Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[AV1611VET]

Myopia can be tested regardless. bad example

That's my point --- tested on who?

You have to be willing to admit you have it.

 

[MoonLancer]

Not sure what that means at all.

It means history has evidence. You said science cannot comment on things historical. I disagree. There is no evidence for Christianity Like there is for most history.

 

[Jnwaco]

It means history has evidence. You said science cannot comment on things historical. I disagree. There is no evidence for Christianity Like there is for most history.

I find that to be an untrue statement.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

OK, I'm back. What'd I miss?

No, it is valid as evidence. It's just whether one accepts it as true evidence that is the debate.

Well, yes, exactly . You consider it valid evidence, I do not. We both agree that it exists (which isn't always agreed upon, believe you me).

Or, for instance, were I to be skeptical enough, you would fail to convince me that Bush preceded Obama as president of the United States. No matter what you showed me, I would just think it fabricated. Exagerated example, but you get the point.

Scepticism isn't the same as irrationality: the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that Obama did indeed succeed Bush as the US President. Scepticism means you don't believe in anything without due justification, not that you have impossibly high standards of proof. Believing we've been visited by aliens is irrational, while believing atoms exist is not. And there is no such thing as being too sceptical .

Or, if you think that too much time had passed between the events and the writing (most historians do not) then you would have to throw out any textual evidence for historical characters such as Alexandar the Great.

And it's not for nothing the historicity of Alexander is a matter of some debate. However, it is overly simplistic to disregard any and all non-contemporary documentation: simply being a second-hand (or a belated first-hand) source doesn't mean it's automatically false. It does cast significant doubts on its authenticity, though.

 

[Jnwaco]

Scepticism isn't the same as irrationality: the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that Obama did indeed succeed Bush as the US President. Scepticism means you don't believe in anything without due justification, not that you have impossibly high standards of proof. Believing we've been visited by aliens is irrational, while believing atoms exist is not. And there is no such thing as being too sceptical .

So it should be a simple answer. What mathematical forumula or scientific study would you accept as proof?

And it's not for nothing the historicity of Alexander is a matter of some debate. However, it is overly simplistic to disregard any and all non-contemporary documentation: simply being a second-hand (or a belated first-hand) source doesn't mean it's automatically false. It does cast significant doubts on its authenticity, though.

Most historians don't have a problem with the authenticity of the Gospels.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's my point --- tested on who?

You have to be willing to admit you have it.

Sure. Anyone can deny reality. But really All I have to do is ask how many fingers I am holding up to the person with Myopia. If they get it wrong where someone can guess correctly they know something is wrong.

This is something that can be observed and tested by science

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Being locked up is never a good thing.

Who's locked up? It's science that continues to shed new light on how we view the world around us. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the advances science has made, both theoretically and practically.

Evidence.

So faith is evidence...

Faith.

And faith is... proof? So faith is evidence is proof. Nice to see Christians are still twisting language to suit their presuppositions.

God. God.

A vacuous answer, followed by...

Faith.

... a non-sensible one. Faith is proof? To have faith in God is to prove he exists? I think you need to spend some time with a dictionary.

 

[MoonLancer]

I find that to be an untrue statement.

All you have to do is look at the style of writing of the bible and compare it to actual journals or first hand accounts that have been written down.

You will find that they are really different. The bibles style is written as a story or legend, not as an account.

 

[Jnwaco]

Also an untrue statement. What else do you have?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So it should be a simple answer. What mathematical forumula or scientific study would you accept as proof?

I would accept any sufficient quantity of evidence as sufficient proof of anything. You could convince me my head was made out of cheese if you could provide enough evidence (good luck with that ). Not everything is scientifically proven by mathematical formulae or studies. Most of the time it comes down to presenting the cold, hard facts.

Most historians don't have a problem with the authenticity of the Gospels.

That's an inaccurate statement: most historians accept the New Testament texts are get the gist more or less right, in that there was a man called Jesus who did founded the Christian religion, etc. They're decidedly less certain on the authenticity of the miraculous claims. Appeals to authority are infamous around here. Simply stating that most historians accept the Gospels as gospel truth (ba dum tish) is hardly conducive to civil debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure. Anyone can deny reality. But really All I have to do is ask how many fingers I am holding up to the person with Myopia. If they get it wrong where someone can guess correctly they know something is wrong.

This is something that can be observed and tested by science

You don't have a clue what I'm saying, do you?

 

[Jnwaco]

I would accept any sufficient quantity of evidence as sufficient proof of anything. You could convince me my head was made out of cheese if you could provide enough evidence (good luck with that ). Not everything is scientifically proven by mathematical formulae or studies. Most of the time it comes down to presenting the cold, hard facts.

That's an inaccurate statement: most historians accept the New Testament texts are get the gist more or less right, in that there was a man called Jesus who did founded the Christian religion, etc. They're decidedly less certain on the authenticity of the miraculous claims. Appeals to authority are infamous around here. Simply stating that most historians accept the Gospels as gospel truth (ba dum tish) is hardly conducive to civil debate.

