(April 9, 2013 at 6:04 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ median and Ryan, Let's say I see a man stabbed and run to his aide, then the assailant stabs me leaves behind the knife and flees. Then a person comes along and finds us, the man I saw stabbed is dead and I'm dying. The person who finds us calls 911, the police arrive and ask me what happens, I tell them the name of the person who stabbed us, I tell them I've known him for years and he was a very unstable individual, I then die. This man is convicted on my dying testimony, why, I proved nothing, demonstrated nothing, for all anyone knows I stabbed the man, then he took the knife from me and stabbed me. Maybe I did not like the man I named and wanted revenge. Yet my dying testimony was all it took to convict this person, no proof he was even there other than what I said.
Why would you as a juror accept this? Even though I told the truth there is no demonstrable proof I did, so why is this man in jail.

As is so usual with you Christian apologists, you are (ever so subtly) committing the fallacy of a false analogy. First, we have plenty of examples of stabbings. We do NOT have plenty of examples of universes, deities, walking zombies from graves, water into wine, virgin births, etc. In fact, we DO have examples of man-made MYTHS from religions prior to Christianity regarding these types of extraordinary claims (Isis, Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Appolonius of Tiana, etc). Secondly, and even more importantly, you don't know the New Testament is accurate eye-witness testimony! You are simply taking it "on faith", b/c someone else told you when you were younger (they conned you into accepting it), you accepted it, started with your conclusion, and now you're desperately looking to confirm it by any means necessary. That is backwards! There is no contemporary evidence of a "Jesus of Nazareth", all writings came years later (i.e. - hearsay).

But it gets worse. Your analogy breaks down even further because jurors in a murder trial are set to make a verdict regarding guilty/not guilty. They DO NOT make verdict judgements on whether or not someone is innocent. They could not determine that. You need to do your research. If there was not sufficient evidence that person X stabbed you, and another person, he would go free. That is the way the justice system works. Likewise, I find your alleged deity "not guilty" of existing due to the lack of sound unequivocal evidence.

Btw, your stabbing analogy is much more appropriately put like this:

-A man wants someone to think he was stabbed but magically healed. So he stabs himself, falls down in an ally and waits
-You come along and fall for his trick
-He tells you to write down everything he has "shown" you and spread it around (and you are gullible, believe it, and write it down)
-You wind up in court where prosecutors ask where this man is who was stabbed and is now missing.
-You say he is a magic man and cannot be found.
-"Case dismissed!"

(April 9, 2013 at 5:33 pm)median Wrote: As an example:

∞ + 3 = ∞

But does ∞ - ∞ = 3 (as can be shown algebraically)? No it does not.

You proved my point. Treating infinity as a real condition creates a real paradox. You believe in a paradox. Your position is illogical.

Quote:This man is convicted on my dying testimony

Worst jury ever.

(April 9, 2013 at 6:21 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 5:33 pm)median Wrote: As an example:

∞ + 3 = ∞

But does ∞ - ∞ = 3 (as can be shown algebraically)? No it does not.

You proved my point. Treating infinity as a real condition creates a real paradox. You believe in a paradox. Your position is illogical.

Wow, you really are a dumbass. NOPE. I don't "believe in a paradox" and you haven't proven shit (except your own credulity and gullibility). That is your problem. I admit when I don't know things, and in this case you are just too damn dishonest (and cowardly) to admit you don't know how we got here. Instead you makeup shit about deities b/c you bought into a fairytale when you were younger. YAY for you.

p.s. - The mathematical model in my example was NOT an example of "treating infinity as a real condition". It is more than comedy that you think infinities cannot be real (prove it!), yet you think your God is actually infinite. HA! Once again, if you can claim your deity is infinite (an infinite disembodied mind?), then we can say nature (the totality of existent physical things is infinite) - except the cool part for us is that we actually have demonstrable evidence of physical existence existing, and you have no demonstrable evidence of a "disembodied mind" existing (whatever that means) let alone anything "non-physical". The fact that multiple answers can be given mathematically, when using infinities, does NOT in anyway demonstrate that actual infinities are not possible. For all we know, it could very well be the case that we (our particles) are part of the eternal ever existing physical being of the global universe. There are lots of other possibilities, which you are unwilling to allow for due to your precommitment to Jesus. The difference is, we non-believers actually care whether or not our beliefs are actually true. You obviously don't.

(April 9, 2013 at 6:22 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

Quote:This man is convicted on my dying testimony

Worst jury ever.

You were part of it, guess you missed that part.

(April 9, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 6:22 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Worst jury ever.

You were part of it, guess you missed that part.

That's unfair and dishonest. You're asking me to justify a decision you made for me. I would never, in a million years, vote to convict a man solely on the basis of testimony which can never be cross-examined or questioned. If I was on a jury like that, I would do whatever I could to deadlock it.

(April 9, 2013 at 6:32 pm)median Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 6:21 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You proved my point. Treating infinity as a real condition creates a real paradox. You believe in a paradox. Your position is illogical.

Wow, you really are a dumbass. NOPE. I don't "believe in a paradox" and you haven't proven shit (except your own credulity and gullibility). That is your problem. I admit when I don't know things, and in this case you are just too damn dishonest (and cowardly) to admit you don't know how we got here. Instead you makeup shit about deities b/c you bought into a fairytale when you were younger. YAY for you.

p.s. - The mathematical model in my example was NOT an example of "treating infinity as a real condition". It is more than comedy that you think infinities cannot be real (prove it!), yet you think your God is actually infinite. HA! Once again, if you can claim your deity is infinite (an infinite disembodied mind?), then we can say nature (the totality of existent physical things is infinite) - except the cool part for us is that we actually have demonstrable evidence of physical existence existing, and you have no demonstrable evidence of a "disembodied mind" existing (whatever that means) let alone anything "non-physical".

well, they are actually trying to see if the universe is alive in some way. Your mind is in the states of the particles. if the universe has an infinitely larger "state" set than that would classify as the "disembodied" mind.

That fact that we are alive, means it is, in the smallest of ways, alive. Then I would ask you if you think that we are as "alive" as the universe can be?

@ median, the dying declaration is admissible in a court of law with a charge of homicide and the one giving the testimony believes death is imminent. Answer the question, you should be know as the artful dodger.

(April 9, 2013 at 7:16 pm)Godschild Wrote: Answer the question, you should be know as the artful dodger.

Funny that you say this while intentionally not responding to my last post.

(April 9, 2013 at 6:50 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(April 9, 2013 at 6:38 pm)Godschild Wrote: You were part of it, guess you missed that part.

That's unfair and dishonest. You're asking me to justify a decision you made for me. I would never, in a million years, vote to convict a man solely on the basis of testimony which can never be cross-examined or questioned. If I was on a jury like that, I would do whatever I could to deadlock it.

Unfair, you calling unfair, now that's . You want physical proof of the spiritual, now that I think about it, you're being unreasonable and dishonest, especially when I've admitted I can't give any to people who close themselves off to the possibility. I have not tried to prove to you that my experiences are real, I made the statement that my experiences are real and you try to tell me I'm deluded. You have no spiritual evidence to the contrary of what I stated. When you come up with spiritual evidence to show I had no such experience I'll listen.