop reading[/quote]
I encourage you to keep reading. I abandoned the gold comment and moved on to someone you probably like more...Betrand Russell.
[quote]I've seen every episode of WOTM and heard all of Ray's messeges so give me YOUR arguements then we will talk.[/quote]
Hmm. This thread isn't called, "Prove God exists," is it? It seems to be called, "Prove God doesn't exist." So if you want to continue discussion with me in this thread, you should post your reasons for not believing in God.
Feel free to check the beginning of the topic, where I took "patches" to town on his twenty-some reasons and he never returned, before you open your mouth.
If you want to know my reasons for believing in God, then perhaps you should start a new thread. I'd recommend you come on over to TheologyWeb, which is a much more active debate forum, for this discussion. But as a basic overview:
1) I haven't seen any good reasons not to believe in God.
2) The beginning of the universe is better explained with God.
3) The moral nature of humans is better explained with God.
4) The evidence for Jesus's resurrection makes the most sense with God.
1.) If God is love then why does he send people to hell for not knowing him?
2.)Explain the Red Shift (Proof for the big bang)
3.) So Zeus gave me my morals.... Besides Morality comes from human nature.
4.) The proof against his existence makes no sense with g-d
[quote=Dave_G]1.) If God is love then why does he send people to hell for not knowing him?[/quote]
You send yourself
[quote]2.)Explain the Red Shift (Proof for the big bang)[/quote]
Funny, most theologians would use the big bang as proof of God. Ever read [i]Reasonable Faith[/i] or any book beyond 18th century 'free-thinker' garbage?
[quote]3.) So Zeus gave me my morals.... Besides Morality comes from human nature.
[/quote]
So that means that Hitler, Stalin and Mao are as moral as anyone else?
[quote]4.) The proof against his existence makes no sense with g-d[/quote]
Wow... what a great refuting argument! All bow to the master of debate! *bow*
Now, give us something that isn't so easily refuted, ok?
Crystal
You'll find, Dave, that I have a little more patience with your type of argumentation than Crystal. :-)
[quote]1.) If God is love then why does he send people to hell for not knowing him?[/quote]
God is "agape," not "love" in our modern, mushy sense of the word.
Anyway, there are two things wrong with that statement:
1) He doesn't send anybody anywhere. Hell is not a physical place, and therefore, it's a place that someone can be sent too. It's merely a state of seperation. But if we grant that Hell is literal, we're the ones sending ourselves due to our rejection of God's forgiveness.
2) We are forbidden to enter God's presense because of our unrepented sin, not for "not knowing him." This is a common misconception.
[quote]2.)Explain the Red Shift (Proof for the big bang)[/quote]
Why? I believe in the Big Bang too. I think the harder task is explaining the Big Bang as something that came out of nothing for no reason, as the atheist must ultimately believe.
Typical fundy atheist. You don't know any better than to label all Christians as YECs...
[quote]3.) So Zeus gave me my morals....[/quote]
Where is your evidence for Zeus? Seems like there's direct evidence against him, in fact.
1) Zeus, along with the rest of the Greek gods, was believed to live atop Mount Olympus.
2) We see no such thing on the top of Mount Olympus.
1) Lightning was said to be thrown by Zeus from the Heavens.
2) We know that lightning isn't thrown by any being.
So if you're going to say that Zeus gave you morals, you must first demonstrate that we have reasonable evidence for the belief in Zeus rather than the Judeo-Christian God. I've never seen any.
[quote]Besides Morality comes from human nature.[/quote]
Evidence, please. How, exactly, could morality come from human nature?
[quote]4.) The proof against his existence makes no sense with g-d[/quote]
If we really had "proof" that Jesus didn't exist, then the portion of historians who believe that Jesus was a myth wouldn't make up...oh...1 or 2% of historians today, and that's being generous. If we really had "proof" that Jesus didn't exist, then the Christ-myth theory wouldn't be laughed out of the public square of scholars.
There is actually no evidence in favor of Jesus not existing. We have no authors saying, "Well actually, Jesus was a myth." You merely point to an apparent [b]absense[/b] of evidence, as in contemporary writers not mentioning him, and come to an extreme conclusion: Jesus didn't exist, and somehow the movement of Christianity was founded on literally nothing, despite all the strong historical factors that it had to overcome, including persecution and martyrdom, an honor and shame society, and an investigave Hebrew culture.
All you're doing is swallowing everything Rook says regardless of how ludicrous it is. It's almost like blind faith.
Have fun in middle school. ;-)
You cannot prove that god does not exist. You can use logic to eliminate his omniscience, omnipotence, and pure goodness, but you can't prove he doesn't exist in a scientific way. As for stopping the atheist uprising, good luck with that.
As for talking about creating something for nothing, this is the "something had to create it." Well, than what created God? Or has he always been? Then is it possible that the universe has always been?
Also, whats all this aboiut God not being our babysitter. Child soldiers dying in Africa, women getting raped, Jews getting tortured, and all you can say is figure it out yourself? Yeah, they had it coming.
[quote]You cannot prove that god does not exist. You can use logic to eliminate his omniscience, omnipotence, and pure goodness, but you can't prove he doesn't exist in a scientific way. As for stopping the atheist uprising, good luck with that.[/quote]
I have nothing to disagree with.
[quote]As for talking about creating something for nothing, this is the "something had to create it." Well, than what created God? Or has he always been? Then is it possible that the universe has always been?[/quote]
The Christian God is traditionally portrayed as self-existent and eternal, and thus doesn't need a cause.
The question of, "If God's always been, can the universe always be?" is a valid question, but I think there's a confusion in characteristics. The universe cannot always have been because not only would it have run out of energy by now and is constrained by the realms of matter and energy. Plus, if there was an infinite amount of days before today, then today would have never arrived because after every day that passed, there would be an INFINITE amount of days after it. Infinite sets have no end, and today would be the end of infinity. That's simply not possible.
The God of Christianity is said to be non-material and outside of time, and thus, none of these factors apply to him.
[quote]Also, whats all this aboiut God not being our babysitter.[/quote]
I think that's a valid statement. He's given us the sense of right and wrong and all the resources we need to stop these problems that you mention in a moment. He's done [i]his[/i] part, and now we must do ours.
[quote]Child soldiers dying in Africa,[/quote]
We can prevent...
[quote]women getting raped,[/quote]
We can prevent...
[quote]Jews getting tortured,[/quote]
We can prevent...
[quote]and all you can say is figure it out yourself? Yeah, they had it coming.[/quote]
Not exactly.
If everyone followed the guidelines God set, then there would be no women getting raped, or Jews getting tortured, or even child soldiers being forced to fight and die. If say, in America, we took a stronger yet unpopular stance on ending conflicts in other countries, we could end these conflicts in Africa. We choose not to because it's uneconomical to help people, apparently.
___________________________________________________
Why? I believe in the Big Bang too. I think the harder task is explaining the Big Bang as something that came out of nothing for no reason, as the atheist must ultimately believe.
Typical Fundy atheist. You don't know any better than to label all Christians as YECs...
___________________________________________________
By you're own logic G-d has to have a creator surely hes so complex that something had to create it.
