Jesus as Lord - why is this appealing to so many?

[The Grand Nudger]

Christianity crumbled a long time ago, the rubble that's left stands as a monument to that.

[polymath257]

if there is an infinite regress of causes, an infinite number have already passed at any point, so there is no problem. The only problem is if there is a *start* to that infinite sequence.

I do not know whether there was an infinite chain of causes in the universe or not. In either case, the universe as a whole is uncaused. But that is a necessity since causality part of the universe, not vice versa.

Faulty metaphysics? How about anything to do with 'potential existence'? Aristotle is also very poor about causality and the notion of substance.

That all philosophers reject something isn't necessarily a problem. Most scientists accept it. They do so because it works.

No, it is NOT a example of question begging. It is a question of quality of the evidence and whether it is suitable for the conclusion made. Anyone making a claim of a violation of well-tested physical laws has an enormous burden of proof. Mere personal anecdotes are simply not sufficient. Nor, for that matter, are writings of uncertain provenience making such claims.

I am not making the assumption that Matthew (assuming he was the author) is wrong. I am making the conclusion he was. His proposed evidence is not even close to being sufficient to make his claims worthy.

And the belief in a supernatural *is* warranted? Please!

[Amarok]

Nope the burden of proof is always on the person making a positive claim 

Theist i claim that a god exists 

Atheist i don't accept that claim because you just asserted it without evidence . 

Theist here's some dumb foolish absurd crap that i slap the title evidence on to 

Atheist i reject it as just that

[SteveII]

if there is an infinite regress of causes, an infinite number have already passed at any point, so there is no problem. The only problem is if there is a *start* to that infinite sequence.

Your first sentence is a contradiction. It is impossible to count to infinity with successive addition. Think about it: what number plus 1 gets you to infinity? Looking at that in reverse, if there were an infinite number of events in the past you would never count down from the past to 3...2...1...present event. The present would never arrive. Saying silly things like if you never *start* does nothing to solve it. 

I do not know whether there was an infinite chain of causes in the universe or not. In either case, the universe as a whole is uncaused. But that is a necessity since causality part of the universe, not vice versa.

You seem to be saying that causality only applies within the universe and not before it. Setting aside that there are a whole bunch of cosmologists (scientists) that are looking for the cause of the universe, you are making a metaphysical claim and not a scientific one. But as we found out in your previous posts, you espouse verificationism. How do you justify making a such a metaphysical claim when (see my highlighted sections below):

Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics. Such statements may be meaningful in influencing emotions or behavior, but not in terms of truth value, information or factual content.[1] Verificationism was a central thesis of logical positivism, a movement in analytic philosophy that emerged in the 1920s by the efforts of a group of philosophers who sought to unify philosophy and science under a common naturalistic theory of knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism

Unless of course you can verify that the causal principle does not apply beyond our universe. 

Faulty metaphysics? How about anything to do with 'potential existence'? Aristotle is also very poor about causality and the notion of substance.

That all philosophers reject something isn't necessarily a problem. Most scientists accept it. They do so because it works.

So...you don't have anything about MY faulty metaphysics do you?

No, it is NOT a example of question begging. It is a question of quality of the evidence and whether it is suitable for the conclusion made. Anyone making a claim of a violation of well-tested physical laws has an enormous burden of proof. Mere personal anecdotes are simply not sufficient. Nor, for that matter, are writings of uncertain provenience making such claims.

How in the world do you know the quality of someone's experience!! You have dismissed literally billions of people's experience as "deluded" and "brain-fart" (statements of absolute certainty) based on a burden of proof that you set that these people's experiences cannot meet. You are still question begging--just with more words. 

I am not making the assumption that Matthew (assuming he was the author) is wrong. I am making the conclusion he was. His proposed evidence is not even close to being sufficient to make his claims worthy.

Why just Matthew? Why not lump all 27 books and the 8 or so authors together? I'm glad to see you are calling it evidence--it warms my heart that I have gotten through. Evaluating evidence is subjective. Your burden of proof is not the same as mine or the next guy. Yes or no...can you say for certain that Jesus did not do the things that were claimed in the NT? Trick alert: if you say "yes" you are question begging because you do not have any rebuttal evidence (let along conclusive rebuttal evidence). 

