(November 30, 2014 at 10:05 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, let's not pretend it at all. Because we were talking about the resurrection of Jesus, and then when you couldn't answer my very simple statement, you started deflecting by talking about abiogenesis. It's entirely irrelevant to what we were talking about before, and you are not going to get away with your blatant unwillingness to actually engage with your own conversation except on terms where you think you'll win.

Man I forgot how we even got into this whole abiogenesis thing.

You randomly started bringing it into the conversation to deflect away from your inability to properly defend your claims regarding Jesus. It's a pretty standard tu cuoque fallacy, really.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I don't think you actually understand how evidence works in a scientific field. The evidence for abiogenesis, as I've said before, are the numerous probabilistic indicators that lead a reasonable person to consider the proposition, in addition to the lab experiments that demonstrate that the basis of the concept can occur naturally.

Probabilistic indicators? Like what? Based on all of the arguments for the existence of God that is convincing to ME, I have probabilistic indicators that God exists and he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. So how does your indicators have any more virtue than mines?

Probabilistic indicators like all of the ones I've spent the last two or three posts explaining to you repeatedly, only to have you either not understand, or ignore them entirely. Forgive me if I don't feel like rehashing the same stuff again, only to have you undoubtedly shrug it off as though I hadn't said a word. And they're more "virtuous" than what you consider to be indicators for your religion because they are readily demonstrable to everybody, and don't rely on wishful thinking or fallacious reasoning. And before you even start spouting off about that one, I'd remind you that my indicators include things like "natural things exist," and "the Miller-Yurey experiments happened."

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If you're looking for the kind of simplistic ideal of certainty that theism baselessly asserts, then we don't have that yet, but it's also not required. Science is probabilistic, and the probability trends away from intelligent designers and toward natural causes.

That is your opinion.

No. No it's not an opinion. It is not an opinion that there is no evidence for the supernatural in any shape or form that would stand up to peer review or objective analysis.

Quote: I think the probability trends away from naturalism.The God hypothesis best explains the origin of life, consciousness, species, and the universe....that is my opinion. Those are four different/independent problems for the naturalist, and so far science is silent on all four of those problems...and since science can't demonstrate either one, you have no reasons to believe that any of that stuff occurred, so you simple pout and/or frown...and accept by faith that it occurred.

And it's so incredibly telling that your reasoning behind why you think this is nothing more than a great big argument from ignorance. "Science can't explain X, therefore god." Well, sorry H_M, but the lack of an explanation from somewhere else does not advance your pet god, nor does it point toward your god specifically. Even if you were right here- and the argument from ignorance is never right- then you would be arguing for deism, not christian theism.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You can continue to ignore the way science works in order to demand scientific evidence, but you'll be dishonest if you do.

Science hasn't demonstrated what it needs to demonstrate to convince me that those things could happen without intelligent design..to hell with "the way science works"...however it is working, it hasn't answered my questions.

Your inability and unwillingness to comprehend the answers does not mean they aren't satisfactory. They mean you are a dishonest bozo, something for which we have ample evidence.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Not that that's ever stopped you before.

You can't stop the unstoppable...top the untoppable....pop the unpoppable..

You can't take the untakeable...break the unbreakable...shake the unshakeable...

And you can't keep up with a simple conversational chain without changing topics absurdly to avoid answering for the shit you say.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This doesn't follow at all. It's merely a bullying tactic, substituting scoffing mockery for an actual point; so what if I can't prove every claim ever?

Bullying? What are you, in the 5th grade?

This is precisely my point. I'm not saying that what you're doing is at all effective, merely that your aggressive need to simply mock everyone around you rather than engage with their arguments, and your seemingly compulsive need to puff yourself up at every opportunity is, indeed, childish. If what I'm saying sounds childish to you, it is because my observations are of thoroughly childish behavior.

If you wish to change this, perhaps consider conducting yourself like an adult in future, rather than a posing twelve year old?

Quote: How the hell is it bullying...it is a fact. You can't provide evidence for what you believe to be NATURAL occurrences...but you have nerve to claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences"?

The two things aren't connected in the slightest. It is you, deflecting, and I will have no part of it. I can't provide evidence for quantum physics right offhand, it doesn't invalidate my observations that the sky is blue. Conflating two unconnected things is a classic theistic tactic to avoid answering for one or both of them.

