MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Mudhammam]

Paul met Peter, huh?

He sure did.

He says he met Cephas, a prominent member of the Jerusalem church, distinguished from "The Twelve" in his first letter to the church in Corinth and only mythologized in the Gospels and Acts later on. So, we know little about Cephas and his supposed relationship to "Lord Yahweh Saves Christ Lamb slain from the foundation of the world of Bethlehem and Nazareth, Nazarene son of Man, God, Joseph, and the Virgin Mary."

How would you know about that?

How do we know anything in history?

A multitude of reputable sources with varying interests AND disinterests and archaeology. How's Christianity do there? Not good.

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

It makes the story believable.

You're not very familiar with ancient literature, are you?

Says Paul.... do you have accounts from other people claiming to have spoken with Paul?

Do you have statements from George Washington listing the names of all of the people that spoke to him? No, you don't...so based on your shitty logic, everyone that claims to have met George Washington and spoke with him...if GW didn't name them in a list of names that he jotted down throughout his life, those people did not speak to him

That kind of shitty logic works both ways.

That was a genuine comparison or an inadvertent example of how little data you have to base your entire life on the God-man-Son of God-spirit-Father versus the first President of the United States whose writings we have first hand including his contemporary friends and critics?

[Jenny A]

H-M,

You keep suggesting we have as much reason to believe in Jesus as we do in George Washington.

So, I'm going to do a little thought experiment in which I adjust the evidence we have for George Washington to match what we have for Jesus. We'll set the stage by re-writing history so the English won the war in 1780 and we're still all living under British rule here in the U.S.

We have a collection of letters written to grange halls between 1810 and 1830 concerning why people should not be taxed without representation. Paul, the writer of these letters claims to have spoken with George Washington in a dream. Rather than talk to George's fellow patriots who were supposed to be living in Boston, Paul goes on a speaking tour through the deep south. According to his letters Paul speaks with George's brother and one of George's early converts four years later. But Paul still only talks about what George revealed to him in his dream. The letters refer to a doctrinal struggle between Paul and other supporters of George Washington.

The letters we have are copies of copies of copies. Some of them are obvious forgeries as they don't match the style of Paul's other letters. Others have obviously been tampered with.

Between 1830 and 1850 several biographies of George Washington are published anonymously. The biographies describe Washington's birth and a couple stories about his childhood. The biographies also talk about what Washington said. Unlike Paul, they quote Washington often and at length concerning a political philosophy that concerns many things in addition to taxation without representation. Three of the biographies are very much alike though they can't agree about the dates for important events in Washington's life. The fourth is quite different. All of them allude to crowds of people following Washington around while he give anti-British speeches. In all of the biographies George Washington is hung by the British for sedition sometime between 1778 and 1785. In one of the biographies American loyalists asked the British to hang him and an American governor was persuaded to do it. All of the biographies state that Washington survived the hanging and fled to Canada after appearing before large cheering crowds in Washington.

The author of the fourth biography also writes a book about how the followers of Washington spread out over the U.S. to preach the good news about democracy. That book includes much about Paul, though it appears to contradict Paul's letters in many places. It suggests that Paul and Washington's followers never had any political disagreements. Paul is shot by a firing squad for sedition.

In the 1890s three people mention in letters that there are followers of George in America who are being harassed for sedition. It's not clear from the letter who George is, but the people following him are sure he was hung.

About 1890 an American traitor living in London writes a history of the American Colonies in which he attributes the philosophy of John Locke to early American Colonists who taught it to the French. He portrays the Blue Ox Babe as a real ox. In a couple of lines towards the end he mentions that there was a great American philosopher named George who convinced the Americans and the French in no taxation without representation sometime in the late 1700s. Parts of these two sentences about George including the claim that he was hung are obviously forged.

From 1890 until about 1980 no one but George Washington seditionists studies George Washington, and what they study is not his life but his political sayings in the four biographies and Paul's letters.

All of these George Washington scholars agree that George existed. Do you?

[Minimalist]

The Library of Congress collection of George Washington's personal papers has a search feature.

Ole George used the phrase "creator" 177 times.

He used the term "Providence" a total of 359 times but many of those seem to refer to Providence, Rhode Island.

