God is so quiet

[possibletarian]

Then why was god so stupid in giving us permission to eat meat ?
It seems science is way more knowledgable than god

Your comment could not be more foolish.  
God also give us the sun.
If you look straight at the sun with your naked eyes for sometime in a clear day you may even go blind.
God doesn't give the sun, the meat the uranium or anything else to get sick.
It is all up to you to make a positive judgment whether something is good or bad or how we should use what we got in order to benefit or suffer from it.  

God never give any permission to eat meat or to get sick in any other way.
Religious people may not agree on meat eating but that is their interpretation of what God supposed to have said.
As far as I am concern God gave us the free will so we can choose what we like and in doing this we may either benefit or suffer from those decisions.  

Never seen such silliness

Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

There were even instructions on what animals could and could not be eaten, of course god gave permission, well assuming that you believe the bible to be true that is.

Here is a good article from a Jewish perspective
http://www.aish.com/atr/Meat-After-the-Flood.html

[GrandizerII]

In philosophy, 'nothing' (along with nobody, nowhere, none, etc.) are terms of universal negation. All you are doing is playing games with a word that grammatically is a pronoun and making it into a noun. If I had nothing for lunch today, I do not mean that I ate something and it was nothing. If I saw nobody in the office, I do not mean I saw somebody called nobody.

No, no, no. Don't use these red herrings.

Focus on the phrase "nothing exists". Look at that word "exists". What does it mean to "exist"?

You are propagating a silly argument that only exists in the world of the atheist echo chamber. Go ahead, find a serious philosopher who has written on the somethingness of nothingness.

No one I know of, but here's one philosopher who is arguing exactly what LadyForCamus was arguing.

[Little Rik]

Your comment could not be more foolish.  
God also give us the sun.
If you look straight at the sun with your naked eyes for sometime in a clear day you may even go blind.
God doesn't give the sun, the meat the uranium or anything else to get sick.
It is all up to you to make a positive judgment whether something is good or bad or how we should use what we got in order to benefit or suffer from it.  

God never give any permission to eat meat or to get sick in any other way.
Religious people may not agree on meat eating but that is their interpretation of what God supposed to have said.
As far as I am concern God gave us the free will so we can choose what we like and in doing this we may either benefit or suffer from those decisions.  

Never seen such silliness

Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

There were even instructions on what animals could and could not be eaten, of course god gave permission, well assuming that you believe the bible to be true that is.

Here is a good article from a Jewish perspective
http://www.aish.com/atr/Meat-After-the-Flood.html

Didn't I said that religious people give their own interpretation whether meat is good or bad?

If you are really interested in knowing whether the meat is good or bad for humans you should go in any nursing home and ask what is the percentage of meat eater and vegetarian.

I did that an guess what I found.
Out of 70 people I found only one vegetarian.
In reality was not even a real vegetarian because he was eating eggs.
The real vegetarians do not end up in a nursing home with dementia, Alzheimer, Parkinson or any other debilitating disease.
They are smarter than meat eating fools.  

[The Grand Nudger]

You reached your conclusion by wandering around a nursing home asking olds if they ate meat..and you think that being a vegetarian is a talisman against neurological disorders?  Why am I not surprised?

I have to wonder..though, if that were true, how do we explain you? What happened...have you been shame eating bacon double cheeseburgers on the sly?

[SteveII]

Every one would have its own reasons--which are not hard to understand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non...al_gospels). The first and second century Christians identified the four we have as authoritative. There was never any controversy over them from the beginning. Deciding on the canon was a formality--the list had been in use for hundreds of years already. 

You say that from the point of view of the "victor" account.
There were many competing gospels and writings and the people who believed in them would also be Christians.

Also, the list had regional variations.... Some places had a few more, some had others... the canon was the formality that combined the common core from all and did away with anything that wasn't in agreement.

Okay, but for your point to carry any weight, the books that where denied canonization had to contradict the ones that did. As a group, they don't. They were mainly later, added things that probably were not true, and/or from sources that really had no standing to contribute. I am not aware of any serious candidates that contradicted the main themes of the chosen gospels.

I have used this before, so this is not directed at you, but is perhaps a helpful answer nevertheless. 

Here is an inductive line of reasoning:
a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)

Agreed. Some person, possibly a teacher of the "law of god", likely preached in the region and went through all that.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry

If those characters existed, as disciples of the teacher, as students, yes.

c. They presided over the early church

Don't know... As far as I know, there are accounts of Peter going to Rome, but nothing trustworthy. There is the tale of the disagreement of James and Peter, which shows how non-unified those first witnesses were.

