Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You could if you tried hard enough.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
- Thread starter Apologes
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It has already been explained why your silly strawman fails when you compare it to the Bible. Move on and find a better argument.
All I intended was to show that naturalistic hypothesis are not necessarily better.
so ether agree or refute that point.
Just kidding, I know that you will find an excuse for not doing none of that
And let me guess…………….you will not support your assertions, because for some strange reason you think that atheist have no burden proof
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And you utterly failed at that, and people have explained why to you again and again. Your point was refuted. It is time to move on.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There is no need to. You once again need to remember why you are on corrections only. The burden of proof has been met. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. If I did so again you would have the same reaction. We have all seen it whenever you debate and lose.
You probably consider that a virtue.
I mentioned earlier when you claimed that skeptics like me were trying to control you that that was incorrect, that what we do is correct the errors made by the believers when they try to emulate critical thinkers or borrow their language about evidence and reasoning. And this would be me doing that again: Your source doesn't understand what scientific means, and it makes unsupported claims about reality. The above is all faith-based, and nothing is less scientific than that. Like I said, stay in your own lane. Nonoverlapping magesteria ahead:
I disagree, but it doesn't matter what the Bible says to an unbeliever. What matters is how the religion is rendered and what doctrine is taught from the pulpits. Believers argue amongst themselves what scripture really says about hell, but what matters is what believers believe.
No. I am saying that the Bible should not be considered to contain any truth in it until that truth is demonstrated empirically.
Yes, I know. The opening of the hand led to an open hand. My point is that you knew which was cause and which was effect - which was the necessary precursor to which.
You don't realize that my world view is not faith-based. I suspect that you don't consider it possible to have beliefs without using faith. RF has opened my eyes to the prevalence of that belief - people who don't know what critical thinking is and does aren't aware that there are reliable methods for deciding which idea are correct. They call the way they think reasoning. They aren't aware of concepts like invalid or fallacious reasoning and assume that all opinions are faith-based and thus equal.
That's a nice illustration of the difference between belief by faith and empiricism. Only one generates ideas that deserve to be called correct, and it's the one that eschews faith.
It doesn't need to be. There have been many good and interesting ideas broached here that you seem to have no interest in considering. You're in your own little bubble
That was in response to, "Any "hypothesis" that does not require the suspension of natural law, is more likely than ideas that do require the suspension of natural law."
Yes, he has. Several of us have. But you didn't see that, did you? This would be less tedious and boring for you if you noticed that there are other people posting thoughts and spent a little effort thinking about them (make sure to read them first) and engaging in discussion with others about their ideas, but you seem to only want to repeat yourself. I haven't seen a new idea from you in days, nor any interest in the ideas of others.
This paragraph ought to pique your interest. You ought to be interested in the fact that people think such things about you and looking to see if there is any truth to it. But you seem to have no interest in whether they're correct, nor whether they could possibly have anything worth your attention. What that means is that for the remainder of this thread and every other thread in which you engage in such posting etiquette, you will be bored in the same way. I'm not bored by you. Your arguments, which never change whatever is written to you and show no evidence at all that you have seen their refutations, are boring, but you are not. You are an endlessly fascinating enigma to me. You are so different from me that I can't begin to imagine what motivates you to be this way. Whatever it is, you are missing out on much wisdom here as you steadfastly cling to failed methods that lead to frustration and boredom.
Based on the advice of counsel, I have no comment.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
Left Coast said: #8Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. Any claim of some miracle explanation for a phenomenon that violates everything we know about how the world works is going to have automatically very low plausibility.
Apologes said: #10
We know that people don't rise from the dead on their own, true, but here we are talking about God raising someone from the dead. This isn't going against how the world works as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?
paarsurrey said: #421
Clue from Bible :Jesus did not resurrect, he need not, as rising from the physical dead is against "Sign of Jonah":
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah rising from the physical dead is against Sign of Jonah, I (therefore) must say (Jesus did not resurrect at all), as I understand?
Right?
paarsurrey said: #430
Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish so Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah could not and did not die on the Cross or in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, please, right?
paarsurrey said: #449
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah pegged the Sign of Jonah to be shown to the Jews and the Jews knew as per Book of Jonah that (1) Jonah entered the belly of fish alive, (2)remained alive in the belly of the fish and (3)came out alive from the belly of the fish, so if the Sign was for the Jews then Yeshua had to remain alive and he did remain alive (1) on the Cross, (2) in the tomb where he was laid and (3) afterwards as he was seen by many, please, right?
paarsurrey adds:#476
Since Jonah was a truthful prophet of G-d so applying the same criteria Jesus/Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah was also a truthful prophet, please, right?
- paarsurrey#540
- There are many clues in the Gospels itself that Yeshua- the truthful truthful Messiah did not die on the Cross in the first place so there is no question of his being resurrected from the dead, please, right?
- Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah prayed in the garden of Gethsemane most fervently to G-d (whom he used to call God-the-Father) that his life may be saved:
36 Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and agitated. 38 Then he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” 39 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” 40
So G-d willed and accepted Yeshua's prayer to the astonishment of Pauline-Christianity people and saved the life of Yeshua against all the odds, please, right?
