Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Objective = it is true independent of whether you and I believe in it.
Subjective is a belief that you can express. It applies only to you, and nobody else.
Semantics describe concepts. The concepts don't change themselves to fit the semantics. The FSM looks to us like flying spaghetti, because we cannot comprehend his infinite nature. If you want, his manifestations are similar to how Jesus was a manifestation of God. He was part of of the whole.
Indeed, and the phrase "I don't believe in God" fits in the first category. Even if you think I believe in God, and I've deluded myself into thinking that I do as well, I still don't believe in God.
Really? Prove it. You may put a lot of people out of a job.
To save you the trouble, there is little to no real scholarship for the historical support that Yeshua did not exist.
He doesn't have to be. Those are you standards of who God is, not God's as defined in his Word.
Where is the proof that he did exist? The Bible is primarily written by those who never met or saw Jesus, and I know of no historical records that name him.
Prove that. We have MANY, and plenty of proof thereafter from outside sources of the activity of his life.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all supported by the early church fathers. Papias mentions Matthew for example. And I believe REAL scholarship seems to take for granted these books attributed to the writers mentioned. Josephus names him. Cornelius Tacitus does. The Talmud does. Suetonius, and Thallus. Pliny the Younger mentions the following of Yeshua, which was amazing in itself that it existed.
Are you getting your information from the Jesus Seminar, Dan Brown, or Bart Ehrman? Or Early Doherty, Acharya S? G.A. Wells? Zeitgeist?
Do you know what all of these groups have in common?
Then you are also using semantics. Wait a minute you're a Conceptualist/Idealist aren't you?..lol. You should study Josh McDowell's critique on Immanuel Kant.
Prove that. We have MANY, and plenty of proof thereafter from outside sources of the activity of his life.
OK, give me a little while to locate the sources and I will.
Its based on what you believe. It fits in the second category. If you can't get this right, you're not going to get a lot of the logical premises for your positions right thereafter.
I am neither an conceptualist or an idealist.
It's not based on what a believe though. You're still not understanding. If you would like, I could re-phrase it as thus:
"I have a lack of belief in God".
I have it, it is objective. To have something is objective - you either have it or you don't, and no matter what people think, the fact remains that you have it. Having something can be independently verified by other people. What I have is irrelevant, because the statement "I have" is objective.
Your focus has been on concepts this whole time. You might be a conceptualist and not realize it.
You have it. I don't. It has no objective truth.
Your second part of the position is where hte problem is because you can detect the substance to be a unicorn. Kind of the same problem as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster."
I can honestly say that this will probably be my one post in this thread: why 20 arguments? Why not 10 to just be as concise and philosophically precise as possible without repeating yourself as others have aptly pointed out that this set of arguments is doing? 10 Commandments...10 arguments for God...hmm? Advertisement!
Better yet, why not one decisively convincing argument?
Seems like any general argument that would work best is the cosmological one, though even Kant I believe said that any argument for God is moot to begin with since there is necessarily the stronger element of faith in believing in an absolutely necessary being as commonly posited through the cosmological argument for example
I'm going to stop here before we derail the thread any further. You still need to deal with our critiques of your OP, as that is the topic of this thread. I'll get back to you on the evidence for and against Jesus' existence.
You can't even back up your own position.
I will however reply to these as you posted them before I posted this, but I'll stop here and we can address this in another thread, if you want.
Happy to.
Conceptualists believe reality is a construct of the mind. I do not.
Thats part of what a Conceptualist believes. You have some other beliefs that they carry..
I have a banana. You don't. Is that subjective?
Two problems. One your example is physical in nature. Its A Posteriori. We are discussing A Priori arguments. It does not tell us whether thought processes which are immaterial in nature, are true, so its a red herring. Two, we are discussing belief systems. So it would be true for both you and me, if it is true. But you are comparing apples and oranges. The lack of belief in a banana seems to be more relevant to the situation you are talking about. "I don't believe in God" is something that applies only for you. Likewise, I could also state It tells us nothing about objective reality. IOW, what is true regardless of what you believe in, or what I believe in. It does not tell us whether or not God actually exists or not.
I have evaluated Immanuel Kant's arguments. From a philosophical standpoint, they are lacking. You have to remember that his a priori stances are at fault. He attempts to find reality by looking in the mind. But then his position becomes unstateable since he also believes that categories of the mind do not apply to reality. So he self contradicts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?