In the timeline I am describing, the early church was based in Israel. I would hope there to be some minor disagreements--evidence that these were real people, in real life, and not a sanitized or made up account. The disagreements were always about minor doctrinal points or people talking past each other--never about the main message of Christianity or the person of Jesus and the events surrounding his life. 

d. This early church instructed Paul (for a number of years before he started his own efforts)

On the road to Damascus... go on google maps, see how the road (that doesn't go through the mountains) from Jerusalem to Damascus passes extremely close to the Qumran site...
On the old texts found at that site, you have the description of a monastic society that follows closely some of the main precepts of Jesus' preaching - helping the poor, having no wealth for yourself... and is likely the very origin of John the Baptist... oh and all that seems to date from 2 centuries BC. The concept of the teacher is there. The teacher who battles a force of evil.
Leads one to wonder what did Paul find, but did not say explicitly.

Paul was pretty clear about who he was, what he believed and the centrality of Jesus described later in the Gospels. The only reason to propose another theory is to undermine the story--not because that is where the evidence lead anyone. 

e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)

Sure, if you claim that Paul was the early church.

Paul was converted around 34 AD--four years after Jesus. Paul went to Antioch with Barnabas (a church leader) in 42 AD. He had 8 years to spend with the church leaders. His first solo missionary journey was in 48 AD. That is a lot of time to spend with the apostles and early church leaders. There is no indication that their beliefs about Jesus differed. 

f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels

This I'm curious... what themes?

They all preached that Jesus was God, died on the cross for man's redemption, God desires a relationship with us, and the Christian life that should be the result of those things. 

g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day

And whoever wrote it got his info from?... Jesus' mom?

Jesus' early life? Perhaps--if you believe the early dating of all the Gospels, or from Jesus' brothers. Or it was written down. Who knows. 

h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)

Unsure... the earliest dates we have go to the 60's, right?
That would be pushing the average life expectancy back then...

I did not say during the life of Jesus (although that could have been). I said the editors that wrote the gospels would be alive during the life of an abundance of eyewitnesses--including the names on the books themselves. For example, a 25 year old could have written down everything that a 70 year old man related. There would also be an abundance of rebuttal witnesses available to come forward.

i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book

Could be...

j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.

The several early churches accepted the canon gospels and others. Each church accepting their own set, some acquiring copies from others and coming to accept those as well.

k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

I'm no expert, but I have read people claim that Paul was a somewhat drastic departure from the previous understanding of Christianity.

A fringe theory accepted by almost no one. Nothing in Paul's letters contradicts anything Jesus taught. You have to actually change what Christians have historically understood Paul to be saying, and then point out the conflict. Manufactured contradictions. 

THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

I have no problem accepting that a teacher or a particular cult of Yahweh existed, a cult that preached a simple life, devoted to helping others, while providing a more inclusive interpretation of the old laws.
I do have a huge problem accepting that this person did any miracle... those are most likely, later additions to make the story more impressive. 

None of the events I listed above make ANY sense whatsoever if the divinity of Jesus and his miracles were not believed since the very first day. In another words, there is not a version of Christianity that simply lacks these beliefs and produces any of the effects we see in the first century. This is a typical compromise proposed by atheists--but it's never accompanied by a theory that explains the evidence we have or the effects that were present.

---

In philosophy, 'nothing' (along with nobody, nowhere, none, etc.) are terms of universal negation. All you are doing is playing games with a word that grammatically is a pronoun and making it into a noun. If I had nothing for lunch today, I do not mean that I ate something and it was nothing. If I saw nobody in the office, I do not mean I saw somebody called nobody.

No, no, no. Don't use these red herrings.

Focus on the phrase "nothing exists". Look at that word "exists". What does it mean to "exist"?

You are playing word games.  'Nothing' is a pronoun (not a noun as you need it to be) that denotes negation so your phrase means "not a single thing exists". This is a tired old game.

[possibletarian]

Never seen such silliness

Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

There were even instructions on what animals could and could not be eaten, of course god gave permission, well assuming that you believe the bible to be true that is.

Here is a good article from a Jewish perspective
http://www.aish.com/atr/Meat-After-the-Flood.html

Didn't I said that religious people give their own interpretation whether meat is good or bad?

If you are really interested in knowing whether the meat is good or bad for humans you should go in any nursing home and ask what is the percentage of meat eater and vegetarian.

I did that an guess what I found.
Out of 70 people I found only one vegetarian.
In reality was not even a real vegetarian because he was eating eggs.
The real vegetarians do not end up in a nursing home with dementia, Alzheimer, Parkinson or any other debilitating disease.
They are smarter than meat eating fools.  

No, I'm saying that if eating meat is at the centre of all diseases as you claim, then why did god give permission for people to eat meat..when before they did not ? seems stupid.

Unless of course god does not have as much knowledge as science. or dare i say it, does not even exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

There were all sorts of different versions of christianity that lacked pieces of other versions..and the fact that people believed in all of them at some point or another isn;t indicative of anything beyond that self described fact. The church spent centuries stamping out heresy.................

