20 arguments for the existence of God

[hamashiachagape]

Your best chance to get out of this from Jerusalem was the Talmud, the rabbinical writings. But -
It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.
Sanhedrin 43a.

Ooops.

 

[KIYX]

4 collaberating accounts from Matthew, Mark, Luke and JOhn

You mean the books that were written many years after the event? The books that contradict each other on many many points?

Here's just a few of the contradictions:

When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31

Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

Your holy text can't even agree with itself on the simplest of things and you want me to believe it?

also supported through explanations of all different scores of information outside of the Bible, also supported throughout all time through various philosophers

None of which you provided I noticed.

and well educated people.

Appeal to authority.

Are you willing to deny the existence of George Washington?

Are you making the claim that we have the same amount of evidence that jesus exists as we do that Washington exists?

 

[KIYX]

Or I could know what I"m talking about.

Except that those religions idea of god are obviously not what you claimed so no you don't know what your talking about.

 

[KIYX]

Your best chance to get out of this from Jerusalem was the Talmud, the rabbinical writings. But -
It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.
Sanhedrin 43a.

Ooops.

So now Jesus was hung?

What's the deal with the cross then?

Oops indeed you might want to actually read what your linking.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

It gives you the implications of the belief, and you are ignoring the Principle of Excluded Middle.

Law of excluded middle applies only to propositions which admit of no variance like "The sun is a gas giant" and "The sun is not a gas giant", whereas there are variants on propositions herein. Therefore since there isn't just one form of a skeptic proposition your claim is moot, since not all skeptics are pyrhhonists, not all agnostics are radical agnostics, not all ignostics try to define God in any sense and not all atheists absolutely believe there is no God.

 

[hamashiachagape]

When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

Theres a lot that needs to be understood. He was crucified on the third hour. The day before, it was being asked whether he should be crucified. Just a misunderstanding.

When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

John was written by a different John. You act as if there could only be one Yochanan. The disciple John was not John the Baptist.

The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

This objection can be complimentary true. They can both insult him at first. But then a specific part being recorded in Luke 23 that one of them stopped insulting. Easy to reconcile this. Also it should be noted the different styles of writing exhibited by the 3 writers.

44In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

32Let this Christ,[a] this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.





Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31

31Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."

"But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. 32This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.
33Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" 35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"


In the situation they believed at first they did not have a right to put Yeshua to death. It was later decided that based upon their Torah, it should be done. Easy one there.

Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

Two women went at sunrise, only Mary when it was dark. Not a contradiction.

 

[hamashiachagape]

So now Jesus was hung?

What's the deal with the cross then?

Oops indeed you might want to actually read what your linking.

Thats where an Ancient Near East understanding comes into play .

Actually cross is never mentioned in the scriptures. Its an execution stake, and they were crucified on trees. Yeshua was hung on a tree. That is cross referenced with the Torah too.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Law of excluded middle applies only to propositions which admit of no variance like "The sun is a gas giant" and "The sun is not a gas giant", whereas there are variants on propositions herein. Therefore since there isn't just one form of a skeptic proposition your claim is moot, since not all skeptics are pyrhhonists, not all agnostics are radical agnostics, not all ignostics try to define God in any sense and not all atheists absolutely believe there is no God.

The positions themselves when isolated self refute. If they are wrong, they are wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Except that those religions idea of god are obviously not what you claimed so no you don't know what your talking about.

I definitely know what those religions are. I took college courses in Polytheism.

 

[hamashiachagape]

You mean the books that were written many years after the event? The books that contradict each other on many many points?

Please. There is no evidence that they are wrong anyways. There is not enough time between the documents for mythology to creep into their writings.

Your holy text can't even agree with itself on the simplest of things and you want me to believe it?

Easily reconciled.

None of which you provided I noticed.

Appeal to authority.

Talmud, and also Josephus. No Josephan scholar denies its authenticity.

And appeal to authority is okay to do. That is misunderstood as I stated before. There is a fallacy that is associated with it when its outside the field of relevance. Like taking George Clooney's advice on Philosophical matters.

Are you making the claim that we have the same amount of evidence that jesus exists as we do that Washington exists?

Yup. Moreso even.

 

[hamashiachagape]

On the refutation of Zeitgeist:

See - "Zeitgeist" Online Movie: Part One Refuted

And here too - copycat

copycat

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The positions themselves when isolated self refute. If they are wrong, they are wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Who are you to decide whether skepticism is wrong? I never said things were right that were wrong, since I believe skepticism is right, for instance.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Who are you to decide whether skepticism is wrong? I never said things were right that were wrong, since I believe skepticism is right, for instance.

Logical principles do it for me. As a position against God, it does not hold.

But at the same time, some skepticism is okay.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Logic is used in varied ways by varied minds coming to varied conclusions, therefore logic is imperfect and can be misused and mistakenly applied

 

[hamashiachagape]

Logic is used in varied ways by varied minds coming to varied conclusions, therefore logic is imperfect and can be misused and mistakenly applied

So truth is relative?

You are utilizing logic to prove that logic is imperfect/flawed? How can we trust such an argument since it too would be flawed?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Truth is relative in a mitigated sense. Truth can be objective, but be determined differently according to circumstances and considerations of individual personalities.

Not unlike how your "God" changed the laws according to each individual it chose to reveal itself to. Moses (punishing the Israelites by making them drink the gold mixed with water, which probably would've killed them, and was threatened with death by God at least 2 separate times) differed from Abraham (commanded to kill his son and then stopped in the act), who differed from Noah (sacrificing animals is a fine way to make me happy), who differed from Adam and Eve (who committed incest essentially, or at least their children did)

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Logical principles do it for me. As a position against God, it does not hold.

But at the same time, some skepticism is okay.

So it doesn't hold, but sometimes it's okay when it's not in relation to God? As if God's insulted when we don't believe in it

 

[hamashiachagape]

Truth is relative in a mitigated sense. Truth can be objective, but be determined differently according to circumstances and considerations of individual personalities.

Not unlike how your "God" changed the laws according to each individual it chose to reveal itself to. Moses (punishing the Israelites by making them drink the gold mixed with water, which probably would've killed them, and was threatened with death by God at least 2 separate times) differed from Abraham (commanded to kill his son and then stopped in the act), who differed from Noah (sacrificing animals is a fine way to make me happy), who differed from Adam and Eve (who committed incest essentially, or at least their children did)

Subjective Objective is self refuting.

Truth is actually absolute as the above claims make reference to. Plus if all truth is relative, then this truth is absolute, and it is self refuting.

Third, you actually haven't followed these stories closely enough.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Never claimed subjective=objective, I called for contextualism at best

Yet even Augustine admitted that the truth was adjusted in some ways with those stories. Sacrificing animals is not regarded as pleasing to God today, but it was then. Therefore in that instance, the truth did not change, but at the same time it did in practice at least, if not in principle.

 

[hamashiachagape]

So it doesn't hold, but sometimes it's okay when it's not in relation to God? As if God's insulted when we don't believe in it

Well to declare that you would have to show how I'm being inconsistent.