(July 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 2:50 pm)Ignorant Wrote: 3) Empirical evidence (EE): 

a) Some things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist. (e.g. I exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of human cells also exist simultaneously with 'me', and the 'ordering and configuration' of those cells exist on the condition that a certain amount and quality of cells exist simultaneously with the 'ordering and configuration', and the 'certain amount and quality of those cells' exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of molecules exist simultaneously with the 'amount and quality of those cells', etc.)

These things don't 'exist' simultaneously.  We can have different conceptions of things simultaneously, but conceptions aren't existents.  The rest doesn't follow because your empirical evidence is not valid.

Consider an example: 

Am I existing simultaneously with your existence? Yes. Is carbon existing simultaneously with both our existences? Yes. Does your existing depend on my simultaneous existing? No. Does carbon depend on either yours or my or both our existing? No. Does both our existing depend on carbon's simultaneous existing? Yes. If in one moment, carbon ceased existing, then both you and I, in the exact same moment, would also cease existing. We exist on the condition that carbon simultaneously exists.

While we're at it, let's take apart the reasons.

(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You initially claimed that your belief in the NT miracles was different from that of other miracle stories.  You seem to be treading water here.  How are you different in your belief in the miracles of Jesus than other believers in the incredible?

1) Content of the NT is internally consistent within itself and with the OT.

Selection effect.  Those stories that fit were chosen; those that don't fit were rejected.  Also a self-fulfilling prophecy as the tales were well known, so creating tales that were consistent with pre-existing tales is hardly a difficult feat.  Regardless, consistency doesn't get you very far.  We have a tantric yoga practitioner on the forum who has all sorts of weird ideas about everything being god and reincarnation and spiritual progress.  His ideas are unusual, but they're little more than updated Tantric beliefs that have been stewing in the culture for thousands of years.  His beliefs are consistent with each other just as your book is consistent with itself.  That doesn't make it true.
 

(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 2) More historical support for more actual documents written by more than one person

As noted above, this is as much an effect of bias as it is any kind of evidence for truth.  Specifically dealing with miracle stories, it is not reasonable on the basis of historical evidence to conclude that the most improbable explanation, a miracle, is in fact the most probable.  You only get from here to there by arbitrarily assuming that the improbable was likely.  That's nothing more than assuming your conclusion, ala begging the question.  Moreover there are plenty of alternative explanations for how we arrived at the miracle stories that are consistent with the mundane processes of folklore and myth creation which we see operating to this very day.  Above you were enamored with an explanation because it was consistent; now I suspect you're not so taken by mere consistency.

(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 3) Historical support of first century church

As noted, this only supports that people believed, not that they believed rightly.  Again your standard of evidence is mismatched.  The growth of a religious movement provides scant support for the miraculous claims that make up the beliefs in that movement.  If you're trying to distance yourself from the behavior of other believers in incredible things, you are doing a very poor job.  One thing that the Carrier article does demonstrate is that the world of Jesus was rife with movements founded upon incredible beliefs.  You do not separate the behavior of the early Christians from them by talking about a historical church. The existence of an early church doesn't set your beliefs apart from those of other religious movements.

(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 4) Person of Jesus is a compelling figure

So is Krishna.  So is Siddarhtha.  So what?  This doesn't lend credence to the incredible beliefs about the miracle stories. This is another selection effect. The appealing stories about Buddha were retained. The less appealing ones were forgotten. Same with any guru. Jesus does not stand apart in this. The figure of Jesus was less reported on than that he was sculpted out of the raw material of the stories. This is the way all legends work. That a good story resulted from this process of accretion is hardly evidence that the story is true. As noted, other movements have their charismatic figures. It's looking more like sameness than difference to me.

(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 5) Observations of personal effect of Jesus in the lives of other people

This, if true, demonstrates nothing more remarkable than the power of believing.  It doesn't lend credence to the beliefs themselves.  Moreover for every anecdote about someone's life being changed by Jesus, there is sociological research that shows that believers are not so different.  Perhaps believing has some minor health benefits.  That's hardly evidence for miracles.

(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 6) Personal experience.

In another post you claimed that comparing your reasons for belief in the miracle claims to UFO believers was comparing apples to oranges.  Well this is apples to apples.  Plenty of believers in the incredible have their testimonials, from Zen Buddhists to UFO abductees.  'Personal experience' doesn't set you apart from other believers of the incredible, and that was the whole point that prompted this list.  You aren't different from them.  You only think you are.  In that you are the same.  Personal experience is sorry evidence for miracle claims.   "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool." ~ Richard Feynman

Sorry, double post.

Lucifer and his friends couldnt take the Badass routine of eternal servitude, The Alpha Male, was putting on them. So, they just decided to give up and retire from eternal servitude to become pornstars and rulers(im serious).

Angels had it all- immortality and 100% noble life, but they broke mentally and gave It up for pussy. The perfect beings of faith deserted their position.

According to bible demons surly know of God, the problem is that they dont care about him.

The same story with majority of bored people who talk about God. Satisfying curiosity is one thing, but suffering for abstract ideals of love towards people around you so that God may proudly accept you as his "little angel" is "mission impossible" stuff, which almost nobody is willing to accept.

(July 6, 2016 at 3:01 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

(July 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: These things don't 'exist' simultaneously.  We can have different conceptions of things simultaneously, but conceptions aren't existents.  The rest doesn't follow because your empirical evidence is not valid.

Consider an example: 

Am I existing simultaneously with your existence? Yes. Is carbon existing simultaneously with both our existences? Yes. Does your existing depend on my simultaneous existing? No. Does carbon depend on either yours or my or both our existing? No. Does both our existing depend on carbon's simultaneous existing? Yes. If in one moment, carbon ceased existing, then both you and I, in the exact same moment, would also cease existing. We exist on the condition that carbon simultaneously exists.

We are carbon existing. You're just playing word games. We don't exist separate from existing as carbon and other molecules. You've made an existential relationship out of a conceptual one. Providing examples isn't going to clear that error.

"Jesus is a compelling figure"

(above somewhere)


LOL, so was Ted Bundy.

(July 6, 2016 at 5:15 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 6, 2016 at 3:01 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Consider an example: 

Am I existing simultaneously with your existence? Yes. Is carbon existing simultaneously with both our existences? Yes. Does your existing depend on my simultaneous existing? No. Does carbon depend on either yours or my or both our existing? No. Does both our existing depend on carbon's simultaneous existing? Yes. If in one moment, carbon ceased existing, then both you and I, in the exact same moment, would also cease existing. We exist on the condition that carbon simultaneously exists.

We are carbon existing. [1]  You're just playing word games.  We don't exist separate from existing as carbon and other molecules. [2] You've made an existential relationship out of a conceptual one. [3] Providing examples isn't going to clear that error. [4]

1) Exactly! So what is carbon? Whatever that answer is... what is that thing? Either that line of questioning continues forever... or it ends with: what is it? It is 'existing' itself, 'being' itself.

2) That is precisely the point!

3) See above. I AM carbon existing in a particular way. Any thing is some other more fundamental thing existing as the greater-whole-thing. Either there is ultimately some fundamental existence, or everything is an infinity of more fundamental existing things. 

4) It looks like it just did! =)