___________________________________________________
Hell is not a physical place, and therefore, it's a place that someone can be sent too. It's merely a state of separation. But if we grant that Hell is literal, we're the ones sending ourselves due to our rejection of God's forgiveness.
___________________________________________________
"Shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2)
"Everlasting punishment" (Mathew 25:46)
"Weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:51)
"Fire unquenchable" (Luke 3:17)
"Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish" (Romans 2:8,9)
"Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
"Eternal fire...the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jude 7,13)
___________________________________________________
So if you're going to say that Zeus gave you morals, you must first demonstrate that we have reasonable evidence for the belief in Zeus rather than the Judeo-Christian God. I've never seen any.
___________________________________________________
Jesus said that he would come before that generation passed and he didn't so therefore either he was mistaken or he was a liar.
___________________________________________________
Evidence, please. How, exactly, could morality come from human nature?
___________________________________________________
Prove it came from G-d. Typical Fundy christian filling in everything we don't know about life with thier fairy tells.
___________________________________________________
If we really had "proof" that Jesus didn't exist, then the portion of historians who believe that Jesus was a myth wouldn't make up...oh...1 or 2% of historians today, and that's being generous. If we really had "proof" that Jesus didn't exist, then the Christ-myth theory wouldn't be laughed out of the public square of scholars.
___________________________________________________
Search for proof that jesus existed on google the first 3 pages are filled with sites that dis-prove him.
___________________________________________________
There is actually no evidence in favor of Jesus not existing. We have no authors saying, "Well actually, Jesus was a myth." You merely point to an apparent absense of evidence, as in contemporary writers not mentioning him, and come to an extreme conclusion: Jesus didn't exist, and somehow the movement of Christianity was founded on literally nothing, despite all the strong historical factors that it had to overcome, including persecution and martyrdom, an honor and shame society, and an investigave Hebrew culture.
All you're doing is swallowing everything Rook says regardless of how ludicrous it is. It's almost like blind faith
___________________________________________________
You know Christianity started as a mystical cult. I allready showed you proof against him above.
___________________________________________________
Have fun in middle school.
___________________________________________________
Enjoy the next ten years of high school.
[quote=Dave_G]Jesus said that he would come before that generation passed and he didn't so therefore either he was mistaken or he was a liar.[/quote]
Or he did now will you please learn something of preterism:
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html
[quote]Search for proof that jesus existed on google the first 3 pages are filled with sites that dis-prove him.[/quote]
And how many of those sites are run by historians: that is to say people who have degrees in Ancient history(or another relevent field) and study history for a living
[quote]You know Christianity started as a mystical cult. I allready showed you proof against him above.[/quote]
No, you've shown us tired arguements from silence that prove nothing.
[quote]By you're own logic G-d has to have a creator surely hes so complex that something had to create it.[/quote]
No, God is not complex. If you ever happen to read a book of systematic theology, you'll discover that God is "simple" since he is not made up of physical parts. By your own definition of complex, God is the opposite.
But let's grant that God is complex for a moment. You're admitting that complex things need designers. This is odd for you. The universe is complex, so why doesn't it need a designer?
You may say, "Well, not ALL things need designers." Well if that's true, then I'll say, "I agree. God doesn't need a designer either. Thank you for playing."
[quote]"Shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2)
"Everlasting punishment" (Mathew 25:46)[/quote]
Exactly. We feel shame and contempt at our own sin and seperation from God. We are punished everlastingly by not being in God's presence.
[quote]"Weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 24:51)[/quote]
These descriptions are consistent with the ancient mode of mourning, not with physical pain.
[quote]"Fire unquenchable" (Luke 3:17)[/quote]
Fire is used quite frequently as a metaphor for God's judgment. In Deuteronomy for example, God is described as "a consuming fire," but you wouldn't say that God is a fireplace in the sky, would you?
[quote]"Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish" (Romans 2:8,9)[/quote]
All of these are consistent with a shameful seperation, but not necesarily a literal pain.
[quote]"Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (2 Thessalonians 1:9)[/quote]
Which is exactly what I said it was.
[quote]"Eternal fire...the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jude 7,13) [/quote]
If the fire is interpreted literally, this results in contradiction. How can there be "the blackness of darkness" if there is "eternal fire?"
Which is why the flames are used as metaphors to coincide with the metaphors of water for God's mercy.
[quote]Jesus said that he would come before that generation passed and he didn't so therefore either he was mistaken or he was a liar.[/quote]
As Sir-Think-A-Lot pointed out, he did actually come back.
[quote]Prove it came from G-d. Typical Fundy christian filling in everything we don't know about life with thier fairy tells.[/quote]
Hold on. I told you to give evidence that it came from human nature, and your response is "prove it came from God?" Sorry, but you don't get the benefit of the doubt here. If you want this discussion to continue, you will provide evidence for your beliefs. If you have none, then consider converting. The evidence is on my side anyway.
By the way, I'm NOT a fundamentalist, so do not accuse me of being one.
[quote]Search for proof that jesus existed on google the first 3 pages are filled with sites that dis-prove him.[/quote]
It's called Google bombing. It's very simple. Search "miserable failure" on Google and you used to get Bush's website.
Now please answer my argument with evidence.
[quote]You know Christianity started as a mystical cult. I allready showed you proof against him above.[/quote]
The first statement is asserted without evidence, and therefore, I will dismiss it without evidence.
The second statement is hilarious. For every link you can give me, I can give you five links or articles which completely refute the idea, some of them even written by atheists. This would not lead to good discussion, though.
Give me evidence that Jesus didn't exist ON this forum, not a link, or this discussion is over.
[quote]Enjoy the next ten years of high school.[/quote]
Sorry, buddy. I was accepted into every college that I applied to and will be going to one of them in the fall. Nice try.
You're admitting that complex things need designers.
_______________________________________________-__
No the human eye is complex and it didn't have a designer.
Humans are complex they didn't have a designer. Creationists often point out how complex the Earth is and say that proves we must have a designer.
__________________________________________________-
We are punished everlastingly by not being in God's presence.
___________________________________________________
That's not punishment according to the bible we hate God so why would we care if we are separated from him?
___________________________________________________
The first statement is asserted without evidence, and therefore, I will dismiss it without evidence.
___________________________________________________
Chrishna, Horus, Orpheus, Bacchus, Osiris, Dionysus, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Adonis, Ormuzd, Mithras, Indra, Œdipus, Quetzalcoatle, etc. All of them together and you got Jesus.
And If Jesus had existed (the amazing person he was) many people would've wrote about him, yet an extensive search by many scholars over the years has turned up nothing.
Jesus fed 9000 and none of those people wrote about them???? He commanded pigs to drowned themselves and nobody wrote about that???? And that crowd that always followed him nobody wrote about that???Modern scholars now date the Gospels as being written near A.D. 170 that's to late to be considered accurate.It's hard to believe that no one at the time bothered to write down anything about his life...
Writing was common back then so you can't say people didn't write much. It's considered one of the most documented time in history. So why didnt people write about Jesus?
