Resurrection Evidence

Hey @Clizby WampusCat.

Why is it important to you to hold the view that the resurrection of Jesus never happened?

Cheers, I'm ready for you if you are ready for me.

Cheers

Hey @Nihilist Virus

I remember you hehehehe.

Check out what @Occams Barber said recently about nihilism to me.

Post 52

Ethics and morality section
"Atheism and nihilism"

"Your stereotypical nihilist is a depressed, consumptive young man with a straggly moustache and a sallow complexion, hiding out in a freezing garret in 19th century Paris. A sort of Victorian era version of an incel - totally despondent and chronically unhappy."

What you think?

Cheers

BigV said:

In my usage of the term, I meant that I'm okay with @the iconoclast having his belief. I disagree with it, but to each their own. I

Click to expand...

Hey bigv

I agree. We can both disagree with the other but still respect that we both have free will to have a belief.

I may think atheistism is irrational and you may have decided that Christianity is. To say you respect that I have a belief and be faced by opposition from your own side was huge.

Even though I disagree with atheism, you have earned a form of respect from me.

Cheers

the iconoclast said:

Hey bigv

I agree. We can both disagree with the other but still respect that we both have free will to have a belief.

I may think atheistism is irrational and you may have decided that Christianity is. To say you respect that I have a belief and be faced by opposition from your own side was huge.

Even though I disagree with atheism, you have earned a form of respect from me.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember you as well. You always duck out of conversations. I can't dive into one with you until you wade out of the kiddie pool and paddle over to the deep end.

Nihilist Virus said:

Yes, I remember you as well. You always duck out of conversations. I can't dive into one with you until you wade out of the kiddie pool and paddle over to the deep end.

Click to expand...

Hey hey cherub.

I admit I can get distracted by the fun things atheists say on this forum. I have dropped conversations in the past due to wanting to concentrate on something new that popped up.

Please forgive me if I have done this to you but as I recall, you left out last conversation. You asked me for a reason as to why you should get into a discussion with me. I replied and you ran off.

Good news my dear, I'm willing to leave the kiddie pool and jump into the deep end with you.

I'll let you go on the offensive. What have you got for me?

Cheers. I want you!

Tinker Grey said:

But respecting a belief?

Click to expand...

Hey hey tinkergrey

the iconoclast said:

Hey hey cherub.

I admit I can get distracted by the fun things atheists say on this forum. I have dropped conversations in the past due to wanting to concentrate on something new that popped up.

Please forgive me if I have done this to you but as I recall, you left out last conversation. You asked me for a reason as to why you should get into a discussion with me. I replied and you ran off.

Good news my dear, I'm willing to leave the kiddie pool and jump into the deep end with you.

I'll let you go on the offensive. What have you got for me?

Cheers. I want you!

Click to expand...

That's not quite what happened. You dropped out of our one and only conversation. I've refused conversation with you since then, which is not the same as dropping out of conversation. Anyway, is there anything you wanted to discuss aside from semantics, or do you truly want to delve into the definition of nihilism?

Nihilist Virus said:

That's not quite what happened. You dropped out of our one and only conversation. I've refused conversation with you since then, which is not the same as dropping out of conversation.

Click to expand...

Hey hey

If you say so

Nihilist Virus said:

Anyway, is there anything you wanted to discuss aside from semantics, or do you truly want to delve into the definition of nihilism?

Click to expand...

I'm outta the kiddie pool and looking to join you in the deep end. Let's delve into the definition of nihilism.

I assume you reject all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

What does meaningless mean to you and how does it fit in with your philosophy?

Cheers

the iconoclast said:

Hey hey

If you say so



I'm outta the kiddie pool and looking to join you in the deep end. Let's delve into the definition of nihilism.

I assume you reject all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

What does meaningless mean to you and how does it fit in with your philosophy?

Cheers

Click to expand...

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

Nihilist Virus said:

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Hey hey nihilist virus

Ahh so within the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. We have a trilemma.

The trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

If there is evidence or an argument that establishes a fact - or the truth of a statement provided for something - then the proof can be questioned using a circular argument, a regresive argument or an axiomatic argument.

