(April 23, 2018 at 2:50 pm)alpha male Wrote: God: not confined to earth. Cannot reasonably conclude from lack of observation that God's existence is therefore improbable.

What?! So god is not everywhere after all.

(April 23, 2018 at 2:50 pm)alpha male Wrote: Fire-breathing dragons: large animals confined to earth. Would eventually be discovered as man explores the earth. Since man has explored most of the earth, reasonable to conclude that their existence is improbable.

Except there are people that believe they saw dragons and that some of the pictures of dragons are real. Like there are people who think this video (among others) is genuine





Just like some people believe other people witnessed Virgin Mary or angels or Xenu etc.

And of course there are other ways around it: some people believe dragons can be invisible or simply mimic their surroundings perfectly to hide, idea that was exploited in movies and cartoons.

(April 23, 2018 at 2:50 pm)alpha male Wrote: Fire-breathing dragons: large animals confined to earth. Would eventually be discovered as man explores the earth. Since man has explored most of the earth, reasonable to conclude that their existence is improbable.

So they're at least falsifiable.

Quote:God: not confined to earth. Cannot reasonably conclude from lack of observation that God's existence is therefore improbable.

Not even falsifiable. It's a postulation of a complex entity that not only is there no evidence of but there CAN'T be any evidence of... making it even more absurd to believe to be probable. And 90% of the time it's actually completely incoherent and impossible (God usually has contradictory attributes).

You're literally believing in something that there can't possibly be any evidence of. You can't get more irrational than that.

(April 23, 2018 at 4:25 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 23, 2018 at 4:23 pm)Shell B Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Thanks, I have referenced that page in the past.   I find that the Bible and particularly the new testament, hold up fairly well to historical techniques.

How so?

(April 23, 2018 at 1:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't understand where any of that, leads to me saying it was subjective?

For starters, there are Muslim scholars who consider your religious faith to be false. Why are they wrong and you right?

---

(April 23, 2018 at 7:19 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(April 23, 2018 at 4:25 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Thanks, I have referenced that page in the past.   I find that the Bible and particularly the new testament, hold up fairly well to historical techniques.

How so?

The Christian evangelicals cherry-pick their sources just as they do with other scholarly disciplines:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

For instance, the The Gospel according to Peter claims, explicitly, to have been written by the Apostle Peter, unlike the so-called "canonical" gospels. And, yet, no evangelical here can offer any reason why the Gospel of Peter should not be accepted.

(April 23, 2018 at 7:24 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 23, 2018 at 1:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't understand where any of that, leads to me saying it was subjective?

For starters, there are Muslim scholars who consider your religious faith to be false. Why are they wrong and you right?

---

(April 23, 2018 at 7:19 pm)Shell B Wrote: How so?

The Christian evangelicals cherry-pick their sources just as they do with other scholarly disciplines:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

For instance, the The Gospel according to Peter claims, explicitly, to have been written by the Apostle Peter, unlike the so-called "canonical" gospels. And, yet, no evangelical here can offer any reason why the Gospel of Peter should not be accepted.

Here are a few reasons. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why...-to-peter/

---

(April 23, 2018 at 7:19 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(April 23, 2018 at 4:25 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Thanks, I have referenced that page in the past.   I find that the Bible and particularly the new testament, hold up fairly well to historical techniques.

How so?

I’ll see what I can work up on the next couple of days. Did you have something in mind, that it does not?

Yawn, your link, RR, fails to distinguish anything different between Peter's gospel and Matthew's. Both were written over a generation after Jesus' death and both contain embellished, highly stylized and legendary accounts written by unknown authors. Both Matthew and Peter were, of course, illiterate, as were the other disciples, as was Jesus.

(April 23, 2018 at 9:26 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Yawn, your link, RR, fails to distinguish anything different between Peter's gospel and Matthew's. Both were written over a generation after Jesus' death and both contain embellished, highly stylized and legendary accounts written by unknown authors. Both Matthew and Peter were, of course, illiterate, as were the other disciples, as was Jesus.

Lol, first you imply that they where not written by the early followers of Jesus, then you make claims to know of their literacy. If you have a consistent case to make, then feel free to support it.

---

(April 23, 2018 at 9:41 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 23, 2018 at 9:26 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Yawn, your link, RR, fails to distinguish anything different between Peter's gospel and Matthew's. Both were written over a generation after Jesus' death and both contain embellished, highly stylized and legendary accounts written by unknown authors. Both Matthew and Peter were, of course, illiterate, as were the other disciples, as was Jesus.

Lol, first you imply that they where not written by the early followers of Jesus, then you make claims to know of their literacy. You give away your hand, in that you try to argue in too many directions at once. But my main question to either, is why do you believe that?

The Gospels themselves imply that Jesus' disciples could not read or write, as was the case with 95% of the people alive in 1st-century Palestine. They were mostly fisherman, after all, who spoke Aramaic and not Greek.

(April 23, 2018 at 10:07 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The Gospels themselves imply that Jesus' disciples could not read or write, as was the case with 95% of the people alive in 1st-century Palestine. They were mostly fisherman, after all, who spoke Aramaic and not Greek.

Where in the gospels does it imply that? Now I think that you are merely making guess at these things. And it is perfectly possible that they where literate. Scholars believe that there was a higher literacy rate amongst Jews. I think that your assumption that they didn’t speak Greek has even less support. We also know that Peter and Paul mention using amanuensis (this may also explain some of the differences some think they see in style between some letters).

It's all about Jesus. If it supports Jesus, then it's true, and any objection to this can be explain as not reasonable. Because Jesus.