Originally posted by googlefudgeThe proof, googlefudge, is in the authority of God's Word.
Prove it.
The display of facts, figures, hypotheses, theories and/or any and all other "proofs" made by mere men are always suspect. Either God did in fact cause "The Word" to be, or we're consigned to living in a world of imagination and fallacy. Right, wrong and morality have no basis in reality without final authority.
And it isn't human. As it says in Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him (God) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: ..(God) mine.
"Being understood" by what we see of creation. The creator evidences Himself through creation as the final authority. By reason and common sense we observe creation as God's handiwork, and when we peel away the layers of subterfuge generated by the mind of man we see clearly the truth of the argument we have even in our own minds which resists the truths of God Word.
Creation, i.e. all that exists, is the evidence (proof), pure and simple.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by josephw
The proof, googlefudge, is in the authority of God's Word.
The display of facts, figures, hypotheses, theories and/or any and all other "proofs" made by mere men are always suspect. Either God did in fact cause "The Word" to be, or we're consigned to living in a world of imagination and fallacy. Right, wrong and morality have no basis in reality without ...[text shortened]... truths of God Word.
Creation, i.e. all that exists, is the evidence (proof), pure and simple.
Either God did in fact cause "The Word" to be, or we're consigned to living in a world of imagination and fallacy.
Right, wrong and morality have no basis in reality without final authority.
The first statement is a false dichotomy, those are not [even close to] the only available options.
The second, is just flat out wrong. It's also completely irrelevant.
Even if there could be no morality without a god, that says absolutely nothing about whether a god
actually exists. It could just as easily be that we live in a world without right and wrong.
Happily, morality, and right or wrong, have nothing whatsoever to do with god, and in fact cannot
be derived from god or any other 'authority'. Secular objective morality is not only possible, it
kicks religious moralities ass on every metric you care to use to measure it's effectiveness.
Matt Dillahunty: The Superiority of Secular Morality
Creation, i.e. all that exists, is the evidence (proof), pure and simple.
No, it's not.
For 'The Universe'
As the universe is not even close to being only explicable by an intelligent agent, and moreover
'an intelligent agent' is one of the least likely possible 'explanations' for the universe existing...
The Universe is clearly NOT evidence or proof of a creator being. Let alone your specific
proposed creator being.
You are essentially making an argument from ignorance.
You are ignorant of science, both in terms of how it works and what it's discovered, and thus
create an imaginary being to 'explain' everything you don't understand... which is everything.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, actually, that would be you.
You are essentially making an argument from ignorance.
"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." -- Matthew 13:10-15, KJV
Now go ahead and make my day and tell me that this makes no sense.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm sorry I thought you claimed to have some knowledge of science.
No, actually, that would be [b]you.
"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but ...[text shortened]... " -- Matthew 13:10-15, KJV
Now go ahead and make my day and tell me that this makes no sense.[/b]
The words written in your holy book are not evidence of the truth of the words in your holy book.
That's a circular argument.
And when people are making claims for which they have no evidence they will of course use every
trick in the book to try to slander and criticise those who fail to believe them.
In this case this is the playground tactic of 'I'm rubber, your glue. Whatever you throw at me bounces
off and sticks to you"
To rationally justify any claim you require evidence.
Faith is not evidence, and there is no evidence for the existence of your god, the afterlife, or any of the
central pillars of your religion.
Thus it's irrational and wrong to believe that your religion is true.
The fact that yours is a self reinforcing delusion, doesn't make it any less of a delusion.
The fact that you believe it, doesn't make it true. Faith is not, and cannot be, evidence of anything.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, thanks for proving my point, at least. You DO argue from ignorance. Of course it is "delusion" to you. Your eyes see but you do not perceive and your ears hear but you do not understand.
I'm sorry I thought you claimed to have some knowledge of science.
The words written in your holy book are not evidence of the truth of the words in your holy book.
That's a circular argument.
And when people are making claims for which they have no evidence they will of course use every
trick in the book to try to slander and criticise those ...[text shortened]... ct that you believe it, doesn't make it true. Faith is not, and cannot be, evidence of anything.
You keep on telling yourself what you need to hear to justify your ignorance.
You're doing yourself a great disservice by refusing to perceive or to understand. And this is because you are putting obstacles in your own way called "rationality" and "logic". And the driving force here is pride.
And until you can justify sacrificing just a little bit of that pride, you will remain lost.
One thing you have right is that just believing something doesn't make it true. Truth makes it true. We believe it, because it IS true. Don't accuse us of putting the cart before the horse, here. Of course it is not true because of our faith. We have faith because it is true. And we see this with our eyes, and we perceive the truth of it, even if you can't. And we hear this with our ears, and we understand the truth of it, even if you can't. Because we have faith.
And as always, you're welcome to join us, if the price of a little bit of your pride is not too great a price for you.
Originally posted by SuzianneActually, no, the driving force is rationality and logic.