And the belief in a supernatural *is* warranted? Please!

Billions of people find the evidence sufficient to warrant belief. I am not making an argument from popularity--just an observation that a lot of people have viewed the evidence more thoroughly than you have and come to a different conclusion. This should give you pause to how sure you are they are "deluded".

[polymath257]

First, if there were an infinite regress of causes, you would simply always be counting. it isn't a matter of counting up or down from infinity, but simply of always counting.

Those physicists that are searching for the cause of the universe do so within a multiverse model. In that case, the universe of our discourse is the multiverse and time *is* infinite into the past for the multiverse.

Yes, it is a claim. Causality is a well-established part of physics and even in QM, there is the assumption in field theories of causal independence outside of light cones. ALL causality happens withing the universe (or multiverse if you go up to that sort of system).

How about: all known causes are physical causes. There is no reason to suspect anything other.

Well, I don't know about your specific metaphysics, but if it is based on Aristotle (which so much is), then it is guaranteed to be faulty. But feel free to elaborate on your views.

yes, it is called delusional when someone's views are contradictory to reality. Since your view requires well-tested physical laws be violated, it is much, much more likely to have a billion deluded people than that. Not much different than those believing the earth to be flat. They are deluded also. I don't need to know the internal quality of their experience to know it to be delusional.

I'm quite willing to lump the other 'eye-witnesses' together in this. Of course, most of the claims to be eye-witnesses are not validated by the evidence. But yes, the claims of supernatural events in the Bible are delusional. There are historical events that are possible to independently validate (Tiglath Puileser), but others that have been falsified (Exodus, anyone?).

Billions of people also believe in many other superstitions, from crystal power, to Bigfoot, to Yahweh. Numbers don't count for determining truth, I think you will agree.

And some have investigated the evidence more than both of us together and disagree with you. The more someone studies, the less they tend to believe the literal words.

[The Grand Nudger]

Billions of people find the evidence sufficient to warrant belief. I am not making an argument from popularity--

Yes you are, so stop?

[vorlon13]

Nope the burden of proof is always on the person making a positive claim 

Theist i claim that a god exists 

Atheist i don't accept that claim because you just asserted it without evidence . 

Theist here's some dumb foolish absurd crap that i slap the title evidence on to 

Atheist i reject it as just that

And your theist there is also simultaneously rejecting God claims from the Mormons, Druids, Wiccans and pretty much everyone else who doesn't live in his neighborhood.

Why the fuck is atheism such a difficult concept to wrap their heads around ??? It's all the God claims, not just all the God claims except one.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because their magic book is totally different from everyone else's magic book.  If you weren't such a rebellious sinning pretender you would see that.

[GrandizerII]

if there is an infinite regress of causes, an infinite number have already passed at any point, so there is no problem. The only problem is if there is a *start* to that infinite sequence.

Your first sentence is a contradiction. It is impossible to count to infinity with successive addition. Think about it: what number plus 1 gets you to infinity? Looking at that in reverse, if there were an infinite number of events in the past you would never count down from the past to 3...2...1...present event. The present would never arrive. Saying silly things like if you never *start* does nothing to solve it.

Good thing we don't have to worry about all this anyway (except purely for the sake of intellectual stimulation and nothing more), considering the implications of modern cosmology/physics with regards to time and causality and all that.

[SteveII]

Your first sentence is a contradiction. It is impossible to count to infinity with successive addition. Think about it: what number plus 1 gets you to infinity? Looking at that in reverse, if there were an infinite number of events in the past you would never count down from the past to 3...2...1...present event. The present would never arrive. Saying silly things like if you never *start* does nothing to solve it.

Good thing we don't have to worry about all this anyway (except purely for the sake of intellectual stimulation and nothing more), considering the implications of modern cosmology/physics with regards to time and causality and all that.

You just said we don't have to worry about your favored eternal universe theory being logically impossible because...why? Even B-theory of time affirms causality and a direction of causality. You don't escape the problem one bit.