Quote:Like I said, this is an old played out line by atheists and it is time someone called you guys out on this...and I am just the guy to do it.

You also said that this wasn't an argument, so I guess I don't need to treat it as such.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How does that even connect with the above? It's a total non-sequitur, and also a complete strawman to begin with. You keep foisting abiogenesis on me, but I don't accept that.

As mentioned previously, I don't recall how abiogenesis crept in to the conversation, but if I brought it up, it was because of something someone else said.

Somebody told you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you opted to deflect with a tu cuoque "oh yeah? Well abiogenesis is an extraordinary claim too!" The entire conversation had been about Jesus before that, but your style of throwing out irrelevancies to distract everyone else moved us away from that.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: My position is that we don't know how life began on earth, with the further corollary that natural means are more probable given what we know now than supernatural ones, and that abiogenesis is the best supported current theory.

Look, all of that "I don't know" shit is misleading...sure, you don't know...but it is clear that you BELIEVE that it happened even if you don't know HOW it happened. If you conclusively rule out intelligent design...if your stance is "God didn't do it"...then the default position is nature did it.

First of all, you do not get to tell me what I believe. Nor do you get to impose your own two dimensional, binary thought processes onto mine; I'm quite capable of holding nuanced positions on subjects, like normal adults can, without falling into this stupid "accept/don't accept" dichotomous prism that you seem to interpret the world through.

I've told you what my position is. If your answer is simply "no it isn't," then my response is simply, fuck off, you presumptuous ass.

Quote:Either life formed naturally, or supernaturally. Point blank, period. You sit there and argue against intelligent design, all the while acting as an apologists for naturalism...but then sit there and say "I don't know"...yeah you don't know, but you BELIEVE that nature did it, and the fact of the matter is that science cannot validate that hypothesis as of yet, so you simply accept by faith just like any religious folk does.

If there is no evidence for intelligent design- and there isn't- then I have a basis for arguing against it even without having a stake in the opposite position. Rebuking pseudoscience and lies does not require anything more than a healthy respect for the truth, not some opposing ideological horse in the race.

You don't get to dictate my position to me to maneuver me into a more convenient angle for your rebuttals. It's dishonest and aggressive; you don't see me doing the same, so kindly back off and restrict yourself to arguing against positions that I actually hold. I'm under no obligations to defend positions I don't hold just to satisfy your need to con your way through arguments you otherwise cannot win.

Quote:Dude, even if I am attacking the concept of abiogensis with someone else, you make your way into the conversation and begin defending against those attacks, as if you are an apologist for the position...yet you claim you dont know, and you claim that you don't accept it, but your actions prove otherwise. It is clear as day.

If someone was claiming that all dogs are pink, and you respond that no, they aren't, does that make you an apologist for non-dog-pinkism? Or does it just mean that you've observed that the world is different from what someone is claiming, and you've sought to correct the record in favor of the truth?

Can someone have a position without having precisely the opposite position to what they're disagreeing with, in your world?

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, they didn't, and I pointed out numerous times that they didn't. What they did do was provide a means by which the building blocks of life form naturally, a demonstration of possibility that is an indicator toward abiogenesis.

First off, they were still longggg ways from life...second, they would still have to find out how to get consciousness in there...

A long way from life is still leagues closer to it than anything the intelligent design movement has ever been able to produce. Some evidence is more than no evidence at all, H_M. And this conflation of consciousness with abiogenesis is dreadfully dull.

Quote:third, even the little bit that they did do, guess what, intelligence was required, right?

Only if you're willing to claim that evaporation doesn't happen in nature, which is pretty dire for the water cycle that relies upon it, and that electricity doesn't occur naturally. You may want to have a chat with lightning about that.

Quote:Im not even sure you would call it a piece...it may be one piece, OF a piece...not even a full piece. It has been over 60 years since the Miller experiment, and we really havent made any advancements since then...we have a long way to go...and we wont even mention consciousness, like how are you going to get consciousness squirting in there amiss of all of that molecular junk? It aint happening.

Reducing the accomplishments of science doesn't somehow enhance the evidence for intelligent design. No matter how small the piece is, it's still bigger than no piece at all.