First Clue in the Gospels :“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me "
So, G-d made it possible to let the cup pass from him. Yeshua's prayer was accepted by G-d.
Right?
Second clue: Messiah's bones were not broken
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah's bones were not broken, Pilate's wife saw a dream and told Pilate to refrain from killing Yeshua, so he maneuvered to save Yeshua's life, right?
Regards
Last edited:
Well the fact that my argument has not been refuted or even addressed strongly suggest I made a pretty good argument
No sir, if you made a claim then the burden proof is on you.
Stop the hypocrisy, no that point has never been shown to be true or even adressed seriously.
Nobody has shown (or even try to show)that hypothesis that require supernatural/miracles/suspension of natural laws are *necesairly * less likelly to be true than any naturalistic hypothesis. .... al we have is "its true because I say so"
No, Leroy. That's all YOU have. And it's by design, at least by the design of your faith-based confirmation bias that filters what you are allowed to see. I showed you what locked in was and what it looks like with a series of quotes from the likes of Craig, Ham, and LaRuffa. They proudly announced that evidence has no impact on them if it contradicts faith-based beliefs. That's you, too, Leroy. What message do you think you send when you keep repeating that nobody will show you a refutation of the OP or an alternate hypothesis when others have seen and written those answers themselves? What do you think you are telling us about your relationship with evidence when you refuse to look for the posts I claim I wrote and provided you with a method to find them? I'll tell you: You're not interested in seeing such a thing. Now you write a post like thatone and expect to be regarded as a standard for what has transpired.
One of my favorite resources on the topic of confirmation bias comes from young earth creationist (YEC) and geologist Glenn Morton, who became an old earth creationist (OEC) as he studied geology at university. He describes his confirmation bias as a YEC using the device of a demon who sat at the portal of his awareness screening ideas and throwing those that disagreed with his faith-based belief out to protect him from contradictory evidence. I find him and the description of his experience credible. The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 In his words:
"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."
This is how I view your situation, and why I don't place much value in your judgments about what's been posted previously.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, we are dealing with your silly claims here. Try again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, it has been. Just because you refuse to understand how is not our problem. That is your problem now since multiple posters have repeatedly shown how you are wrong. After a while all we need to so is to remind you that of that fact.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I didn't say it did. This is the point that goes over your head.
This is not about the accuracy of your beliefs (or inaccuracy). It's about your justification for holding them.
Again, it has to do with your justification for it.
It's about "faith" as a justification. It's not a pathway to truth. It's instead a pathway to false believes. You can believe anything on faith.
It's implied. Like "fact". It's verifiable. Demonstrable.
That's how "knowledge" distinguishes itself from mere beliefs.
To quote AaronRa: "You don't know it, if you can't show it"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=knowledge+means
You're not getting it.
Knowledge is a subset of belief.
It's the kind of belief that is rationally justified as opposed to being "just a belief".
You don't need faith if you have proper evidence.
Your "evidence" are the things you have faith in.
Exactly. Which is exactly what makes it useless and irrational to use it as a justification for belief.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Again, you wouldn't require faith if you would have valid evidence.
If the evidence alone doesn't get you to where you want to be, then adding faith won't make you move an inch closer. Not a rational inch anyway.
Most religions have "some truth" in them, correct. These "truths" however, are the same kind of "truths" we find in disney movies.
Symbolic truths. Poetic truths. Allegorical truths. Truths about human nature, about social situations, about righteousness, patience, humility, etc.
But Iron Man and Thor aren't real charactes that exist in objective reality.
Gods are no different.
When the evidence is rational and can be independently and objectively verified, yes. Not when that "evidence" requires faith.
That doesn't seem to be the case at all to me.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It seems you are the only one who has problems with it.
Likely because it shows that what you have are just make-belief claims instead of actual evidence.
It would not, as I have explained multiple times now.
I explained why I didn't mention horizontal transfer.
You also know full well what it is and how it is accounted for.
You also know full well how that isn't a problem at all in the great scheme of things concerning nested hierarchies in genetic biology.
Stop grasping at straws and doubling down on fallacious intellectual dishonesty.
It's really tiring.
Imaginary hypothesis don't count.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Because asking the question he did exposes the intellectual dishonesty in the post he's replying to as it moves the goalposts.
That's why.
The conclusion of said post is irrelevant to the large point at hand.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Only in your imaginary world with an imaginary rivaling hypothesis that account for all the same data.
Not in actual reality.
I didn't.
And the only way you can apparantly argue against it, is by making things up.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You provided a fantasy.
I can give you an example of a magician actually conjuring up a rabbit to make the point that it is "logically possible" for real magic to happen.
This is the level of stupid here.
You didn't provide an example. You provided a fantasy. Fantasies aren't proper examples.
Imagining that a human can jump up and fly off into space intstead of falling back to earth, doesn't show that defying gravity is "logically possible".
It's imagining that it is.
//facepalm
There you will find claims that are in need of evidence.