[quote]Modern scholars now date the Gospels as being written near A.D. 170[/quote]
Hmm, that is pretty late... I was thinking around A.D. 70 or so...
Do you have a source? (I would love to use this fact... nearly 150 years after Jesus!)
As an aside, Dave...[i]Please[/i] learn how to use quote tags.
You do this: [*quote*] Quoted text goes here [*/quote*]
Except you take out the *s.
[quote]No the human eye is complex and it didn't have a designer.
Humans are complex they didn't have a designer. Creationists often point out how complex the Earth is and say that proves we must have a designer.[/quote]
You're not hearing me. Please pay attention. When you use the logic, "Complex things need designers, so God needs one too," then you're using the logic that complex things need designers. So why didn't the universe have a designer?
But if you say that certain complex things don't need designers, then you can understand my saying that God doesn't need a designer.
It doesn't matter anyway, though. By your very definition of complex, God [i]isn't.[/i]
[quote]That's not punishment according to the bible we hate God[/quote]
Reference please?
[quote]so why would we care if we are separated from him?[/quote]
Because if God is love, and we were seperated from God, then we would be seperated from love as well, wouldn't we?
It's very simple. If the Christian God exists, he is obviously involved to an extent in our lives. But in a seperated state, he would not be involved at all. If the world is this terrible with God intervening, imagine how bad it would be without him.
[quote]Chrishna, Horus, Orpheus, Bacchus, Osiris, Dionysus, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Adonis, Ormuzd, Mithras, Indra, Œdipus, Quetzalcoatle, etc. All of them together and you got Jesus.[/quote]
All right Dave, I'll bite. Pick your two favorites out of those, post their similarities to Jesus, and we will discuss each of them. I'll show you how ridiculous your reasons are, and if your dignity is still in one piece, then we'll pick two more. Or you could give up.
Keep in mind that I've already debated Rook on Horus and Buddha. And again, he still hasn't responded after several weeks of waiting.
[quote]And If Jesus had existed (the amazing person he was) many people would've wrote about him, yet an extensive search by many scholars over the years has turned up nothing.[/quote]
Yeah, of course. The search by "many scholars" hasn't turned up the 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, the Annals of Tacitus, the two attestations of Josephus...
Oh wait. We can't count the Bible for some arbitrary reason. And oh wait, all of the other accounts are forgeries.
[quote]Jesus fed 9000 and none of those people wrote about them???? He commanded pigs to drowned themselves and nobody wrote about that???? And that crowd that always followed him nobody wrote about that???[/quote]
The accounts in the Bible were written by people who saw the events, or people who sought out people who had seen the events. What is your reason for not counting the Bible as evidence?
It could be that people [i]did[/i] write about the events. We have so little from that has survived two thousand years from that time period; it's a legitimate possibility that there were once thousands more pieces of writing that were later destroyed or merely disintegrated.
[quote]Modern scholars now date the Gospels as being written near A.D. 170 that's to late to be considered accurate.[/quote]
Modern scholars like [i][b]WHO?[/b][/i] Most scholars date them at around 70 A.D. It looks like you're swallowing Acharya S's date, but she's not a "modern scholar" of any relevant material to dating the Gospels.
[quote]It's hard to believe that no one at the time bothered to write down anything about his life...[/quote]
It's hard to believe that no one wrote about Alexander the Great until 300 years later. But we still accept his historicity, because denial merely on the basis of silence is unreasonable.
[quote]Writing was common back then so you can't say people didn't write much.[/quote]
Evidence, please? It's almost common knowledge at this point that the majority of communication in that time period was done orally rather than writing it down, so if you're going to assert, contrary to scholarly authority, that literacy rate was high, you're going to have to back that up.
[quote]It's considered one of the most documented time in history.[/quote]
WHAT?!
Compared to what time period, exactly?
[quote]So why didnt people write about Jesus?[/quote]
They did. We have four independent accounts in the Gospels. We have the early church fathers. We have Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Thallus, Lucian, and several others.
But you're too biased to even consider them.
[quote]Hmm, that is pretty late... I was thinking around A.D. 70 or so...
Do you have a source? (I would love to use this fact... nearly 150 years after Jesus!)[/quote]
It's [i]very[/i] late. Only a small minority of fringe "scholars" would even think of dating the Gospels that late.
He most likely got it from Acharya S. But she's not a scholar, and her information is so off the wall that even Robert Price, a fellow Christ-myther, said it makes the Christ-myth case look bad.
Yeah, well I think that I heard the 70 A.D thing on this forum somewhere else (and I watched a preview of the god who wasent there... and it said something like that...)
Okay, well I would think that they might mention other things that happened if they were that late anyway ...
[quote]Yeah, well I think that I heard the 70 A.D thing on this forum somewhere else (and I watched a preview of the god who wasent there... and it said something like that...)
Okay, well I would think that they might mention other things that happened if they were that late anyway ...[/quote]
One of the arguments for saying that they were written before 70 is that a lot of them mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem as if it hadn't happened yet. If they were written [i]after[/i] the temple was brought down, they certainly would have jumped on the opportunity to show that another one of Jesus's prophecies came true.
By analogy, it would be writing a book about the World Trade Center in 2005 and not ending with what happened on September 11th. Of course you would put it in there.
Tacticus: born in 56 CE after Jesus's death
Josephus:37 CE - 1 year after his death.
Pliny: 79 CE WAY after his death.
Thallus: middle first century. Jesus died earlier than that.
Lucian: 120 CE That's close enough I'm converting now.
and several others: Doubt it. I bet they were probly born in 1500 CE
Reference please?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Ps 69:4, Ps 35:19
_______________________________________________________ it's a legitimate possibility that there were once thousands more pieces of writing that were later destroyed or merely disintegrate\
___________________________________________________
Yeah that's it.... And that's the reason your just now learning about the fairy religion because the eyewitness's accounts were destroyed.
And about Alexander we have inventions made by him, try again.
[quote=P-Dunn][quote]
2) The beginning of the universe is better explained with God.
[/quote]
actually, that is highly debatable, i hardly go on here anymore, so if you want to have debates else where, aim, email then feel free.
aim- travis murders
email- [email protected]
[quote=Dave_G]Tacticus: born in 56 CE after Jesus's death... blah blah blah...[/quote]
I see again Davey is showing his ignorance about the historical method and how it works. Here is the historical method for historical events:
1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
Does that say anything about it being Contemporary? Nope. In fact, much of what we know about the ancient world comes from sources written hundreds of years latter. Thus follow your method most of ancient history should be unknown to us.
1. Accounts of the Punic Wars come to us from people such as Appian of Alexandria who lived in the late 1st century to mid 2nd century AD (over 300 years after the events) and his account is accepted by modern historians as being accurate.
2. Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny are some of the most accurate ancient historians. Even though Tacitus was not around when Nero died, his account is still taught as history to this day.
3. Contemporary accounts are not requirements for historians. Stop listening to what Rook tells you and start reading some real historians with these strange degree things.
Crystal
Dave...See what lilangel said. But irregardless:
[quote]Yeah that's it.... And that's the reason your just now learning about the fairy religion because the eyewitness's accounts were destroyed.[/quote]
I doubt it, merely because you're inventing the fairy religion and not talking about anything in reality.