You're doing yourself a great disservice by refusing to perceive or to understand. And this is because you are putting obstacles in your own way called "rationality" and "logic". And the driving force here is pride.
Don't accuse us of putting the cart before the horse, here. Of course it is not true because of our faith. We have faith because it is true. And we see this with our eyes, and we perceive the truth of it, even if you can't. And we hear this with our ears, and we understand the truth of it, even if you can't. Because we have faith.
You just contradicted yourself.
And as always, you're welcome to join us, if the price of a little bit of your pride is not too great a price for you.
If you are ever willing to have a rational conversation and give a rational explanation for why you believe what you do, I am willing to listen. But all I ever see from you on this forum is hatred and anger and the occasional 'I'm right and you're wrong!'. You never actually give a clear explanation for why you believe what you do or why anyone else should believe what you say is true.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhitehead
Prior to watching it, I was of the opinion that Jesus probably did exist but that it wasn't very certain. Having watched the video, I now fell that it is likely Jesus didn't exist.
Can anyone here find fault with Richard Carriers claims?
I have seen a number of Richard Carrier debates with Christians like -
Gary Habermas,
Mike Licona,
William Lane Craig,
John Marshall,
Lenny Esposito
I'll look at the video until I find at least three things I would object to tonight.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Carrier wants to compare the angel Gabriel and the angel Moroni to Jesus. IE. Jesus was a celestial being.
Well, the earliest apologetics defending the teachings of Jesus (as historical documents now) were not arguing against critics saying Jesus never lived. But rather they defended against gnostics who said Jesus existed but was TOO GOOD to be material.
No such delimma to my knowledge occured for Gabriel as pertaining to Islam or Moroni pertaining to Mormonism.
What I suspect some fans of Carrier will try to do is jury rig the discussion so that the New Testament writers are excluded from evidence for any historicity of Jesus. However, my reference to ie. what is traditionally called John's writings are as historical documents and not revelatory Scripture.
You can detect that the writer is arguing that Jesus was not a phantasm but a flesh and blood man. The writer says that it was witnessed that blood came out of the body of Jesus on the cross.
Rather than an apologetic that Jesus was indeed someone who actually lived, he is countering arguments that though Jesus lived, Jesus was too good to have been material (Docetism).
I can see that I am not going to get through this this late tonight. But if I understood Carrier rightly, it appears that he wants to proclaim invalid other ways of proving the historicity of Jesus except his preferred mathematical method of statistics - Bayesian Theory.
I would have to review what that is about. But if he is saying IE. "Now we can only use my method here." That should be tested against other the opinion of other historians of equal education. I know Dr. Mike Licona (a historian) expressed skepticism about using Bayesian methodology to make proofs about the historicity of people. But I have to re-listen to that portion of the lecture to be sure I understood Carrier rightly.
I have time for one more comment tonight.
For his claim that Jesus was the same kind of "celestial being" as an angel Gabriel or Moroni, he sites Paul. Then Jesus was, according to Carrier "Euhemerized". That is stories were made about Jesus to place Jesus on earth among other historical figures.
I object to Carrier characterizing Paul and his co-workers as going around speaking of visions of Jesus. Besides Paul, I can think of not other close co-worker of his going around speaking of such celestial appearances of Jesus.
Paul gave his testimony about seeing Jesus. I don't see Timothy, Barnabus, Silas, Sosthenes, Titus, Luke giving such personal testimonials.
Paul worked more in parallel with Peter than in close coordination.
Peter he considered as an apostle to the Jews basically and Paul considered himself an apostle to the Gentiles basically.
If I quote the New Testament to prove this it will be quoting it as a historical document. The earliest New Testament writings are those of Paul. And while Paul did refer to his vision of the raised and exalted Christ a couple of times, he did not point to that experience in the crucial argument with the Corinthians about the resurrection.
Paul instead used the rabbinic formula that he passed on to the audience that which he also received by teaching. This indicates that though Paul's writings are the earliest in the NT, he was evidently passing on instruction he received from earlier sources.
Paul did not argue with the Corinthians - "What, you say there is no resurrection?? Why I SAW Jesus alive speaking to me celestially as a celestial Savior."
This was a critical tenet of the Christian faith. And instead of pointing to his personal encounter with Jesus speaking to him from heaven he points to those who were physically with Jesus who were the original apostles.
That means that prior to these early writings of Paul's letters, there was a tradition of eyewitnesses teaching of Christ as a earthly figure who had died and been raised.
Carrier wants to draw from every available mythological or alternative religious movement and prove that the Jesus was concocted in a fictional manner. IE. "Its just like Zues, Moroni, Gabriel".
And that is all I can write tonight. But it is better that someone of equivalent training in that area be the one to take Richard Carrier to task.
I recommend some debates: To start with Dr. Mike Licona verses Dr. Richard Licona. And Dr. Gary Habermas verses Dr, Richard Carrier.
The Debate and friendly, civil discussion afterwards between Licona and Carrier is a good place to start.