The trilemma is which decision to use amongst these 3 unsatisfying options.

Ok let's see your philosophy at work.

I have 2 examples that we are to debate.

1. If I have a seed and no others then we label that seed as one or singular to express quantity.

We label the seed, "seed". This way you and I cannot get confused when we communicate.

I find another seed of the same variety and label my quality as 2 seeds. I find another and label that quantity as 3. I find yet another one and call this quantity 4.

1+1+1+1=4.

A. The truth is I have seeds of the same variety that yield the number 4. Argue against the certainty of this truth?

2. My uncle dies and I notice that every person - who lived on this earth - eventually dies.

B. It is a certainty that all who live will die. Argue against the certainty of this truth?

Cheers and I look forward to your response. Don't forget what's at stake, there will not be any running away.

Lets see why the deep end is better than the kiddie pool hey

Hey @Clizby WampusCat.

Nihilist Virus said:

It sounds like you're saying you respect the actions that result from beliefs, and not the beliefs themselves.

Click to expand...

Well, I haven't given my post so much thought as you guys have, apparently. What I wanted to convey to the poster to whom I responded to, was that arguing with them over the resurrection of Jesus is pointless. Just like it's pointless to argue with someone believing in Santa Claus. They are not claiming to have evidence supporting their belief being true, but saying that they believe what the book says.

So, in that case, I respect their position. Not because I agree with it (I don't), but because they have clearly said that they have a belief and once someone says their view is based on a belief and nothing else, I think argument is over. Not because they win, but because we can no longer have a rational conversation about it.

the iconoclast said:

Hey @Clizby WampusCat.

Click to expand...

Hey, what happened to your question?

BigV said:

Well, I haven't given my post so much thought as you guys have, apparently. What I wanted to convey to the poster to whom I responded to, was that arguing with them over the resurrection of Jesus is pointless. Just like it's pointless to argue with someone believing in Santa Claus. They are not claiming to have evidence supporting their belief being true, but saying that they believe what the book says.

So, in that case, I respect their position. Not because I agree with it (I don't), but because they have clearly said that they have a belief and once someone says their view is based on a belief and nothing else, I think argument is over. Not because they win, but because we can no longer have a rational conversation about it.

Click to expand...

Well... but there is evidence for a modern-day magical Santa Claus. The parents "predict the future" and tell children that Santa Claus will deliver presents on Christmas Day. The presents appear as predicted and are labeled "From Santa." The cookies are eaten. The evidence is consistent with the claim.

Even this low threshold is not met by Christianity.

Nihilist Virus said:

Well... but there is evidence for a modern-day magical Santa Claus. The parents "predict the future" and tell children that Santa Claus will deliver presents on Christmas Day. The presents appear as predicted and are labeled "From Santa." The cookies are eaten. The evidence is consistent with the claim.

Even this low threshold is not met by Christianity.

Click to expand...

Yep, I agree. But what would you say to someone who wants to believe in Santa because they have a present "from Santa"? If that's their belief, then it makes no sense to argue with them, no?

BigV said:

Yep, I agree. But what would you say to someone who wants to believe in Santa because they have a present "from Santa"? If that's their belief, then it makes no sense to argue with them, no?

Click to expand...

Sure, if you just want to give up on them. Let people who believe in Santa Claus vote for president. What could possibly go wrong?

the iconoclast said:

Hey hey nihilist virus

Ahh so within the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. We have a trilemma.

The trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.

If there is evidence or an argument that establishes a fact - or the truth of a statement provided for something - then the proof can be questioned using a circular argument, a regresive argument or an axiomatic argument.

The trilemma is which decision to use amongst these 3 unsatisfying options.

Ok let's see your philosophy at work.

I have 2 examples that we are to debate.

1. If I have a seed and no others then we label that seed as one or singular to express quantity.

We label the seed, "seed". This way you and I cannot get confused when we communicate.

I find another seed of the same variety and label my quality as 2 seeds. I find another and label that quantity as 3. I find yet another one and call this quantity 4.

1+1+1+1=4.