All you can do is attack the other side, because you have no defense of your own at all.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, actually the compounds in question formed completely without direction from outside sources, using variables that are entirely common within nature. Stuff was evaporated and some electricity was present, but both of those things are naturally occurring. Given that the experimental environment was sealed, you couldn't claim intelligent design even played a role here unless you hadn't bothered to even look up the experiment in question.

Wait a minute, so two scientists conducted an experiment, but no intelligence was needed??? dude, you are a mess.

They observed the effects of things happening on their own. Experiments don't always require direct intervention from scientists; observation of variables on a natural setting is enough.

It's hilarious; every time you open your mouth you reveal yet another facet of science that you don't understand, yet you still act as though you understand it sufficiently to argue with it.

Quote:My point was, INTELLIGENT DESIGN WAS NEEDED TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED EFFECT.

And saying it in all caps still doesn't make it so, shockingly.

Quote:Not only that, but environmental conditions of the early earth 3 billion years ago did NOT reflect what Miller & nem THOUGHT the early earth was...so after it was all said and done they only were able to produce two amino acids...2 out of the minimum 200 that is needed for a protein molecule...and even if they managed (which they didn't/can't) to get the minimum needed, they would still have had to get the correct sided amino acids..as amino acids come right-handed and left handed...and only the left-sided is needed...then you would have to get all of the left side-sided amino acids in sequence order, otherwise the protein molecule can't be formed.

What the Miller-Yurey experiment showed- and by the way that's twenty proteins, not two as you indicated. Shows how much you actually know about what you're saying- is that the generation of these compounds is possible without the intervention of an intelligent agent. I acknowledge that a possibility isn't much, but when intelligent design hasn't even gotten to demonstrating that non-human intelligent designers are possible, it's still the safer bet.

Quote:So it is highly improbable for even ONE protein molecule to be formed without intelligence, let alone 200.

Since when were improbabilities impossibilities? Can you demonstrate that your god is even possible? Or that creation through speaking is?

Quote:Now this is a well known problem with abiogenesis...and no amount of bio babble will be able to save this nonsensical notion that life can come from non living material.

Argument from personal incredulity.

Quote:Hey, I understand that you are uncomfortable talking about the limitations of science..but science will also have to explain the origin of consciousness as well. You got life, but how do you get life to think and become aware..but lets just sweep that shit under the rug, huh?

They're two different problems; not having an answer to one doesn't invalidate the other. You're acting like a fool by continuing to pretend like this hasn't been pointed out to you.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Certainty is a dishonest misunderstanding of both the methodology of science and reality itself. Besides, my point, which you seem to have missed again, is that the evidence for abiogenesis is "some," and the evidence for intelligent design is "none."

"Some" is not good enough...Carmello Anthony played in "some" playoff games and even won a few playoff series, but he never actually won a championship, which is the ultimate goal. Second, again, you still have the consciousness problem, infinity problem, and species problem...you are not even half way done on naturalism

If "some" is not sufficient, then "none" must be even less so. Hence, probabilistically, it is rational to give the higher probability to "some," and not "none." Thank you for proving my point yet again. Your inability to provide even a shred of positive argumentation for your own position really is an- ahem- godsend for me.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: But god's life didn't come from life, making it impossible according to your own argument.

Since my argument is based on life that began, then that light bulb that apparently went off in your head to make you think you had such an awesome response becomes....meaningless.

Semantics.

As I say below, you're demanding that everyone else play with one category while you get to play with two, and you've offered no justification for this beyond your own special pleading preference for ideas that you agree with.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: My belief is that neither of us know how life began. So, I guess you're strawmanning again.

I appeal to what I think is the best explanation.

Your inability to support why you think it's the best explanation with anything other than arguments from ignorance is why I disagree with you. Moreover, you're deflecting again, apparently to avoid the fact that you blatantly strawmanned me here.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So what? I already took you to task for this argument from personal incredulity before.

And I took you to task by explaining to you the fact that NOT being able to conceive of something only ratifies its impossibility.

So you actually think that "I just can't conceive of it" is an argument for the nonexistence of that thing?

Oh my, you may be beyond all hope.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do you not know what the word "necessary" means?