In any case..I have to ask..if "paul" converted around 34ad.....what "church" was he zealously persecuting beforehand? Bit of a narrative continuity error..there. It only exists, mind you, due to your insistence on a 34ad date. It's easily resolved...but are you willing to do what's necessary to resolve it....? In short, are you determined to assert the legend of paul in order to maintain the fact of paul? Do you think that's wise?

[LadyForCamus]

This is simply not true at all.   Quite the opposite, in fact.  The universe existing necessarily is the only logical explanation, IMO. 


correct.


We could conceive of that world, sure.  But it wouldn’t be nothing.  Nothing cannot “be”, or, “have been” any type of world, or any kind of thing, lol.  Absolute nothingness is a logically incoherent concept, try as we might.  Any “state of affairs” would not be nothing.  It would be some kind of state...with affairs.  ‘Absolute nothing’, is simply an expression of the human mind attempting to comprehend, ‘not any of this’. 

By admitting that we could logically conceive of both a possible world where we have our universe (obviously) and a possible world where it did not exist means precisely that the universe does not 'necessarily' exist.

Perhaps I misspoke.  When I said universe, what I meant, and what I should have said, was existence.  No, we cannot conceive of a world of non-existence.  That is logically incoherent.  We try, but as soon as we employ language to describe what non-existence is, we are logically refuting our own efforts.  As I said before, non-existence, by definition, is not anything, and cannot be anything, including a world.  Becuase a world, Ofc, would be a thing.  😏

We may instinctively attempt to conceive of “nothing” as a way to maintain logical continuity within this ‘cause and effect’ type of experience we’re used to, but “nothing”, described as any kind of thing, is by definition something, not nothing. And, non-existence, by definition, cannot exist.  

Ya’ll get any of that?  😝

In philosophy, 'nothing' (along with nobody, nowhere, none, etc.) are terms of universal negation. All you are doing is playing games with a word that grammatically is a pronoun and making it into a noun.

I’m not playing any kind of game.  I’m using simple, irrefutable logic.  Sorry you don’t like it.  You can call ‘nothing’ bananas if it pleases you.  My point still stands.  There is no logical alternative to existence. Existence exists necessarily, by its very definition.

If I had nothing for lunch today, I do not mean that I ate something and it was nothing. If I saw nobody in the office, I do not mean I saw somebody called nobody.

Not eating lunch and seeing people at work are pretty piss poor, and painfully inadequate comparisons to existence versus non-existence, don’t you think?  It seems to me, that you haven’t decided exactly what you mean when you say, “nothing”.

You are propagating a silly argument that only exists in the world of the atheist echo chamber.

If it’s silly, then refute it.  And btw, I did not come by this via other atheists.  I am capable of thinking for myself, thanks.

Go ahead, find a serious philosopher who has written on the somethingness of nothingness.

Huh?  That’s my whole point.  Nothing cannot be something.  So you agree?  Or, are you not talking about actual nothing?  Are you talking about a Lawrence Krauss type of nothing? Because, that is not, no things.

[GrandizerII]

You are playing word games.  'Nothing' is a pronoun (not a noun as you need it to be) that denotes negation so your phrase means "not a single thing exists". This is a tired old game.

"not a single thing exists" means the same thing as "not-something exists". Just as:

"I had nothing for lunch today" means the same thing as "I had not-something for lunch today", which is equivalent in meaning to "I had not a single thing for lunch today",

and

"I saw nobody in the office" means the same thing as "I saw not-somebody in the office", which is equivalent in meaning to "I saw not a single body in the office".

So no problem so far.

Going back to "nothing exists" which means "not a single thing exists" which means "not-something exists":

"exists" means "is something".

So what you're saying is:

"not-something is something".

And so it looks to be a logical contradiction.

[LadyForCamus]

Steve, try to explain how “nothing” could be actualized as the alternative to something. Go ahead; try it.

---

You are playing word games.  'Nothing' is a pronoun (not a noun as you need it to be) that denotes negation so your phrase means "not a single thing exists". This is a tired old game.

"not a single thing exists" means the same thing as "not-something exists". Just as:

"I had nothing for lunch today" means the same thing as "I had not-something for lunch today", which is equivalent in meaning to "I had not a single thing for lunch today",

and

"I saw nobody in the office" means the same thing as "I saw not-somebody in the office", which is equivalent in meaning to "I saw not a single body in the office".

So no problem so far.

Going back to "nothing exists" which means "not a single thing exists" which means "not-something exists":

"exists" means "is something".

So what you're saying is:

"not-something is something".

And so it looks to be a logical contradiction.

Thank you, that was a perfectly clear and perfectly succinct explanation.  Better than I’m capable of!