A. The truth is I have seeds of the same variety that yield the number 4. Argue against the certainty of this truth?

2. My uncle dies and I notice that every person - who lived on this earth - eventually dies.

B. It is a certainty that all who live will die. Argue against the certainty of this truth?

Cheers and I look forward to your response. Don't forget what's at stake, there will not be any running away.

Lets see why the deep end is better than the kiddie pool hey

Click to expand...

I appreciate you reading about the trilemma, but the next step is to apply it to your thinking. Did you actually think about this, or do you think that the trilemma does not apply to mathematics?

Spoken language yields to the trilemma by being circular (every word is defined in terms of other words, and there are finitely many words), whereas the formal language (mathematics and logic) are axiomatic. Mathematics is literally nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow; nothing about physical reality can be determined from assumptions and definitions.

As for "labeling" seeds with numbers, refer to the ship of Theseus.

Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia

While a seed does not have obvious components to it, it is comprised of molecules that are shedding and accumulating all the time.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Hey, what happened to your question?

Click to expand...

Hey hey

Do you mean this one i posed to you?

"Why is it important to you to hold the view that the resurrection of Jesus never happened?

Nihilist Virus said:

I appreciate you reading about the trilemma, but the next step is to apply it to your thinking.

Click to expand...

Hey hey

I am in no way convinced by this trilemma. I would like to first see how you apply it before I could consider such a thing.

Nihilist Virus said:

Did you actually think about this, or do you think that the trilemma does not apply to mathematics?

Click to expand...

Well check this out.

I gave you the option to go on the offense and you said "Anyway, is there anything you wanted to discuss aside from semantics, or do you truly want to delve into the definition of nihilism?"

I took you up on the offer and asked you "What does meaningless mean to you and how does it fit in with your philosophy?"

You post this article about - the trilemma - which has a section that says "The trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics."

I assume that when you replied with this trilemma, it has a relevance to your philosophy and it is intergal to how you prove the impossibility to demonstrate ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

I supplied a very simple math equation (.eg 1+1+1+1=4) for you to demonstrate how the trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

Here is my question again

If I have a seed and no others then we label that seed as one or singular to express quantity.

We label the seed, "seed". This way you and I cannot get confused when we communicate.

I find another seed of the same variety and label my quality as 2 seeds. I find another and label that quantity as 3. I find yet another one and call this quantity 4.

1+1+1+1=4.

The truth is I have seeds of the same variety that yield the number 4.

1. Show me how the thought experiment (.eg trilemma) demonstrates the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in this mathematic equation?

Nihilist Virus said:

Spoken language yields to the trilemma by being circular (every word is defined in terms of other words, and there are finitely many words), whereas the formal language (mathematics and logic) are axiomatic. Mathematics is literally nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow; nothing about physical reality can be determined from assumptions and definitions.

Click to expand...

2. How can you demonstrate that the word seed is defined in terms of other words?

Nihilist Virus said:

As for "labeling" seeds with numbers, refer to the ship of Theseus.


Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

In the metaphysics of identity, the ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

It is supposed that the famous ship sailed by the hero Theseus in a great battle was kept in a harbor as a museum piece, and as the years went by some of the wooden parts began to rot and were replaced by new ones; then, after a century or so, every part had been replaced.

The question then is if the "restored" ship is still the same object as the original.

My intent to label the seeds with numbers was to show quantity (.eg to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in this mathematic equation?).

The ship of Theseus is not a relevant question as the thought experiment relates to; if components are replaced does something remain fundamentally the same object.

We are talking about a mathematical outcome and the truth of the equation.

Nihilist Virus said:

While a seed does not have obvious components to it, it is comprised of molecules that are shedding and accumulating all the time.

Click to expand...

Lets say you and I are walking together. I find a unit of reproduction of a flowering plant, capable of developing into another such plant. I call it a seed to differentiate from other things and so we I communicate to each other about this unit of reproduction.

3. Does the seed have an identity and is identity meaningless?

Now please excuse me however you seemed to have missed a question. I shall repeat it.

My uncle dies and I notice that every person - who lived on this earth - eventually dies.

4. It is a certainty that all who live will die. Show me how this thought experiment demonstrates the impossibility of proving this truth?



Cheers