Of course I do, but you said it wasn't "necessary", so you are making it seem as if it COULD something other that what it is..and my question is, based on what?

Read again, fool. I said "necessary, but not sufficient." Which means that it's a necessary component, but not sufficient for the effect on its own.

If you can't even read a simple sentence, what hope do we have for your conclusions about anything else?

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You link the two together because you're dishonest; neither are actually linked, they don't rely on one another. You conflate the two so that when somebody gives an answer to one you can go "aha! But what about the other! Since you didn't answer that, the answer you did give is untrue!" and switch when required. You're asking for a single unified answer that covers two completely unrelated topics.

I know, you are basically saying "If I had such a hard time dealing with the abiogenesis problem, why would you throw the origin of consciousness in there to make the problem twice as difficult."

No one said the job was going to be easy, Esquil

Strawman again. You're utterly pathetic.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, pretty much exactly like this. You asked me about consciousness, and then when I gave you an answer about consciousness you immediately switched to abiogenesis as though you were always talking about that.

You sound like a damn fool. If I am asking you to explain the origin of consciousness, why the hell would you start by saying it evolved?? But its evolution could only occur after it originated, which still has yet to be explained, but that was the question in the first place!!!

Which is like asking me why my car is red, and then dismissing my answer as untrue because it didn't also explain the origin of color perception in human eyes.

Quote:Second, you are WRONG anyway, because I didn't switch to abiogenesis, my point was if abiogenesis PROVED to be true, hypothetically speaking, then where did consciousness come from?? That was the freakin' point...it had nothing to do with abiogenesis as I assumed (briefly) that abiogenesis was true.

Not all life forms are conscious. Many of them don't even have brains. Abiogenesis could be true, and yet consciousness could have been poofed into existence by a god; there are theists on this site that believe precisely that. The former is not connected to the latter, in that the truth of it is not reliant on the demonstrability of the other. You're being ridiculous.

Quote:Your reading comprehension skills are piss poor, bro.

Which one of us added a non-existent "not" before the word necessary above, H_M?

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: When intelligent design can't produce any ingredients at all, and their idea of how to make a pizza is just "god makes it," then it's still a far better answer than your own.

And naturalists position is that "nature makes it". And if that isn't your position, then stop defending it.

Still no defense against my point that your side has no evidence, then? Sorry, but attacking the opposition is not a rebuttal. I don't need to play defensive when you've offered no attack.

As to why I'll defend this, I don't need to accept naturalism to know that your ridiculous position is fallacious. You want me to stop defending it? All you've got to do is lift your game. The moment you stop fallaciously arguing for your position is the same moment I'll be on your side.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's also a strawman. The position is "physical matter exists, physical matter is all that's required for any potential naturalistic origin of life.

So get all of the inanimate physical matter in the world, and see if any of the matter will come to life.

Non sequitur.

If a naturalistic hypothesis is true, then obviously the things involved would be natural. Natural things do exist; are you claiming they don't?

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Intelligent design requires supernatural additions, which aren't demonstrable as existing.

Life from nonlife hasnt been demonstrated as a natural occurrence either.

But if it were to happen naturalistically, then natural things would be all that's required, which is my point. Natural things are easily demonstrated to exist, where supernatural things are not. All the "ingredients" for a naturalistic claim already obviously exist. All the ingredients for a theistic claim do not.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Therefore, since the former has all the ingredients readily available, and the latter does not, the probability of the former being true is higher than the latter, until evidence of the latter's missing ingredient and method comes to light."

Again, if just having all the right ingredients was all that is needed, why aren't you able to demonstrate life from nonlife??

You keep expanding and contracting the boundaries of the questions you're asking whenever it suits you. I've started including my own earlier responses now to obviate that; everyone can see when you suddenly change subject, you know. You're not going to get away with even a little of it anymore, if it's intentional. And if it's not, maybe get yourself diagnosed with ADHD or something? You're bouncing all over the place.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You asked for a probabilistic model, but now you apparently don't know what probability is either?

I like the ID model better.

The universe isn't about what you like. And you're deflecting again.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yes, I do: Miller-Urey and John Oros. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Also, as I've been saying all along, at least we know natural things are possible. We have no such indications for supernatural things.