If you can provide me of evidence, I'll believe you.
[quote]And about Alexander we have inventions made by him, try again.[/quote]
This is [i]extraordinarily[/i] curious. Why do you believe that there are inventions made by "Alexander the Great?" How do you know that they weren't just merely attributed to him, since he was a fictional character invented to glorify the Greek military?
What historical test did you use to say that the inventions really were made by Alexander? Perhaps what the majority of historians say? If that's true, then prepare to renounce the Christ-myth theory.
[quote=P-Dunn]Dave...See what lilangel said. But irregardless:
[quote]Yeah that's it.... And that's the reason your just now learning about the fairy religion because the eyewitness's accounts were destroyed.[/quote]
I doubt it, merely because you're inventing the fairy religion and not talking about anything in reality.
If you can provide me of evidence, I'll believe you.
[quote]And about Alexander we have inventions made by him, try again.[/quote]
This is [i]extraordinarily[/i] curious. Why do you believe that there are inventions made by "Alexander the Great?" How do you know that they weren't just merely attributed to him, since he was a fictional character invented to glorify the Greek military?
What historical test did you use to say that the inventions really were made by Alexander? Perhaps what the majority of historians say? If that's true, then prepare to renounce the Christ-myth theory.[/quote]
And we have writtings by Alexander. We have Zero eyewittness accounts of Jesus.
No one ever saw Jesus. Paul didn't even know anythjing about him except that the same thing that happened to him (that paul knows about) were stolen from pagan beliefs.
What pagan inventer was alexander stolen from?
[quote=P-Dunn]Dave...See what lilangel said. But irregardless:
[quote]Yeah that's it.... And that's the reason your just now learning about the fairy religion because the eyewitness's accounts were destroyed.[/quote]
I doubt it, merely because you're inventing the fairy religion and not talking about anything in reality.
If you can provide me of evidence, I'll believe you.
[quote]And about Alexander we have inventions made by him, try again.[/quote]
This is [i]extraordinarily[/i] curious. Why do you believe that there are inventions made by "Alexander the Great?" How do you know that they weren't just merely attributed to him, since he was a fictional character invented to glorify the Greek military?
What historical test did you use to say that the inventions really were made by Alexander? Perhaps what the majority of historians say? If that's true, then prepare to renounce the Christ-myth theory.[/quote]
And we have writtings by Alexander. We have Zero eyewittness accounts of Jesus.
No one ever saw Jesus. Paul didn't even know anythjing about him except that the same thing that happened to him (that paul knows about) were stolen from pagan beliefs.
What pagan inventer was alexander stolen from?
Stop listening to what Rook tells you and start reading some real historians with these strange degree things.
___________________________________________________
Stop believing everything the Bible tells you first.
[quote=Dave_G]
And we have writtings by Alexander. [/quote]
We do? So what finding did you make that we have handwritten writings by Alexander? I know we have copies of copies of things he wrote... perhaps you can point me to the source that says we do? This is sure news to me...
[quote]We have Zero eyewittness accounts of Jesus.[/quote]
Even if I assume that Matthew and John are not eyewitnesses (which I think they are) so what? We do not have eyewitness accounts of Hannibal either, does that mean he never existed? (Shoot, can you even tell me who Hannibal is?) We also don't have handwritten accounts by Caesar, yet historians do not argue that Hannibal or Caesar's existence. Hummm... I wonder why...
[quote]No one ever saw Jesus.[/quote]
Funny... people seem to say otherwise... Thomas sure said he did. *rolls eyes* reading some of Rook's nonsense again?
[quote]Paul didn't even know anythjing about him except that the same thing that happened to him (that paul knows about) were stolen from pagan beliefs.[/quote]
OOOO! You're a Christ-myther! I love destroying that theory. Pick your myth you think Christians stole from and name some examples. Bet you I can destroy your argument. ;) BTW, real historians with degrees (like let's say Michael Grant) says your wrong, have you read anything by a real historian or do you just listen to what Rook tells you without question?
[quote]What pagan inventer was alexander stolen from?[/quote]
Sorry, the Christ myther is a dead theory, but I'll make you a deal. Pick a belief you think Christians stole from and name some examples and I will destroy it, deal? I already gave you some links you refuse to read or debate about. Perhaps Rook could help you?
Crystal
[quote=lilangelofterror]We do not have eyewitness accounts of Hannibal either, does that mean he never existed? (Shoot, can you even tell me who Hannibal is?) [/quote]
Maybe it would help if you told Dave hes not the dude from Silence of hte Lambs. And he never ate anybody's liver(that we know of anyway).
[quote=Dave_G]Stop believing everything the Bible tells you first.[/quote]
I'm sorry Davey, but I don't do that, care to try again?
[quote]And we have writtings by Alexander.[/quote]
Alexander the Great was a myth adapted from previous war heroes. The writings attributed to him are forgeries composed centuries later by the Greek military in order to brainwash the public into support of their cause.
Well, seeing as you make bald-faced assertions like that while citing no sources, I might as well.
[quote]We have Zero eyewittness accounts of Jesus.
No one ever saw Jesus.[/quote]
The Gospels have many, many verses that make it clear that the authors were eyewitnesses. How did you come to this conclusion?
Oh wait. I know. You decided that Jesus was a myth [i]before[/i] you examined the Bible critically. Therefore, whatever the Bible says about Jesus in your mind is a lie, no mater how much evidence there is for the contrary.
[quote]Paul didn't even know anythjing about him except that the same thing that happened to him (that paul knows about) were stolen from pagan beliefs.[/quote]
I say again Dave...Pick two and we will discuss them. Lilangel can have the next two, since I challenged you on this before she did.
I'm sure she can wipe the saliva away from her mouth for a day or so. Hehe...:-)
[quote]What pagan inventer was alexander stolen from?[/quote]
Protagoras.
Wait, you want evidence? I don't have to give you any.
[quote=Dave_G]I say again Dave...Pick two and we will discuss them. Lilangel can have the next two, since I challenged you on this before she did.
I'm sure she can wipe the saliva away from her mouth for a day or so. Hehe...[/quote]
I'm not foaming at the mouth, I just find it entertaining to tocture him. But you can have the first two. :wink:
[quote=P-Dunn]
The Gospels have many, many verses that make it clear that the authors were eyewitnesses. How did you come to this conclusion?
Oh wait. I know. You decided that Jesus was a myth [i]before[/i] you examined the Bible critically. Therefore, whatever the Bible says about Jesus in your mind is a lie, no mater how much evidence there is for the contrary.
[/quote]
The Bible says they were eyewitnesses? That is not factual evidence.
You may believe all of that information in the Bible is historically true, but have [i]you[/i] ever looked at it critically? Isn't it possible that some of that information could be somewhat falsified? I mean, you've come to the conclusion that since the Bible has verses that say the authors have seen Jesus, it must be true. How do you KNOW that the authors and their writings are reliable? This is your cycle of thinking:
[b]Q:[/b] Why do you have faith in the Bible?
[b]A: [/b][i]Because it's the word of God.[/i]
[b]Q:[/b] How do you know it's the word of God?