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (a debate about HISTORY not faith )
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe story of JC is a fairy tail. nuff said
This came up in another thread and I thought it was worthy of its own thread. Googlefudge pointed us to Richard Carrier's work on the historicity of Jesus. This youtube video is by Richard Charier and basically gives his argument that Jesus probably didn't exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
Prior to watching it, I was of the opinion th ...[text shortened]... hat it is likely Jesus didn't exist.
Can anyone here find fault with Richard Carriers claims?
Originally posted by sonshipI find that an extremely week argument. Essentially you are saying 'but nobody questioned this before, therefore we can dismiss anyone who questions it!'.
Carrier wants to compare the angel Gabriel and the angel Moroni to Jesus. IE. Jesus was a celestial being.
Well, the earliest apologetics defending the teachings of Jesus (as historical documents now) were not arguing against critics saying Jesus never lived. But rather they defended against gnostics who said Jesus existed but was TOO GOOD to be materia ...[text shortened]... ma to my knowledge occured for Gabriel as pertaining to Islam or Moroni pertaining to Mormonism.
What I suspect some fans of Carrier will try to do is jury rig the discussion so that the New Testament writers are excluded from evidence for any historicity of Jesus.
Actually Carrier does quite the opposite. He shows that the New Testament writers are almost exclusively the only evidence for any historicity of Jesus, and then he proceeds to show that they are highly unreliable.
I can see that I am not going to get through this this late tonight.
I will wait till you have got through it because I believe some of your points are answered by Carrier.
I think you need to keep in mind some of Carriers main points about which books were written by whom and when and why. If you wish to provide counter evidence from a book Carrier dismisses as late fiction, then you need to deal with his dismissal first before quoting it as evidence.
Do you for example disagree with him about which books were written by Paul?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd it should be further noted, that when he is talking about our knowledge of when
I find that an extremely week argument. Essentially you are saying 'but nobody questioned this before, therefore we can dismiss anyone who questions it!'.
[b]What I suspect some fans of Carrier will try to do is jury rig the discussion so that the New Testament writers are excluded from evidence for any historicity of Jesus.
Actually Carrier does ...[text shortened]... it as evidence.
Do you for example disagree with him about which books were written by Paul?[/b]
particular 'books' in the bible were written, and which bits are later forgeries, that it's not
him [Richard Carrier] that is asserting this. This is the consensus of historians who study
this topic.
So to assert that bits he claims are forgeries or much later editions are not in fact forgeries
or later editions, you need to refute the historical consensus that contradicts you.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOnly a self diluted fool would say something like that!
You are ignorant of science, both in terms of how it works and what it's discovered, and thus
create an imaginary being to 'explain' everything you don't understand... which is everything.
See the dust coming off my sandals?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by josephwWell neither being a fool or deluded [or diluted for that matter] that statement is evidently not true.
Only a self diluted fool would say something like that!
See the dust coming off my sandals?
You clearly don't understand sciences methodologies, and you make that clear on a daily basis.
I think that no matter what one does crafty arguments or proofs or anything like that they still will not believe in God it takes God to illuminate ones mind. Can't prove it other than if ones talks to God and ask God can answer back. We all have the same evidences and universe and yet we see it differently. We can't visual (ok maybe with special microscope) see an atom or the flow of electrons yet we see the evidence of their existing. Many things are this way in this world and universe. Science can only explain so much example big bang theory (there are other models) so triggered the big bang? Or what was before the big bang? To me it just seems more rational that something - someone started it all. People like to argue against an anthropomorphic universe yet here we set. Also mathematical odds at some point our existence has to cross that threshold of being more than mere chance. Correct distance from host star. Right atmosphere. Right rotation. Satellite right distance plus tides. Gravity and the other fundamental forces being just right anyone of these different we probably don't exist.
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Just to be clear, this thread was not about proving whether God exists or not.
I think that no matter what one does crafty arguments or proofs or anything like that they still will not believe in God it takes God to illuminate ones mind.
We all have the same evidences and universe and yet we see it differently. We can't visual (ok maybe with special microscope) see an atom or the flow of electrons yet we see the evidence of their existing.
So, do we all have a different idea about what an atom is? How do you reconcile your two sentences above? Why didn't you say that some people believe in atoms, and others believe in the four elements (earth fire air and water) and nobody can prove either way because we see the evidence differently?
Science can only explain so much ...
I agree. However, no other methodology has shown any ability to explain anything that science can't.
To me it just seems more rational that something - someone started it all.
Yet if we had a discussion about that, you would totally fail to explain the rationalization behind that. It would turn out that what you really mean is it seems intuitive.
Also mathematical odds at some point our existence has to cross that threshold of being more than mere chance. Correct distance from host star. Right atmosphere. Right rotation. Satellite right distance plus tides. Gravity and the other fundamental forces being just right anyone of these different we probably don't exist.
This has been discussed many times so I won't bother with a rebuttal here. If you do wish to discuss it, we can start a thread. I can assure you though that you will be unable to support the argument as has happened so many times before.