Everyone knows that the Miller experiments didn't come close to creating life...you are the only one even still appealing to that experiment...it is a dead issue...they went in the lab to create life from nonlife, and failed. Point blank, period.

And yet, they've still done one hundred percent more than intelligent design ever has!

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, so god isn't ACTUALLY eternal, then? He's only IMAGINARILY eternal? Makes much more sense.

Completely ignored the distinguishing point I was making between eternity and infinity. Each term has at least two definitions for it and it isn't until you put each one in its proper perspective that you won't end up looking like a dumbass.

But if god is eternal, then how would he ever be able to do anything? He'd be like a baby in an infinite series of babies! hock:

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So then you believe that it is possible for life to exist without an additional life to bring it into being.

Um, I believe in God, duh.

So you believe the category "life that did not come from life" is not empty. You just assume without evidence that god is the only thing in that category.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You just believe that god is the only life that exists within that category. I understand that, but you have no reason to believe that category doesn't contain more life forms than god.

Yes I do...and for you to sit there and say that is very dishonest, but when you are intellectually losing, I guess dishonesty is the last resort.

I'm sorry, but "that's dishonest!" without actually supporting it is not an argument. Are you really that hard up for excuses now?

So, what's your reason for thinking god is the only being in that category? Without saying "we've never observed any other life not coming from life," because we've also never observed god, and that's also an argument from ignorance.

You don't have one, do you?

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You've undermined your own premises here. You say that life can only come from life, but that god is in a special category where he doesn't have to.

I've also stated why that to be the case...but lets conveniently leave that part out and continue with this meaningless rhetorical tirade, shall we?

Why on earth do you think the baseless assertion that god didn't begin to exist is at all compelling or reasonable?

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You believe it's possible for life to exist without life. Simply braying "but god is special!" doesn't suddenly make that not the case.

It does make it the case if I have reasons to believe it to be the case.

What's the reason, without relying on an argument from ignorance, or an appeal to observations? You haven't given the reason before now so why are you acting as though you have?

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How do you know that I'd be intellectually dishonest? How have you demonstrated that life cannot be eternal?

Because life through infinite duration is impossible.

Oh look, another thing you haven't demonstrated!

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And if you haven't done that, isn't your accusation here just an unjustified presupposition you've made, because it's convenient for your argument?

I repeat: Because life through infinite duration is impossible. You see how I am giving a reason for the shit? Instead of just saying it because it is "convenient", I am actually giving a reason for the shit, ain't I?

You're covering for one baseless assertion with another. It's hardly a revolutionary tactic for theists, but it's no more effective from you than anyone else.

Quote:It is more like "There are only two possibilities, one doesn't violate logic and reasoning, and the other one does violate logic and reasoning, so I think the best bet is to go with the one that DOESN'T violate logic and reasoning".

But it does violate logic and reason, in that it violates the premises you're asserting to be true in order to make the argument at all.

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: "Life only comes from life. Therefore, life on earth is a problem. So there must be a life that didn't come from life that created all the life, because as I said, life only comes from life."

*Life that began, that is. [/quote]

Which still makes the "life" category larger than just "life that comes from life." You haven't bothered to support your assertions about god's place in that system at all.

Quote:No, I said actual infinities are impossible...Now yeah, when dealing with actual time, infinite time and eternity mean the same thing...but eternity can also mean "without time" or "timelessness" or "atemporal" <----these are all synonymous with each other and also with "Eternity"...and this is the eternity I am talking about when I said "God is eternal", meaning that he wasn't living through infinite duration of time...he transcended time altogether...he was above and beyond time.

Timelessness is also impossible; the moment a conscious entity perceives a progression of events, time is happening. If god did anything at all, even just existing, then time was happening around him, because the length of his existence is quantifiable with demarcations of time.

Quote:But I recognize that there couldn't be an infinite chain of "life producing life" going all the way back to eternity past, which is a view that is quite consistent with me arguing against infinity on the other thread.

Dude, there are no "gotcha" moments with me on this subject. None.

So, have you ever observed a timeless being? Kicking the problem down a level doesn't eliminate it.

Quote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: But that's an argument from ignorance, not evidence for a life form that didn't begin to exist. At best, what you get out of that is "life can't be eternal," but that's not what you're trying to prove.

*Life that began.