[b]A:[/b] [i]Because the Bible says so.[/i]
[b]Q:[/b] How do you know the Bible is correct?
[b]A:[/b] [i]Because it's the word of God.[/i]
[b]Q:[/b] How do you know it's the word of God?
[b]A:[/b] [i]Because the Bible says so.[/i]
You get the point.
I don't believe in a book that is believed to be true because that book has told us it was true.
What the Bible says about Jesus is a lie NOT because I came to the conclusion that Jesus was a myth first. It's a lie because I've examined the WHOLE PICTURE critically. And by whole picture, I mean religion itself. All religions are based on irrational assumptions.
[quote]The Bible says they were eyewitnesses? That is not factual evidence.[/quote]
Of course it is, and if you say it isn't, then you have a huge double standard. Suppose in the trial of OJ Simpson, a man is called to the stand and says, "I'm an eyewitnesses. I saw him kill that woman with my own eyes." Would you consider that "factual evidence?" This is [i]exactly[/i] what is going on in the Gospels. So what's the difference?
[quote]You may believe all of that information in the Bible is historically true,[/quote]
I don't. Many things are allegorical in "the Bible."
Saying I believe everything in "the Bible" is a very huge statement.
[quote]but have you ever looked at it critically? [/quote]
I've spent the last two years and some of my life doing it, thank you.
[quote]Isn't it possible that some of that information could be somewhat falsified?[/quote]
Of course it is. I've never denied that.
[quote]I mean, you've come to the conclusion that since the Bible has verses that say the authors have seen Jesus, it must be true.[/quote]
No, that's not my conclusion.
My conclusion is that, "There are numerous verses in the Gospels where the author claims to have seen the events described in them with their own eyes. We have good evidence to believe that this is true, since a lot of them describe historical places and events with excellent clarity when compared to other documents. In addition, when we look at the style of their writing, they show no embellishment like mythology does, but clearly shows the Greco-Roman bioi style of writing, where authors took great care in writing down events as truth. Therefore, I see no logical reason to not believe that where the Gospel authors claim to be eyewitnesses, they are lying. Such logic would violate Occam's Razor and beg a lot of questions anyway."
Notice that there isn't a hint of, "It must be true" anywhere in that sort of conclusion, Toxicat.
[quote]How do you KNOW that the authors and their writings are reliable?[/quote]
I don't "KNOW." I believe because of the evidence, but I don't "KNOW."
[quote]This is your cycle of thinking:
Q: Why do you have faith in the Bible?
A: Because it's the word of God.
Q: How do you know it's the word of God?
A: Because the Bible says so.
Q: How do you know the Bible is correct?
A: Because it's the word of God.
Q: How do you know it's the word of God?
A: Because the Bible says so.
You get the point.
I don't believe in a book that is believed to be true because that book has told us it was true.[/quote]
You are 100% wrong on this one. That's not my logic [i]at all[/i]. I'm well aware that this is circular and a completely erroneous way to establish the truth of something.
To be completely honest with you, it's of relative indifference to me if the Gospels are "God's word." Really. I don't particularly care. What I [i]do[/i] care about is examining the Bible as any other historical document; without any biases or presuppositions about it's nature as a "holy book," but merely using the historical process to determine it's truth value.
I'm NOT a fundamentalist, so don't label me as one.
[quote]What the Bible says about Jesus is a lie NOT because I came to the conclusion that Jesus was a myth first.[/quote]
Good.
[quote]It's a lie because I've examined the WHOLE PICTURE critically. And by whole picture, I mean religion itself. All religions are based on irrational assumptions.[/quote]
And that is irrational and self-defeating logic, Toxicat. It's completely unfair.
First of all, if you concluded that all religions are based on irrational assumptions [i]before[/i] you critically examined the Bible, then my point is still exactly right. If you decided, for example, that God doesn't exist before you critically examined the Bible, then of course the stories in it will seem like lies. Of course you won't believe the miracles, and of course you will resort to any means to not believe in them, like assuming that the Gospel authors are lying about being eyewitnesses.
Second of all, even if you concluded that all religions are based on irrational assumptions [i]after[/i] you critically examined the Bible, it's still invalid. You can't use the massive category of "religion" as a stigma against what is written down in a historical account. Because Islam tells you to kill heretics doesn't mean that the account written in the Bible about the conversation with the woman at the well is automatically wrong. No historian in their right mind would ever dream of using such a method to determine truth.
Perhaps that's not what you're doing, exactly. In order to prevent my own error, could you please lay out for me some of the "irrational assumptions" that "all" religions are based on. I'd truly like to see your thought process here.
Legal evidence is not the same as any sort of scientific evidence, when it comes to witness testimony, especially when it comes to any sort of supernatural claim.
"I know what I saw, and I saw a ghost."
I'll refer to the supposed Virgin Mary sightings. If you are in a considerably religious town and you see markings on a wall, your mind is trained to see patterns in things, and might see a face. Bam, now you see the mother of Jesus. Then, you tell people that you've seen this, and point at the wall, "This is the nose, the head covering, and the eye, its Mary!"
Max Havoc, I'm not sure who you're referring to exactly, but I'll respond anyway.
[quote]Legal evidence is not the same as any sort of scientific evidence, when it comes to witness testimony, especially when it comes to any sort of supernatural claim.[/quote]
As I recall, Toxicat was talking about "factual" evidence. Legal and scientific evidence both fall under the category of "factual evidence."
[quote]"I know what I saw, and I saw a ghost."
I'll refer to the supposed Virgin Mary sightings. If you are in a considerably religious town and you see markings on a wall, your mind is trained to see patterns in things, and might see a face. Bam, now you see the mother of Jesus. Then, you tell people that you've seen this, and point at the wall, "This is the nose, the head covering, and the eye, its Mary!"[/quote]
This is entirely different, obviously, than walking around with a human being for several years watching what he does.
Eyewitness accounts do not carry the same weight as testable account. You telling me that, for example, you were lying in bed and Jesus came to talk to you, doesn't in the slightest bit mean that it happened. I wouldn't be able to tell if you were simply lying, if you were hallucinating, or it was the delusional effect of years of sitting next to your bed, talking yo your ceiling for hours on end.
Also, weren't the stories of Jesus written many, many years after his death? Something like 100 years after?
[quote=Max Havok]Eyewitness accounts do not carry the same weight as testable account. [/quote]
So most of history falls apart then? So that means most of what we know about the Roman Empire is gone. Alexander never existed... Caesar didn't.... neither did Hannibal. You do know that history is mostly based upon eyewitness testimony, right?
[quote]You telling me that, for example, you were lying in bed and Jesus came to talk to you, doesn't in the slightest bit mean that it happened. I wouldn't be able to tell if you were simply lying, if you were hallucinating, or it was the delusional effect of years of sitting next to your bed, talking yo your ceiling for hours on end.[/quote]
Simply a false analogy... got something useful?
