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.
This is a big horn sheep. Are you kidding me. Man made that into a sheep that produces wool.
Look it has hair not wool. It's a lot taller. Brown not white and you say this all happened in a few thousand years. And primitive man is the one that did it. That is a load if I have ever heard one. There is no way man made the fluffy little sheep we have today. Just Garbage.
God Bless
LT
If you look back on the previous posts you'll understand.
Btw, you do realise it does make a sound, don't you?
The "correct thing" is whether or not a tree falling in the forest when nobody is there to hear it makes a noise.i believe that correct thing is, if a tree falls in a vacuum does it make a sound.
it obviously does make one when not in a vaccum.
The "correct thing" is whether or not a tree falling in the forest when nobody is there to hear it makes a noise.
And it doesn't. Sound is just vibrations in the air; it only turns into noise when there is something (like an ear) there to translate those vibrations into something a mind can perceive as noise.
And what it makes isn't a sound until it hits a receiver.Sound waves exist whether or not there is anything there to hear them, and the question is does it make a sound
And what it makes isn't a sound until it hits a receiver.
It is a sound wave; it is not a sound until it hits a receiver. It's the same with any sort of wave that requires a receiver. A sound is what a receiver turns a sound wave into.Yes it is, it is a sound wave whether it hits a receiver or not, sound is just the name we give to a vibration of a certain frequency that is detectable by the human ear when a tree falls it will produce vibrations of those frequencies regardless of the presence or absence of humans. The only way you could believe the contrary is if you believe the laws of physics are dependent on human observation.
It is a sound wave; it is not a sound until it hits a receiver. It's the same with any sort of wave that requires a receiver. A sound is what a receiver turns a sound wave into.
Sound is vibration transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas; particularly, sound means those vibrations composed of frequencies capable of being detected by ears
If you want to take that argument to the extreme, you could also say that a falling tree is invisible when nobody is around, since there is no retina to detect the photons.And what it makes isn't a sound until it hits a receiver.
ok thats it, my poedar just broke the roof....
If you want to take that argument to the extreme, you could also say that a falling tree is invisible when nobody is around, since there is no retina to detect the photons.
How can you get this from the quote you provided. Have you read it? The negative opinion he portrays refers to the Christians themselves. The whole Lucian quote is about what the Christians of his time believe. It cannot in any way be remotely construed as evidence of the existence of Jesus.He is more likely to be someone who knew (although not much) of Jesus.
His negative opinion of him makes it very unlikely that this was based upon hearsay. If told by Christians, they would have told him of Jesus in a way that made Jesus sound like the greatest thing on earth (which he was), because they are Christians. That would be the same if there are others involved. The only way he could have a negative opinion of Jesus is if he only knew Jesus as one of the blasphemus people of that age (which would also explain why he does not know that much of Jesus, him thinking Jesus was just another Jew commiting blasphemy).
I never said he was wrong in everything he said.He said the Athenians put Socrates to death. He was right.
But also for all we know, he is most likely wrong. See how easy this goes?He said Samos buried Pythagoras. For all we know, he could have been right.
He cannot be proven right either, which is the problem if you want to use him as a source.He cannot be proven wrong as a source.
He doesn't mention Jesus. He mentions a "Jewish King". You assume this refers to Jesus, but you cannot show this to be true. This could have referred to Jesus, but I've already pointed out a number of problems with that. It could also have mentioned a number of other kings put to death by the Jewish (read 2 kings). These kings have the great advantage of having lived at the same time of Socrates and Pythagoras.Whether or not he is right about how Pythagoras died does little to change the fact that he mentions Jesus, something that couldn't happen if Jesus didn't exist.
Doesn't that speak for itself? How would you go about trying to reconstruct a historical event based on written documentation?This is first time i'm hearing that the source's accuracy needs to be estimated.
And ultimately reality only exists when humans are observing it. The far side of the moon doesn't actually exist unless observed when unobserved it disappears.
An interesting, if ludicrous, debating point.
But that is applicable in quantum mechanics only. The macroscopic universe doesn't behave like that.I hardly see how its ludicrous because that's how the observed world works at the simplest and most fundamental level. The whole idea of quantum mechanics is that we see a crossing over of all the possibilities unless we observe what's going on. Or at least that's one interpretation using the sum over histories approach.
But that is applicable in quantum mechanics only. The macroscopic universe doesn't behave like that.
You can be sure within reason, though. If you can show that the probability of occurrence X is, say, one in 10^100, you can be pretty darned certain that the next time you observe the system, X will not occur. Can you be absolutely utterly certain? No, but then you can't be absolutely utterly certain about anything. Quantum mechanics doesn't change this.No its applicable to everything. A statue could suddenly start waving but the probabilities are so minuscule that in common experience it will never happen. All the probabilities come so that most normal quantum occurrences become exceedingly rare on a classical level but it could still happen. That's the point of a quantum universe, you can never be sure of anything unless you measure it.