The phrase "Jesus Christ" appears once...and that in a letter from his grandfather, Lawrence Washington, in 1698.


Just saying........

[Anomalocaris]

The Library of Congress collection of George Washington's personal papers has a search feature.

Ole George used the phrase "creator" 177 times.

He used the term "Providence" a total of 359 times but many of those seem to refer to Providence, Rhode Island.

The phrase "Jesus Christ" appears once...and that in a letter from his grandfather, Lawrence Washington, in 1698.


Just saying........

Still, it would have been an infinite improvement upon the HM that blabs now to start to disbelieve both Washington and Jesus

[His_Majesty]

Historical characters are not commonly claiming to be gods.
Unless you count pharaohs...

Um, so what? I am just talking about Jesus the man...not Jesus the God.

But, you know.... there is a gospel attributed to Peter... how about you tell me if he wrote down about his meeting with Paul? It would be rather significant, if he did, don't you think?
Also significant if he didn't...

No, I don't. I met my "girlfriend" former WNBA player Deanna Nolan (such a pretty thang)...I met her...and it was a great moment of my life...but guess what... I didn't write a damn book about it

That's how you like it!
You see, the claim of one person isn't really of that much worth.

Bullshit...because if I wanted to play the role of "super skeptic", I could say that all of the contemporary sources (people that made the claim) are lying. So no matter how many witnesses you give me, if my theory is that they were all lying, then your sources wouldn't mean to much of anything.

After all, you can't prove that they aren't lying...you simply accept by faith that they are all telling the truth...and unless you are calling Paul a flat out LIAR, then it shouldn't be so hard to accept the fact that Paul met Peter and James brother of Jesus, just like he said.

Many people in ancient times made claims... some are considered trustworthy, while others aren't. This trustworthiness is based on corroborating evidence... corroborating writings (as independent as possible), corroborating archeological findings, etc...

Right, and the corroborating evidence for Jesus is based on Jewish history, the origin of Christianity, the non-Christians sources I provided here, four Gospels, and the early Christian Church....and I didn't even mention Paul's epistles, since that is what is in question, but if you factor in that, you are making a case for the historical Jesus.

I mean hell, that is what historians are basing the case for Jesus on anyway.

For your case of Paul meeting Peter, do you have any such corroborating evidence?

No, just like no one would have any corroborating evidence of me meeting Deanna Nolan...either I am lying when I say I met her, or I am telling the truth, and I don't think Paul is lying...especially if he was already stating that he had been ordained by the Holy Spirit...if he was already chosen by God or if he BELIEVED he had been chosen by God, then why would he need Peter? He wouldn't, but since he was simply telling the story how it is, he mentioned it.

You may learn something from this...




Note that George actually sent letters to some people and signed them!
Not all, I grant that... it would be ludicrous to consider he would document all people he ever had contact with... but a few... it's to be expected!
And that's what we have.

Wait a minute, how do you know they are from him? Because that is what it says? Because that is what someone told you? So I can send a letter to myself and say that the rapper Lil Wayne sent it to me, right?

Why do you believe that GW actually wrote the letters? Were you there? Because it says he did??

We can systematically deny anything now, can't we.

sad... sad....

Here is some advice; Never send mail to a nomad

---

He says he met Cephas, a prominent member of the Jerusalem church, distinguished from "The Twelve" in his first letter to the church in Corinth and only mythologized in the Gospels and Acts later on. So, we know little about Cephas and his supposed relationship to "Lord Yahweh Saves Christ Lamb slain from the foundation of the world of Bethlehem and Nazareth, Nazarene son of Man, God, Joseph, and the Virgin Mary."

Somebody tell this guy that Cephas is the aramaiac equivilent to the name "Peter"

Whewwww ignorance.

---

Paul writes between 51 and 58 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles That is twenty to thirty years after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened.

Twenty to thirty is misleading...His earliest epistles can be said to have been written around 20 years after the cross, and the lastest is in the early 60's AD.

He does not claim to know what Jesus said in the flesh.

He knew about the Resurrection, tho. That is the main thing. He obviously knew about the Resurrection.

Instead he says,

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Having had that revelation he did not go to Jerusalem to talk with those who had actually seen Jesus. Instead, he preached in Arabia and Damascus. [quote]But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Galatians 1:15-17

Only three years after that does he go to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James.