[quote]Also, weren't the stories of Jesus written many, many years after his death? Something like 100 years after?[/quote]
1. Try more like 10 to 40 years latter.
2. The written accounts we have today of Alexander comes from Historians writing 300 years latter who were copying earlier historians who got their info from eyewitnesses. And the copies we have of these historians are copies of copies that come from the 9th or 10th century. The same can be said about many documents of that era. The earliest copies we have of Tacitus works come from the 9th century and Tacitus wrote in the late 1st to early 2nd century. Do you see historians arguing that none of this stuff happened just because of that fact?
3. In an oral culture, transmission of stories would of been alot more accurate then oral transmissions are in our western world today. In fact, there is even an historical test for oral transmission.
It seems to me you don't know what you are talking about. Want to try this again?
Crystal
[quote]Eyewitness accounts do not carry the same weight as testable account.[/quote]
This may be true in the realm of the present, but that's dramatically false when put into history. As Crystal said, if one uses this standard to determine what happened and what didn't in a historical account, then [i]nothing[/i] happened.
[quote]You telling me that, for example, you were lying in bed and Jesus came to talk to you, doesn't in the slightest bit mean that it happened. I wouldn't be able to tell if you were simply lying, if you were hallucinating, or it was the delusional effect of years of sitting next to your bed, talking yo your ceiling for hours on end.[/quote]
Yes, this is a false analogy. The Gospel authors did not claim to have such a hallucination. They claimed to travel around with him for several years and have influenced thousands of people who had seen him as well.
[quote]Also, weren't the stories of Jesus written many, many years after his death? Something like 100 years after?[/quote]
No, that's too late. Most scholars date them around 70 AD and the Pauline epistles in the 50s. Information about Jesus was already widespread in that point in time.
And even if they were writtetn 100 years later, it's really irrelevant. Most of the history back then was transmitted orally in the first place. Plus, since when does duration decrease reliability?
I am criticizing any claim off of eyewitness that is supernatural in nature, especially if it is supernatural and has no supporting evidence.
My analogy of talking to God was an example of a supernatural event that only has eyewitness is worthy of being exceptionally skeptical of.
Lastly, I'm don't think that anything written 50-70 years after an event would keep the overall accuracy in place. In fact, that's how stories get variants, a matter of time. Besides, I haven't found anything outside of spiritual text which leads me to think that the miracles claimed to have been performed by Jesus has ever happened.
[quote=Max Havok]I am criticizing any claim off of eyewitness that is supernatural in nature, especially if it is supernatural and has no supporting evidence.[/quote]
In other words:
I am holding X to standard A and Y to standard B.
This is known to us a double standard. Why should we hold one thing to one standard and another to something else? Sounds like to me a perfect way to not believe what you don't want to in the first place.
[quote]My analogy of talking to God was an example of a supernatural event that only has eyewitness is worthy of being exceptionally skeptical of.
[/quote]
No, you have a false analogy. The disciples do not claim that Jesus was with them for just a day or a week. They tell us they walked with him for 3 years. We find no evidence of any hallucination's. In other words, it's up to you to prove that different people... all had the same hallucination (which would in fact, be a miracle all on it's own). Simply put, your analogy fails because it is comparing apples with oranges.
[quote]Lastly, I'm don't think that anything written 50-70 years after an event would keep the overall accuracy in place.[/quote]
Then as I told you before, most of what we know about the ancient world goes up in smoke...
[quote] In fact, that's how stories get variants, a matter of time.[/quote]
Their are variants in stories that happened as little as 5 years ago. I can find slight variations in stories of what happened on 9/11, The Battle of Gettysburg, and the Bombing of Pearl harbor. Can I therefore conclude these events never happened? Slight variants are actually a good thing in both historical test and legal evidence.
[quote] Besides, I haven't found anything outside of spiritual text which leads me to think that the miracles claimed to have been performed by Jesus has ever happened.[/quote]
In other words, you have already closed your mind off to the possibility that Jesus could of performed miracles and thus Jesus could not of done them. Don't you see it yet? You are being bias and unfair to what you really don't want to believe in the first place.
If we hold the entire Bible to the same standard and discover that Jesus most likely or did indeed to miracles, what is the conclusion?
Crystal
[quote]I am criticizing any claim off of eyewitness that is supernatural in nature, especially if it is supernatural and has no supporting evidence.[/quote]
But you're using an unfair standard to remove the evidence for the supernatural event, and then criticizing it as if it has no evidence.
I feel like lilangel keeps saying everything I want to say...But even so, this is a double standard.
[quote]My analogy of talking to God was an example of a supernatural event that only has eyewitness is worthy of being exceptionally skeptical of.[/quote]
Believe it or not, I'm somewhat skeptical of people who say that "God told them" to do something, or that they have conversations with God. I feel like a lot of them are probably fooling themselves. So in this case, you could be right.
But when you apply the same analogy to the life of Jesus, your argument completely falls apart, since there's a strong categorical difference.
[quote]Lastly, I'm don't think that anything written 50-70 years after an event would keep the overall accuracy in place.[/quote]
But is that enough to conclude that the event didn't happen at all? No.
[quote]In fact, that's how stories get variants, a matter of time.[/quote]
But is that enough to conclude that the event didn't happen at all? No.
Let me also point out that variants are good because they prove that the two versions of the story were not written in collusion. Instead we have two independent accounts of the attested event.
[quote]Besides, I haven't found anything outside of spiritual text which leads me to think that the miracles claimed to have been performed by Jesus has ever happened.[/quote]
You're merely excluding "spiritual texts" from being reliable accounts before you even begin. This is not a fair use of evidence. It doesn't matter if it's a spiritual text or not; you still have to examine it as you would anything else.
Even if your claim is true, it doesn't really mean much. As I said earlier, most communication was done orally back then.
If an eyewitness account in the distant past is the ONLY "evidence" for a claim of a supernatural event, then it would be a totally rational decision to assert that the claim is false. Of course you'd hold a supernatural claim to a bit higher standard, seeing as how it would be much less probable.
Also, I think the burden of proof would lie on the assertion that they were talking to the Living God. Whether or not Jesus existed is hardly debatable in contrast to whether or not he actually did all of the spectacular things told in the stories.
Certainly, if a story has more than 1 agreeing source, especially along with other evidence, it is believable. If there are multiple texts from different authors and different sources all together who share descriptions of an event, I'd conclude that it most likely existed. However, if a handful of religious texts in the same geographical area mention a vaguely similar person with no evidence other than stories, or if they disagree on fundamentals of the story, then I think the best conclusion to be drawn would be in disbelief.
Slight variations in stories do not make them (the base story) untrue, however, variants of the stories themselves do not make themselves true.
If you want to consider skepticism against supernatural claims with no tangible evidence to be "biased", then sure, I'm biased. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative. If science dug up a body that had what seems to be a lethal wound, partially healed, and the body was found to have died of old age far after the lethal wound was inflicted, I would consider that evidence for the claim that the individual could have been brought back to life.
[quote=Max Havok]If an eyewitness account in the distant past is the ONLY "evidence" for a claim of a supernatural event, then it would be a totally rational decision to assert that the claim is false.[/quote]
In other words... "If I disagree with what the witness said, I'll just dismiss it out of hand so I don't have to believe what I don't want to." You know... that's the same logic that holocaust deniers use. *rolls eyes* Pretty much you have stacked the deck in your favor.