No, it's pretty accurate. It's relatively new to throw out so much of the text as to make it meaningless, ala the Jesus Seminar folks.

And aren't you one of the ones that thought the anthropic principle was a creationist concoction?

 

[3sigma]

Being open minded is to be open to correction or new ideas, but on this point - "Faith is the evidence" - I am correct, therefore there is no need for me to be open minded here since I have conclusive "proof" that I am absolutely right.

In the religious context, “faith” is just a euphemism for credulity, misrepresented as a virtue. It is evidence of nothing other than the credulity of religious believers. You offer yet another example of the intractable, absolute certainty of religious believers despite the fact that you haven’t a single shred of sound, objective evidence to support your beliefs. It is impossible to reason with someone who has abandoned reason.

 

[3sigma]

Justice is sweet. God gives us the choice between a blessing and cursing, life and death, and we see the route you choose. Life and death are in the power of the tongue. As you deny the Lord Jesus Christ, it is only fair for Him to keep His word and deny you before the Father. You know that I do not like you at all, but I am told to bless and not curse. Of course, I do not have to curse, by your free-will you curse yourself. Oh, sweet vindication. You have been given plenty of evidence as well as warning, but we cannot seem to get through the scales on your eyes and your closed ears.

Your uncontained glee at what you hope will be someone’s eternal torture reveals your true character. Your gloating and desire for revenge is really something to behold.

However, there is zero sound, objective evidence that what you hope for will ever come to pass. All the evidence we have suggests that when we die, there is nothing. We just stop and our consciousness ceases forever. There is no sound reason to believe that I will spend an eternity in torture or that you and your children will have eternal life. Death is the permanent end to our existence.

 

[kenblaster5000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6efxaviopI

 

[Jnwaco]

Your uncontained glee at what you hope will be someone’s eternal torture reveals your true character. Your gloating and desire for revenge is really something to behold.

However, there is zero sound, objective evidence that what you hope for will ever come to pass. All the evidence we have suggests that when we die, there is nothing. We just stop and our consciousness ceases forever. There is no sound reason to believe that I will spend an eternity in torture or that you and your children will have eternal life. Death is the permanent end to our existence.

What specific evidence do you have that the consciousness ceases? Most scientists can't even tell you what consciousness is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, it's pretty accurate. It's relatively new to throw out so much of the text as to make it meaningless, ala the Jesus Seminar folks.

So-called higher criticism has been around for as long as there has been anything to criticise. It's as new as Christianity.

And aren't you one of the ones that thought the anthropic principle was a creationist concoction?

No.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6efxaviopI

I see your suffocating fish and raise you one muskipper.

 

[kenblaster5000]

Your uncontained glee at what you hope will be someone’s eternal torture reveals your true character. Your gloating and desire for revenge is really something to behold.

However, there is zero sound, objective evidence that what you hope for will ever come to pass. All the evidence we have suggests that when we die, there is nothing. We just stop and our consciousness ceases forever. There is no sound reason to believe that I will spend an eternity in torture or that you and your children will have eternal life. Death is the permanent end to our existence.

It is not my pleasure that you perish, nor I, or anyone around me. I can see that you are willing to bet your life on your beliefs. I am willing to put my life into the hands of Jesus Christ. All malice put aside, because your opinions about how I raise my kids can be grounds for being mad at you. But, not my will be done, but His will be done. Let Him judge between you and I, and let Him vindicate, and if I am wrong for my malice, He will correct me, because He rebukes and chastens those He loves. You may have not been brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I was not either. I was brought up in the fear and admonition of a father. I have alot of affliction for being a believer of Jesus Christ, especially from my own dad, but he will also bow to the Lord Jesus Christ now, or in the future. That is my story, and I will not deter from it. Truth of the matter, though, is we choose our own destiny by the words that come forth out of our mouth. Who knows maybe I will see you there, but I do not think I would want to hang out in the fiery pits of hell with you, nor would I like to bring my family and friends there, so I guess this is where we part. I wish I could say "Enjoy the paradise of complete nonexistence you have made up your mind to believe in, because you do not have proof of that "theory" just as my verses in the bible I present to you about the existence of hell do not ring true in your mind. I will continue to love the Lord Jesus Christ, family, friends, and such, and decide to love people like you as well, though it is not pleasurable. May my Lord and God give me the baptism of love to deal with the likes of ignorant people like you. Be blessed, or be cursed, it is your choice. Make sure you give a sigh toward sodom when the bowl judgments and trumpets sound like Lot's wife when she looked back in adoration of her "promised land."

 

[Jnwaco]

So-called higher criticism has been around for as long as there has been anything to criticise. It's as new as Christianity. No.

Actually, it's not even really a well thought out criticism. Those such as the Jesus Seminar aren't adding new scholarship, they simply start with the assumption that anything miraculous cannot and never did happen and procede from there to mark out any text that has to do with miracles. Not a very intricate or hard thing to do. Hume and Voltaire probably began this tradition in full force that the modern skeptics continue to this day. It's the same argument today as it was when the enlightenment started.