(October 28, 2013 at 8:35 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 28, 2013 at 5:59 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: I'm not sure where the disconnect between the arguments is.

God is all powerful and thoughtful with the design of the universe, why would He not be able to come down and as great man and also be able to give believers great experiences?

The Purple Space Monkey is all powerful and thoughtful with the design of the universe, why would It not be able to come down as an invisible fairy and put happy-bubbles in the soul believers so they can do the Monkey Dance of Joy?

See the problem? I've just made up a bunch of stuff. Whether I believe in it, or whether I can convince a billion others to believe their experiences are related to it, is irrelevant.

MindForgedManacle's original post to which I was responding claimed that the arguments made by Christians can not be taken together. The claim that there was a disconnect between the first set of arguments and the last two.

I was asking for clarification on this point. He made no case as to the fact that it was made-up and therefor irrelevant.

(October 29, 2013 at 1:20 am)Godschild Wrote: Yes I do, I do see the problem, you have shed light on this and the problem is you. That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen.

GC

What makes your ridiculous fairy tales better than his ridiculous fairy tale? bennyboy has provided as much evidence supporting his as you have yours.

(October 29, 2013 at 3:35 am)Ryantology Wrote: What makes your ridiculous fairy tales better than his ridiculous fairy tale? bennyboy has provided as much evidence supporting his as you have yours.

I'll save you some time: it's better because he believes it. Which is also the reason he refuses to consider the possibility that it may be wrong. It's really, unfortunately, that simple, here.

(October 29, 2013 at 1:20 am)Godschild Wrote:

(October 28, 2013 at 8:35 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The Purple Space Monkey is all powerful and thoughtful with the design of the universe, why would It not be able to come down as an invisible fairy and put happy-bubbles in the soul believers so they can do the Monkey Dance of Joy?

See the problem? I've just made up a bunch of stuff. Whether I believe in it, or whether I can convince a billion others to believe their experiences are related to it, is irrelevant.

Yes I do, I do see the problem, you have shed light on this and the problem is you. That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen.

GC

No, the problem is believing claims that lack evidence.

(October 29, 2013 at 1:20 am)Godschild Wrote:

(October 28, 2013 at 8:35 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The Purple Space Monkey is all powerful and thoughtful with the design of the universe, why would It not be able to come down as an invisible fairy and put happy-bubbles in the soul believers so they can do the Monkey Dance of Joy?

Yes I do, I do see the problem, you have shed light on this and the problem is you. That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen.

Now you know how we feel about Christianity.

The philosophical arguments at best do two things. Make WLC and Christians feel ( which is what they are largely made to do) and prove deism. These arguments can not any religion and argue for all beliefs equally well.
The historicity argument fails in a similar way too because if accept the miracles of Jesus as valid that you have to consider all of the messiahs as possible and some of them are far better documented then yeshua.

(October 29, 2013 at 2:55 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: MindForgedManacle's original post to which I was responding claimed that the arguments made by Christians can not be taken together. The claim that there was a disconnect between the first set of arguments and the last two.

I was asking for clarification on this point. He made no case as to the fact that it was made-up and therefor irrelevant.

Actually, I thought I had. My point was is that the philosophical arguments establish a supreme being, and all the historical argument could do even in principle is establish that there was an individual whom claimed to be an emissary or incarnation of that supreme being. But worse, all that argument can do is inform one that there were people who believed said individual was from that supreme being. Even if it could be demonstrated (it can't) that said person actually performed miracles, even that wouldn't do so. Christians don't believe only God can perform miracles, and the Bible itself refutes his claim (Pharaoh's magicians, demons/angels, priests), even at one point going so far as to say that even the elect can be deceived by the miracles of false prophets.

That is the disconnect: Even if I assume the truth of both the philosophical and religious arguments (neither of which are good or work), they don't even establish Christian theism, not as more plausible than ANY other theism, in any case.

(October 29, 2013 at 12:28 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(October 29, 2013 at 2:55 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: MindForgedManacle's original post to which I was responding claimed that the arguments made by Christians can not be taken together. The claim that there was a disconnect between the first set of arguments and the last two.

I was asking for clarification on this point. He made no case as to the fact that it was made-up and therefor irrelevant.

Actually, I thought I had. My point was is that the philosophical arguments establish a supreme being, and all the historical argument could do even in principle is establish that there was an individual whom claimed to be an emissary or incarnation of that supreme being. But worse, all that argument can do is inform one that there were people who believed said individual was from that supreme being. Even if it could be demonstrated (it can't) that said person actually performed miracles, even that wouldn't do so. Christians don't believe only God can perform miracles, and the Bible itself refutes his claim (Pharaoh's magicians, demons/angels, priests), even at one point going so far as to say that even the elect can be deceived by the miracles of false prophets.

That is the disconnect: Even if I assume the truth of both the philosophical and religious arguments (neither of which are good or work), they don't even establish Christian theism, not as more plausible than ANY other theism, in any case.

No, you are changing what you said now.

The original post presented several arguments that Christians use in regards to proving their stance. Your claim was that they did not hold together, and the only argument you made to plausibility was as a side note to remind the reader that you did not take the arguments as fact in either case.

You claimed that there is a disconnect in reason between a supreme being and His ability to become a man. I disagree. If something is all powerful it can therefore do all things. This idea has no disconnect in itself, whether you take it as truth or not.

Christ's "proof" that he was God was not just in miracles, but in actions and presentation of a ideas that were completely strange (like loving your enemy, and the poor inheriting the Earth). He also rose from the dead of His own volition. I think that helped seal the deal. This idea connects back the to idea that God could so all things.

It is a complete idea, whether you take it as truth or not.

(October 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: No, you are changing what you said now.

The original post presented several arguments that Christians use in regards to proving their stance. Your claim was that they did not hold together, and the only argument you made to plausibility was as a side note to remind the reader that you did not take the arguments as fact in either case.

You claimed that there is a disconnect in reason between a supreme being and His ability to become a man. I disagree. If something is all powerful it can therefore do all things. This idea has no disconnect in itself, whether you take it as truth or not.

Christ's "proof" that he was God was not just in miracles, but in actions and presentation of a ideas that were completely strange (like loving your enemy, and the poor inheriting the Earth). He also rose from the dead of His own volition. I think that helped seal the deal. This idea connects back the to idea that God could so all things.

It is a complete idea, whether you take it as truth or not.

That's not how I interpreted the OP. I took it to mean that though the first 4 arguments (cosmological, ontological, teleological and moral) purport to be proofs of a creator god and the last two arguments (historical and religious experience) It's that even if such a being exists, you still can prove it's the one you say it is.

Forgive the use of language, but I have to be careful how I word things, lest I be accused of converting

I probably haven't interpreted the OP as intended either. I mean, we have the OP preserved at the start of this thread. I hate to think what would happen if all we had to go on was a translation of a translation of 2 millennia old documents

Quote:That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen.

Amusing, G-C. I use this as the most ridiculous thing I've seen.




I mean, what kind of a fucking idiot would fall for such nonsense?