[quote]Of course you'd hold a supernatural claim to a bit higher standard, seeing as how it would be much less probable. [/quote]
That's why we test it and figure out if it's true or false. Know of any of the test we can use to determine if a supernatural claim might be true or might be false?
[quote]Also, I think the burden of proof would lie on the assertion that they were talking to the Living God. Whether or not Jesus existed is hardly debatable in contrast to whether or not he actually did all of the spectacular things told in the stories.[/quote]
Do you think he existed? If the answer is yes, then the next question is. What evidence does it take to convince you? How am I suppose to prove beyond the testimony of the Gospels that Jesus walked on water? Do you have a time machine that we can use to go back in time? Do you have a crystal ball sitting on your desk that we can see into the past? I sure don't... so really, what other evidence do you want? You again stack the deck in your favor and cry when the evidence for what you are asking is impossible to get.
[quote]Certainly, if a story has more than 1 agreeing source, especially along with other evidence, it is believable. If there are multiple texts from different authors and different sources all together who share descriptions of an event, I'd conclude that it most likely existed. [/quote]
You mean like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? There's 4 different agreeing sources.
[quote]However, if a handful of religious texts in the same geographical area mention a vaguely similar person with no evidence other than stories, or if they disagree on fundamentals of the story, then I think the best conclusion to be drawn would be in disbelief. [/quote]
Ummm, there is plenty of evidence beyond the stories. There's dozens of historically confirmed details that exist beyond the Gospels Here is the reality, there is no current method we can use to determine if Jesus performed a miracle beyond what is written. Where would physical evidence exist beyond written accounts that Jesus fed 5,000 people? How about walked on water? How about casting out demons? How about rising from the dead? Again, it seems to me you have stacked the burden or proof so high, you don't have to believe what you do want to in the first place.
[quote]Slight variations in stories do not make them (the base story) untrue, however, variants of the stories themselves do not make themselves true.[/quote]
You are quote correct, that in themselves does not make it correct, what it means is that we have different sources telling us the same thing. The next question is, why are they telling us the same thing?
[quote]If you want to consider skepticism against supernatural claims with no tangible evidence to be "biased", then sure, I'm biased.[/quote]
Glad you admitted it.
[quote] The burden of proof lies on the affirmative.[/quote]
The burden or proof does not always lie on the affirmative. For example: the holocaust deniers, the burden or proof lies upon them to prove that the evidence against their case is wrong and they are indeed right. You too must explain something, why does the Gospels tell us that Jesus did miracles? They appear to be different sources, telling us the same thing. Why?
[quote] If science dug up a body that had what seems to be a lethal wound, partially healed, and the body was found to have died of old age far after the lethal wound was inflicted, I would consider that evidence for the claim that the individual could have been brought back to life.[/quote]
Sorry, but Jesus did not stay on earth. Again, you stack the evidence so high in your favor, no matter what... you don't have to believe what you really don't want to in the first place. And there is a problem with a standard that doesn't allow you to believe what really happened.
Crystal
If somebody told you that they saw a unicorn in the woods behind their house, that they KNOW it was a unicorn, would you believe them? Its not a matter of totally dismissing an eyewitness account, its a matter of dismissing a totally untestable, exceptionally unlikely event.
There is no way to show that any supernatural claim is true! In fact, there hasn't been one, and James Randi is ready to pay a cool million to anybody who can show one.
If you want to use the Gospels to support your own argument, well, thats a fallacy in itself. Now, you saying that it is impossible to get evidence to support your supernatural claim well, that says enough.
Sure, 4 sources who all followed in the same religion.
What evidence is there?
Again, 4 sources who are all major players in a single religion agreeing is something to show how diverse it is?
I don't see why you see a bias against things that are extraordinarily unlikely, to be negative.
The burden of proof still would lie on the affirmative! The affirmative can offer evidence to support its claim and it would all be true! If I told you that you, in fact, don't have internet access, the burden of proof would shift to you, and you would be able to present that you do, and I would be incorrect.
So we have the bodies of ancient Japanese leaders, but we can't find the body of the, accord to you, single most important person to ever live? I could apply Occam's Razor to the situation and consider that the Bible is simply a story, everything in it just as real as the Lord of the Rings, or I can come to the conclusion that Jesus was born of a virgin and the Creator of the Universe, he performed miracles like feeding thousands, bringing other people back to life, and himself coming to life after dying, and his body was whisked away to Heaven a short while after.
You are right, the evidence is stacked in my favor.
[quote=Max Havok]If somebody told you that they saw a unicorn in the woods behind their house, that they KNOW it was a unicorn, would you believe them? Its not a matter of totally dismissing an eyewitness account, its a matter of dismissing a totally untestable, exceptionally unlikely event. [/quote]
Again with the false analogies and strawman. I don't accept things because somebody says so, I test them to see if they are accurate. Do you anything about how to test eyewitness testimony?
[quote]There is no way to show that any supernatural claim is true! [/quote]
Yes there is...
[quote]In fact, there hasn't been one, and James Randi is ready to pay a cool million to anybody who can show one.[/quote]
Christians have simular challenges too that have yet to be answered. Does that prove atheism as false?
[quote]If you want to use the Gospels to support your own argument, well, thats a fallacy in itself.[/quote]
*rofl* Oh? The fallacy is... the not agreeing with the great Max Havok? By all means name the fallacy and prove it...
[quote] Now, you saying that it is impossible to get evidence to support your supernatural claim well, that says enough.[/quote]
Do you have problems paying attention? I said there is no physical way to prove that Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead. There is also no physical way to prove that Abe Lincoln walked passed a certain tree in 1860, does that mean that even never happened? Again, please pay attention and stop making me have to repeat myself.
[quote]Sure, 4 sources who all followed in the same religion.[/quote]
And the issues is that you don't like the conclusion so thus you make silly excuses? Who cares if they follow the same religion or not? The question is... is it true? What you have just done is known as a 'Genetic fallacy'. Do you care to try this again?
[quote]
What evidence is there?[/quote]
Historical and philosophical.
[quote]Again, 4 sources who are all major players in a single religion agreeing is something to show how diverse it is?[/quote]
In other words;
The gospels are too close to be independent sources.
The gospels are too contradictory to be reliable sources.
So what is it? Too close or too far? BTW... you have just appealed to the source of a document as proof it must be false. I don't know what you have studied, but that looks like a genetic fallacy to me.
[quote]I don't see why you see a bias against things that are extraordinarily unlikely, to be negative.[/quote]
What do you mean by 'extraoridionary'?
1. Beyond the natural - does that mean you want something else to confirm it? And to confirm that and so on and so forth?
2. Repeatable in a laboratory - can you repeat
3. More than usual - Why should there be more then usual?
[quote]The burden of proof still would lie on the affirmative! The affirmative can offer evidence to support its claim and it would all be true![/quote]
Nonsense, the burden or proof can lie with either party. Just because you have a negative claim really means nothing. For example, if you are claiming the holocaust never happened... then the burden or proof does not fall upon me to prove you wrong... you must answer the evidence stacked against you.