It is ok, the more you keep attacking straw man, I will be there to put you right back on path, you know, the path of my actual position.

You no longer even know what you're arguing against. It's amazing.

Quote:You are right, I am an intellectual bully...so after school...me...you....playground.....and I will intellectually beat the crap out of you regarding any subject that we've been discussing.

You are possibly the most ridiculous person we've ever hosted on this board.

He's just one of many, Esq.

Really, is he any dumber than the rest of the jesus freaks who show up?

(December 1, 2014 at 12:28 am)Minimalist Wrote: He's just one of many, Esq.

Really, is he any dumber than the rest of the jesus freaks who show up?

Well, barring Godschild, and a couple others, yes.

(November 30, 2014 at 10:05 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 29, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If you're looking for the kind of simplistic ideal of certainty that theism baselessly asserts, then we don't have that yet, but it's also not required. Science is probabilistic, and the probability trends away from intelligent designers and toward natural causes.

That is your opinion. I think the probability trends away from naturalism.The God hypothesis best explains the origin of life, consciousness, species, and the universe....that is my opinion. Those are four different/independent problems for the naturalist, and so far science is silent on all four of those problems...and since science can't demonstrate either one, you have no reasons to believe that any of that stuff occurred, so you simple pout and/or frown...and accept by faith that it occurred.

You know, HM... the actual scientific answer to Life, the Universe and Everything IS 42.
What does that 42 mean? I don't know. But I can tell you 42 is beyond time. As an abstract entity, it is always there, has always been there, will always be there... absent of time, it stands true to itself.
How did 42 create the Universe? I don't know. I suppose it has something to do with the first even numbers in reverse order... maybe they can work some sort of "magic".
42 is also a very soothing number, it's easy to memorize and answers everything.
As magical as the Universe was, life was 42's major creation. How did it do it? I know not. It just did.
And then, you get consciousness from 42. 42's all-encompassing mind permeates the Universe itself and, also, life. When it overlaps with a biological brain with enough complexity, it produces biological consciousness. It's a beauty to behold.

All is actually very well explained by science

(December 1, 2014 at 12:28 am)Minimalist Wrote: He's just one of many, Esq.

Really, is he any dumber than the rest of the jesus freaks who show up?

He's certainly excelling in lying. And that's saying something, in the world of fundy trolls.

(December 1, 2014 at 9:45 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(December 1, 2014 at 12:28 am)Minimalist Wrote: He's just one of many, Esq.

Really, is he any dumber than the rest of the jesus freaks who show up?

He's certainly excelling in lying. And that's saying something, in the world of fundy trolls.

pretty much OP

(November 30, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Not contemporary and not a witness, but if you'd actually present Paul, we might discuss him.

He lived during a time at which the ORIGINAL disciples were still going around town saying that Jesus rose from the dead...the belief in the Resurrection began with the original disciples...and Paul met Peter, and James, brother of Jesus.

Paul would have known about both Pilate and Tiberius, and he certainly got his information from a DIRECT contemporary source in Peter and James.

Remember when I was asking you and others "How do you know that George Washington existed?" when no one alive today ever saw him, and you and others response to this was "we have contemporary accounts of him"...well, Paul spoke to those that WERE contemporary accounts.

And not only that, but he also claimed to have witnesses the Resurrected Jesus himself.

(November 30, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Why yes I do. ---Not to mention the first couple generations of biblical archeologists whose findings the new crop of trained archeologists on the ground now are disproving right and left. The controversy about Jesus is just beginning, but it's beginning because actual historians are looking at the evidence rather than just assuming.

To bad the vast majority of historians already believe that he existed...it is only the few mythers here and there that says otherwise...and it is almost as if the myth is that he DIDN'T exist rather than he did.

(November 30, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And I have no problem with believing in a historical Jesus. But Craig, says that even if presented with personal uncontroversial eyewitness evidence that Jesus wasn't resurrected that he would still have faith and believe he was resurrected. That's bias in the extreme.

That's his problem, not mines.

(November 30, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote: So no I wouldn't trust him to evaluate evidence about Jesus. Obviously he isn't interested in evidence. And that intellectually dishonest bias towards the NT is why theologically trained scholars aren't that good at assessing evidence, though few are as extremely biased as Craig.