You can be sure within reason, though. If you can show that the probability of occurrence X is, say, one in 10^100, you can be pretty darned certain that the next time you observe the system, X will not occur. Can you be absolutely utterly certain? No, but then you can't be absolutely utterly certain about anything. Quantum mechanics doesn't change this.
Yes, it is found in classical physics, because there's no such thing as a perfect experiment. Limits of our experimental uncertainties usually come into play long, long before limits of quantum mechanics. Until, of course, we get down to the quantum world.The "problem" with quantum is you can never be 100% of anything, you can never know where something is and how fast its travelling no matter how good the equipment is, a problem that's not found in classical physics. Even though classical physics is an amazing approximation, it is still an approximation. Because of the inherent uncertainty in quantum mechanics everything is probabilistic. But before we derail this thread any further, how about taking the discussion to a new one in the physical/life sciences board?
No. Please show me where I said that. Try: when you said that there's non-biblical evidence that Jesus existed.You mean when I said that Jesus does exist?
Putting words into someone's mouth again.Should I not have said Jesus existed? My mistake. Remind me to not stand up for my beliefs again...
You may have respected what they said, but your posts didn't show that. There's a pretty clear change in your tone once the topic shifted (and I'm not the only one who noticed it, apparently -- thanks, Danyc).And as for being open minded, I have ackowledged what people have said, respected what they said, and (if I didn't believe the same thing) disagreed with them.
And it's possible to do this without telling someone that they clearly didn't read something and without just denying what they say and without making false claims about someone. There are respectful and disrespectful ways to disagree. It seems to me that you chose to do the latter.People disagree with each other.
Huh? This is crevo. And, besides, what's that got to do with anything?There are lots of people here to believe different things. This is also general apologetics.
Like I said, there's respectful and there's not. Cheap shots like this demonstrate your attitude. Don't be surprised when otherwise pleasant and reasonable people start baring their teeth. (I've never had a tetchy word out of Tomk80, f'rinstance, despite holding different religious beliefs to him, but you've managed it... go figure.)I know you said you're new, but you should have realised that by now...
Yes it did. I chose to do that for a reason. And to have you p!ss your attitude around like you are leaves a pretty bitter taste. As it happens, I have read every post in this thread, although there were a handful that were posted while I was writing. Again, your insinuations about what someone else has or hasn't done is disrespectful. Please stop it.Well, I didn't because I knew nothing about fundamental schools teaching inadequate science. If you had actually read the later posts, you'd have realised that. But I guess posting this long message must have taken up a lot of your time, huh?
Again, I did. I see nothing to indicate that you have changed your position, given that you continue to claim evidence for the historical personage of Jesus of Nazareth, but continue to cite evidence for the mythologized Jesus Christ.Again, read recent posts.
Um, revisionism, anyone? Here are your words:Obviously we are talking about the historical Jesus. And that little "tapdance" earlier was someone trying to point out a grammatical error in my words, and failing.
Er, yes, exactly like those. That's why I'm saying those that you've given are not valid evidence for the historical Jesus: because they're evidence only of the mythologized Jesus. Evidence that people believe in King Arthur is not evidence of the historical King Arthur.You mean like what I have given?
Quite straightforward, really. That particular paragraph was pretty clear, I think. Conclusive evidence of the historical Jesus (independent of the gospels) does not exist. If it did, it would have been cited. All the citations you've given are not contemporary primary sources. Furthermore, the fact that biographies of Jesus are built from the gospels indicate that the gospels are the sources that we have. If others existed, they'd be used.Your point being?
But you just said that "obviously" we're talking about the historical person. Your words are above, showing that you were the one that started the point about a myth existing; if we are "obviously" talking about the historical person and not the myth, then you are being ingenuous at best and disingenuous at worst -- and, either way, Baggins was quite right to call you on it.You said "mythologized they certainly exist". That is what that tapdance was about. Someone was saying that it is grammatically wrong to say a myth exists. I was saying otherwise.
No you haven't: the evidence asked for was independent non-biblical sources. Sources demonstrating the existence of the human, not the myth.Actually, it turns out it does not actually mean much to me, but I still provided the evidence asked of me.
Yes, that's what I said.Covered. Well, the first part at least.
Obviously. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it. Now, do you disagree? It seems that way. Then how about you give an argument rather than just shooting your mouth off?The second is what you think.
Saying (repeatedly) that Baggins thinks that all Christians are stupid, perhaps? Even after he's stated clearly that he does not? Ring any bells?Ok. Open minded means to be accepting of other's views right? Well, I have not been disrespectful to other's beliefs. If so show me when, because I know it's a mistake.
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?