Um, Jenny..regardless of when he went to meet Peter, the point is he WENT TO MEET PETER, who was a contemporary account to the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus. That is the only point that I made in that regard, and you are giving scriptures as if that somehow contradicts what I said, that Peter met Paul and James...you said ALLLLL of that as if that was a defeater of what I said, only to, at the very end, CONFIRM what I said

[quote='Jenny A' pid='807818' dateline='1417465135']
Does it bother you that in his letters Paul claims only to have seen Jesus in a vision?

Um, no it doesn't, and I am not even sure that he was talking about the vision he experienced on the road to Damascus...it could have been two separate accounts, one vision, and one physical.

His account of the last supper is also visionary. If he knew of Jesus personally, or spoke to people who did why is it that he never alludes to any of the details of Jesus' life.

Because that is what the Gospels are for...you ever heard of "motive"..or "purpose" in writing?...his purpose wasn't to give an account of Jesus' life...we have four Gospels for that...Paul's purpose was to keep the early Church on track, and instruct Christians on how to live productive, Christ-like lives.

Nor does he ever speak of the teachings of Jesus.

Nothing that he said contradicts Jesus' teaching.

For Paul the death and resurrection are everything. His Jesus is unearthly being known only through revelation.

It doesn't matter whether it was earthly or divine relevation...if what he said happened ACTUALLY happened, then how does this not confirm Christianity.

But they aren't really historians are they? They are theologians and like the theologian archeologists likely to assume the truth of the Bible rather than test it as a real historian would.

Again, not all of them are theologicans...and I will ask you once more..IF the majority of all "scholars" were Christians...why would they go around saying "The majority of scholars believe that Jesus existed"...which would be the same as saying "The majority of us Christians believe that Jesus existed"....makes no sense.

If you cite him as authority, and you have, it's your problem. Rely on your own evidence and it isn't. But you don't want to rely on the evidence do you? You want to rely on the "vast majority historians."

I don't recall relying on him as a source..and if I did, please tell me where?

Because you rely on him and men like him. You have used him as authority. And he's part of that "vast majority" you keeping referring to.

So what if I based my case primarily on Bart Ehrmans work, who isn't a Christian? Then what will be the excuse?

[Minimalist]

What is significant is that is that within a year of Washington's death there were bullshit legends about him circulating, including the famed cherry-tree bullshit. There were still living members of his family at the time as well as friends, former soldiers, acquaintances, and enemies around but still this story gained traction?

How much easier to create bullshit stories about jebus-the-never-was?

[His_Majesty]

---

[quote='His_Majesty' pid='806735' dateline='1417399519']

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Your reading comprehension skills are piss poor, bro.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

I like the ID model better.

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

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!

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:

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.

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?

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?

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?

Because life through infinite duration is impossible.

Oh look, another thing you haven't demonstrated!

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

*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.

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 can have the last word, for now. Right now, I have bigger fish to fry.

[Minimalist]

We can only hope.

[Esquilax]

You can have the last word, for now. Right now, I have bigger fish to fry.

It's okay, you can run. You don't need to pretend that you'll come back later. It's pretty clear you never had anything worth saying to begin with, and your habit of completely dropping subjects and people you can't handle has been well noticed by everyone else.

Wait a minute, how do you know they are from him? Because that is what it says? Because that is what someone told you? So I can send a letter to myself and say that the rapper Lil Wayne sent it to me, right?

Why do you believe that GW actually wrote the letters? Were you there? Because it says he did?? ROFLOL

We can systematically deny anything now, can't we.

I'm literally amazed that nobody has reported you for violation of rule one for continuing with this repetitive, strawmanning crap yet.

[The Valkyrie]

---

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.


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."


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.


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.


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.


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


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?


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


Argument from personal incredulity.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


Strawman again. You're utterly pathetic.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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:


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.


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?


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


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?


Oh look, another thing you haven't demonstrated!


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.


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.


*Life that began, that is.

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.

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.

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.

*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.

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 can have the last word, for now. Right now, I have bigger fish to fry."




About time you got back to frying fish.

and yes, I do want fries with that!