You keep talking about Craig as if I appealed to WLC or something

(November 30, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I'm looking at that evidence, and no I don't see the proof. I do see that the existence of a man named Josiah who preached is more likely than not though I don't see proof I'd bet my life on or even proof I'd bet my net worth on. I strongly suspect that the Jesus in the Bible is an amalgamation of at least two prophets one a moral philosopher and the other an apocalyptic preacher. That's more likely than a single man. But I still wouldn't bet my life on it.

Then you disregard all of the positive evidence in favor of Jesus...got it.

(November 30, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I don't know about that. We have Christians here who I'd like to be much nicer to and am in non-debate threads. But H-M doesn't even notice it when his butt gets kicked. And he doesn't appear to have any niceness of his own.

The day I lose is the day Malcolm X resurrect from the dead and remake the song "We are the World" with the Grand Wizard of the KKK..

And I don't think that is happening any time soon, my dear.

(December 1, 2014 at 12:19 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 30, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Not contemporary and not a witness, but if you'd actually present Paul, we might discuss him.

He lived during a time at which the ORIGINAL disciples were still going around town saying that Jesus rose from the dead...the belief in the Resurrection began with the original disciples...and Paul met Peter, and James, brother of Jesus.

Paul met Peter, huh?
How would you know about that?
Paul says so?
Did Peter ratify that claim?

(December 1, 2014 at 12:19 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Paul would have known about both Pilate and Tiberius, and he certainly got his information from a DIRECT contemporary source in Peter and James.

Yes, the emperor and the local governor... both well placed hints to lend credence to the story... but does that make the story true?

(December 1, 2014 at 12:19 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Remember when I was asking you and others "How do you know that George Washington existed?" when no one alive today ever saw him, and you and others response to this was "we have contemporary accounts of him"...well, Paul spoke to those that WERE contemporary accounts.

Says Paul.... do you have accounts from other people claiming to have spoken with Paul?
Did the Corinthians ever reply to his letters?

(December 1, 2014 at 12:19 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: And not only that, but he also claimed to have witnesses the Resurrected Jesus himself.

See how you're using english the proper way, now?
"claimed to"
Tolkien claimed to use the Red Book of Westmarch as a base for the Lord of the Rings account.
Does that make Hobbits real? Rings of power? Wizards? Nazgul?

I actually believe there was a Jesus, but, as I said, not because of the reasons presented. But the debate does interest me.

One thing I was thinking last night, what it would take to provide real concrete documented evidence of Jesus. Why are there no contemporary sources? Where are the arrest records? The execution records? The trial records? Tax records? Census records? Contemporary observers and commentators? We have these types of documents dating from this time, but not ones concerning Jesus.

Of course this doesn't mean that he didn't exist, but it is odd. Wouldn't the early church be very interested in preserving these records? It wasn't that long after the alleged events that they began copying and preserving these documents. These records most likely would have been readily available. So I'm led to believe there must be three possibilities:

1) the records don't exist, and never did. Possible, and at least the case for some of those records that would help.

2) The records were consciously suppressed or destroyed. It is likely that the cult paul used to base his religion was very different from what it later became. They would not want records that showed a figure different from what doctrine stated. Or they could have been destroyed as "idolatry" as churches were destroyed during the reformation, believing the man would distract from the message.

3) the records were overlooked and lost. However I find this unlikely. With the church preserving many roman and Greek texts, especially those they believed fell in line with their values, I doubt they would have overlooked these documents.

Jesus, Mary, Joseph were common names in a part of the world not known for innovative naming practices, who is to say a certain Jesus son of Mary and Joseph had never existed who was a bit luny in ways that happen to dovetail with pervailing social conditions so as to impress impressionable illiterate yokels? Who is to say the bunch of yokels most foolishly impressed didn't number 13 and didn't have the names that Christians recognized as the "apostles"?

But it seems absolutely irrelevent whether a real Jesus existed. The important thing is a biblical New Testament Jesus who had the salient characteristics attributed to him by subsequent christians runs against all we've since learned about the real world. So we can as confidently rule out the existence of the biblical Jesus son of god as we can the sun rising from the west.

Christians seem to think insinuating the unprovable fact Jesus existed proves any such Jesus as might have existed would also be son of god.

What idiots.