[quote] If I told you that you, in fact, don't have internet access, the burden of proof would shift to you, and you would be able to present that you do, and I would be incorrect.[/quote]
Another false analogy eh? Didn't I already tell you the burden of proof switches depending on what we are talking about? I have nothing to prove to holocaust deniers, they must prove the mountains of evidence against their case is wrong.
[quote]So we have the bodies of ancient Japanese leaders, but we can't find the body of the, accord to you, single most important person to ever live?[/quote]
Didn't read the Bible eh? According to the Bible... Jesus asended into heaven and thus his body is not among us. Besides, if I assume your argument has some merit (which it doesn't since the Bible does not claim that Jesus stood on earth) so what? How do we go about proving a random body is the body of Jesus? Unless there is writings right next to the body... we're not going to know any better.
[quote] I could apply Occam's Razor to the situation and consider that the Bible is simply a story, everything in it just as real as the Lord of the Rings, or I can come to the conclusion that Jesus was born of a virgin and the Creator of the Universe, he performed miracles like feeding thousands, bringing other people back to life, and himself coming to life after dying, and his body was whisked away to Heaven a short while after.[/quote]
So many errors in such a small space:
1. Occam's Razor says nothing about something being a miracle being false.
2. Occam's Razor is a double edged sword when weilded by a simpleton.
3. You are again throwing together some strawman and false analogies. Why would I not accept Lord of the Rings as fact? It couldn't be that Lord of the Rings was written as fiction and was never intended to be thought of as fact...
Please stop pretending you're an expert in anything you're talking about. Your argument is not at all hard to rip apart.
[quote]You are right, the evidence is stacked in my favor.[/quote]
Paying attention is very hard for you isn't it? I'm saying that you stack the burdens so high... you don't have to believe what you really don't want to. There's a problem with a standard that will not allow you to believe what really happened. Try this again.
Crystal
There are 2 parts to flaws with an eyewitness testimony. Firstly, it is untestable in the negative if it is one person or a few people. Secondly, it is impossible to tell what they saw and how they came to the conclusion.
An example would be people seeing a UFO. You can't find out a way to offer equal evidence that they didn't see a UFO, because you weren't there. They could have been staring at an airplane. The second part is important because it is exceptionally easy to have one person point out something and say "WTF is that, its moving too fast to be an airplane" (even more absurd if the person has no knowledge of aircraft), and then you have the group who believe what he says, and now they are all equal witnesses. If you ask any of them, the answer would be "I saw what looked like a UFO."
How would you show that a supernatural claim is true? I have yet to hear of ANY claim demonstrated.
Oh, you mean Dr. Dino's challenge, the one where he takes an absurd stance on evolution, then sits happily knowing that its impossible for evoltuion to do what he claims it can?
Begging the question makes the assertion that the Gospels are the true word of God. Then, using them to show the existance of God is an exercise in circular reasoning.
Any supernatural claim is therefore totally absurd! If you can't prove it to have happened and it is unlikely to happen at all, then a rational conclusion would be to state that it didn't happen. Remember, the burden of proof lies on the affirmative. ;)
I think you are misusing the Genetic Fallacy. I could easily say "4 different people, an engineer, a housewife, a son, and daughter all said they saw a UFO" or, in the case of Jesus' existence, 4 people with similar interests all saying something (which I'm sure they still have no historical record for outside of the Bible) happened, does not give them credit.
I wasn't asking for a broad cop-out answer, present some, link some.
The stories are similar, but there are contradictions, there is a list of them in these forums. I think you are heading in the wrong direction with that one.
The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the affirmative. You have to be the one to prove to ME that you have internet access. If you can, then my assertion is incorrect. It never, ever changes sides. I don't know where you heard that.
Of course I know that, in the Bible, Jesus went up to heaven, taking all of the evidence of his life with him. Pretty sure the Mormons have a similar thing, where the magic Golden Plates were taken back to heaven.
Occam's Razor shows that something without a natural cause or explanation is much less likely than something that can be explained by a natural cause. I really don't think you understand it, either. Wikipedia is actually a good source to learn about it.
You have a lot of affirmative claims to make, you need to present evidence. Plugging your ears and saying "Lalalalala prove that God doesn't exist" doesn't make your claim true, you need to give me a good reason to think that God is real or that Jesus is real.
Max, since lilangel seems to be more involved in this one, I'll just respond to a select few points.
[quote]Secondly, it is impossible to tell what they saw and how they came to the conclusion.[/quote]
How did you decide that?
If there's an eyewitness account that says, "I saw Max Havoc rob a bank. I saw his face quite clearly, there's no doubt in my mind. He came in with a Glock and pointed it at one of them and he gave him $4000 and then Max left," it's quite easy to discern what he saw and how they came to that conclusion.
He probably saw what he just said, and he probably came to that conclusion by actually seeing it.
The only reason what you said would EVER be true is if you assume that the person is lying before you start, and that's not how examining evidence works.
[quote]An example would be people seeing a UFO. You can't find out a way to offer equal evidence that they didn't see a UFO, because you weren't there. They could have been staring at an airplane. The second part is important because it is exceptionally easy to have one person point out something and say "WTF is that, its moving too fast to be an airplane" (even more absurd if the person has no knowledge of aircraft), and then you have the group who believe what he says, and now they are all equal witnesses. If you ask any of them, the answer would be "I saw what looked like a UFO."[/quote]
Why must you constantly use irrelevant analogies? Seeing a UFO for a few seconds is [i][b]entirely different from being with someone for a period of several years and watching him perform things in front of hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of people.[/b][/i]
[quote]Begging the question makes the assertion that the Gospels are the true word of God. Then, using them to show the existance of God is an exercise in circular reasoning.
Any supernatural claim is therefore totally absurd![/quote]
Wait. What if there's a supernatural claim outside of any "word of God?"
[quote]The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the affirmative. You have to be the one to prove to ME that you have internet access. If you can, then my assertion is incorrect. It never, ever changes sides. I don't know where you heard that.[/quote]
So what you're saying is that if someone says, "The moon doesn't exist," then it's up to someone [i]else[/i] to prove that the moon in fact does exist? The person who denies the existence of the moon must do nothing at all to back up what he says?
Let's forget that point for a second. Whenever you make a negative argument, you're denying another state of affairs. When you say, "Miracles do not happen," you are making an affirmative statement that, "Miracles happen" is a false statement. By your logic, since you are making an affirmative argument, then you must demonstrate it.
[quote]Of course I know that, in the Bible, Jesus went up to heaven, taking all of the evidence of his life with him. Pretty sure the Mormons have a similar thing, where the magic Golden Plates were taken back to heaven.[/quote]
Jesus left behind thousands of people that had seen his actions.
[quote]You have a lot of affirmative claims to make, you need to present evidence. Plugging your ears and saying "Lalalalala prove that God doesn't exist" doesn't make your claim true, you need to give me a good reason to think that God is real or that Jesus is real.[/quote]
When you're the one that's defining what's a "good" reason, especially since you're denying all supernatural stories before you even here them, this discussion will get nowhere fast.