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.
The resurrection is now historical? When did that happen? Was this in the news?
No, to tell from the statement he made, he just is confident that the bible doesn´t explain anything about it, and that neither do you.
Completely different thing - at least for persons who care about logic and reason.
That´s not an explanation, it´s an assertion.Sure it does. It says:
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Several hundred people saw Jesus alive after He died on the cross. I have no good reason to think that this was simply a result of their imagination.
Sometimes it is two-way, sometimes it is not.
That´s not an explanation, it´s an assertion.
If God exists are you going to dispute an assertion made by God?
If God does not exist then any old assertion can be made and it doesn't really matter who makes it as long as the person making it thinks what they're saying is true, essentially making them a mini god.
You don't yet know if God exists or not so I'd suggest you make sure one way or the other
Presenting the name of an individual whose actual existence is debatable is hardly evidence/proof. What am I to do with it? Even if I grant you, hypothetically, that an apocalyptic preacher(s) of that description and/or name existed at that time, it does nothing to establish his alleged "divinity".Guys this is not hard.
Chriliman and myself are saying that Jesus of Nazareth is the proof that you all have been asking for of God's existence.
You guys are saying that he is not proof.
Without clear, concise definitions of what you each claim to believe in, I am not aware of what you two actually agree upon.We have reasons for saying what we do.
You guys have reasons for saying what you do.
We can't all be right.
This means that either Chriliman and I are right
You are the one making the truth claim, and I will not put this to a false dichotomy; I am not claiming to have a complete and accurate description of reality.and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.
Not at this point. The statement of purpose for this forum states that philosophy is the Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs.Can we agree on this much?
Which part of "it´s not an explanation, it´s an assertion" are you having problems to understand?If God exists are you going to dispute an assertion made by God?
Make sure?
Some go by the available evidence, leaving the door open to acquiring new knowledge and evidence along the way. If one does not see the evidence to support a belief, they could not agree something exists without playing mind games with themselves and performing psychological gymnastics.
Some are able to perform psychological gymnastics, better than others.
If we were talking about the Biblical "God", I would first have to imagine that that this "God", that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing - exists, and then I would have to imagine that this allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing entity is attempting to gather converts to a particular religion via the remote-control of an individual posting anonymously on an internet discussion forum.Awesome.
Is it too hard for you to imagine that He might be speaking to you through me?
Do you have the names and address of these individuals?Several hundred people saw Jesus alive after He died on the cross.
How do you propose to show that it is two-way?I have no good reason to think that this was simply a result of their imagination.
Sometimes it is two-way, sometimes it is not.
Which part of "it´s not an explanation, it´s an assertion" are you having problems to understand?
If it depends on who is reporting on it, it is not historical. If it were historical, Christianity would be reality, not a religion.It happened on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
Was it in the news?
Depends on who was reporting it.
If the religious Jewish leaders and Pontius Pilate were reporting the news, the headline would have been far different from that of the disciples if they had been reporting it.
Is being the best at psychological gymnastics the ultimate goal in life? If so its seems the best way to win at life is to lie and deceive and hope to never get caught doing it as you make your way to the top. We all saw what happened to Madoff when he attempted this, didn't work out to well for him, but I guess thats only because he got caught.
Had he not gotten caught there would have been no one to know that what he was doing was wrong except for himself. A world like that where no one is held accountable for their wrong actions unless they get caught doing a wrong action just sounds to me like a pointless world to live in. Sorry, but this is what I truly believe, in the end we will all be held accountable for our actions and man will not be the one doing the judging.
The argument from consequence is fallacious. Why do you continue to make fallacious arguments?If God exists are you going to dispute an assertion made by God?
If God does not exist then any old assertion can be made and it doesn't really matter
Which "God"? The "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?who makes it as long as the person making it thinks what they're saying is true, essentially making them a mini god.
You don't yet know if God exists or not so I'd suggest you make sure one way or the other
The argument from consequences again. Do you think reality will comply with your wishes?Is being the best at psychological gymnastics the ultimate goal in life? If so its seems the best way to win at life is to lie and deceive and hope to never get caught doing it as you make your way to the top. We all saw what happened to Madoff when he attempted this, didn't work out to well for him, but I guess thats only because he got caught.
Had he not gotten caught there would have been no one to know that what he was doing was wrong except for himself. A world like that where no one is held accountable for their wrong actions unless they get caught doing a wrong action just sounds to me like a pointless world to live in. Sorry, but this is what I truly believe, in the end we will all be held accountable for our actions and man will not be the one doing the judging.
No, I'm pretty confident that you haven't actually explained anything. You've made unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion. I'm just calling you out on it.You seem pretty confident that I'm wrong for someone who admits to not actually know if God exists or not.
No, I'm pretty confident that you haven't actually explained anything. You've made unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion. I'm just calling you out on it.
If you can say I haven't explained anything then I can say you haven't convinced me that my reasoning is wrong because you refuse to even try, all you can seem to do is say that I haven't explained anything.
From where I am standing, you are not even wrong.If you can say I haven't explained anything then I can say you haven't convinced me that my reasoning is wrong because you refuse to even try, all you can seem to do is say that I haven't explained anything.
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?