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

[DeistPaladin]

You know what I love?

One minute, the bible is the inerrant word of God.

But when I point out that God says he created good and evil, suddently there are "translation errors".

Or this is when they play the game of "When the Bible says... it really means..."

Ridiculously obtuse interpretations follow to make the Bible say what they want it to say.

---

One God...three individuals.

Which is it?

If your answer is "both", explain how that's possible. Good luck.

It would only be polytheistic if the Trinity represented three different Gods..but since they are the same God, that make it monotheistic.

But they are three different gods. You just said they are three individuals. Earlier, you said "three separate persons". Since they are separate, this makes them three gods.

Polytheism.

Who said they are the same being?? See, that is a misrepresentation of the Trinity...

I can't misrepresent what's never explained.

You keep saying "one god". So one being then, since a god is a being.

The Father: Creator, Four Omni's, Supernatural, Eternal
The Son: Creator, Four Omni's, Supernatural, Eternal
The Holy Spirit: Creator, Four Omni's, Supernatural, Eternal

I'm going to assume "four omni's" is your way of shorthand for "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent" but please correct me if I'm wrong. Needless to say this opens up a can of worms if you just assert such things about one being, never mind three. I'm going to paraphrase what the ancient Greeks nailed long ago:

• Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
  
• Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not omnibenevolent.
  
• Is God willing and able to prevent evil but just not aware of where and when evil is happening? Then he is neither omnisient nor omnipresent.
  
• If God is willing and able to prevent evil and aware of when and where evil is happening, whence commeth evil?
  

Additionally, any one of these omni words completely fails philosophically. This YouTube poster described why in great detail so I'll save myself some typing and invite you to let him educate you:

Every single attribute of one, the other two also has...they are of the same essence...the same nature...the same Deity.

We've seen in my quotations in the Bible that Jesus has a subordinate will to his father (not omnipotent), lacks knowledge his father has (not omniscient), travels from one place to another (not omnipresent) and admits his morality is inferior to his father's (not omnibenevolent).

Also, simply sharing traits does not make them the "same deity". The gods of other mythologies share traits of great power, immortality and strange need to be worshiped. This does not make them any less polytheistic.

These gods also assumed earthly avatars. Isis, Odin and the Greek gods were known in stories to assume an earthly avatar and walk among the mortals. This does not make their avatar a separate person because the avatar isn't a person at all, just a human suit that the god controls and roams around in.

In another work of fiction: the character Jake Sully remains Jake Sully whether he's in his human form or walking about inside of his Navi avatar.

You believe in a paradox. If you seriously want to defend all parts of it, you're going to have to do better than this. Good luck.

Rank and roles doesn't have anything to do with nature...

But they do underscore how these three gods of yours are separate persons. You can't be a separate person and be the same god. Or you need to do a better job of explaining how it is possible.

They don't have separate will's. The human side of Jesus did not want to go through what was about to come, which is like if I see a busty woman walking down the street, the flesh side of me want to go after her, but the spiritual side of me wants to fight the good fight against sexual temptation.

There is no "flesh side" of you. You feel an impulse because of hormones and how they interact with your brain. The hormones are not people. They're not conscious beings. You're injecting a lot of needless woo on matters that science has better explained.

So the father and son do have separate wills, and one submits to the other. Ergo, they are not the same god.

He wasn't talking to himself, he was talking to the Father, who is the first person of the Trinity.

So they are separate beings and therefore separate gods. OR they're the same god and he's talking to himself. Make up your mind.

...just to spew the same crap you've been spewing?

...says the man who believes in one god in three separate persons.

[Strider]

Man you people kill me...every time someone disagrees with evolution they always have to get accused of being ignorant of the theory..."you just don't know what evolution is....you just don't understand it", as if the theory of evolution is this secret society and only those that believe in it can fully understand what is...bullshit.

We don't believe in evolution, not because of what we don't understand, we don't believe in evolution because of what we DO understand....and with respect to Mr. Hovind, the man has a longggg history of debating evolutionists, and he actually debated three evolutionists at one time...and during his lectures, he actually quotes and uses illustrations from actual biology books, right there on the projector screen, for all to see. So in the video, it isn't as if he is willing to have his beliefs challenged, he was actually out there on the forefront willing to debate anyone on the theory, and has debated many evolutionists, from the likes of Massimo Pigluicci, to Kenneth Miller, to Eugenie Scott.

So you can say what you want about Mr. Hovind, but you can't ever accuse him of getting his ass handed to him in any debate on the subject of evolution...but the same can't be said for the evolutionist that he's debated.

You act like Hovnid has added credibility because he debated three evolutionists at once; it doesn't. All his willingness to debate shows is that he believes in the river of bullshit he vomits.

During his presentations, he shows illustrations and segments of biology books? Is this supposed to be impressive? We do the same fucking thing with bible verses here and theists casually dismiss those. Are we supposed to "oooo" and "aaaah" at his weaksauce attempts to purposefully misrepresent and distort textbooks to fit his twisted version of events?

Just to be clear, Hovind is a raving psychotic. He readily dismisses available evidence because it won't fit into his juvenile, fantasy view of reality. It's already been mentioned several times, but he is also a felon - a guy who has been convicted of defrauding the IRS, mail fraud, obstruction and impeding tax laws, and other crimes. Do you not think that a guy willing to lie and break the law would be above lying and distorting the truth about anything else?

Damn, take the blinders off already.

[abaris]

Man you people kill me...every time someone disagrees with evolution they always have to get accused of being ignorant of the theory..."you just don't know what evolution is....you just don't understand it", as if the theory of evolution is this secret society and only those that believe in it can fully understand what is...bullshit.

Recent posts of yours have shown, you don't even have an understanding of the basics. Obviously you only read apologist takes on evolution and they're as ignorant as you on the topic.

And what's that about Howind? Why so you present a quack with a mail degree from a non accredited university as some sort of authority? Is that supposed to impress us in any way? Even more so, since his degree is, in what was it again, something like christian education.

[Strider]

Even more so, since his degree is, in what was it again, something like christian education.

An oxymoron if one ever existed.

[robvalue]

Yeah, you gotta have faith in evolution before the truth of evolution reveals itself to you.

Wouldn't that be a stupid system.

[Esquilax]

Man you people kill me...every time someone disagrees with evolution they always have to get accused of being ignorant of the theory..."you just don't know what evolution is....you just don't understand it", as if the theory of evolution is this secret society and only those that believe in it can fully understand what is...bullshit.

I've made a thread asking this exact question in the past: is there anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution who actually fully understands it? The answer I tentatively came to is no, and the reason for that is I've yet to see someone who doesn't accept evolution- both in the thread and out- that didn't have some major misconceptions about what it is and what it does. If you see this accusation that you don't understand evolution as a major theme of your discussions about it, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you genuinely don't understand it, rather than spinning it into some grand conspiracy theory to dismiss what you're saying.

Because I'll tell you this right now: Macro/micro-evolution? Not a part of evolutionary theory. Kinds? Not a part of science let alone evolutionary theory. Cosmic evolution? Not a part of evolutionary theory. You crow about how much you and Hovind understand evolution, but the major tentpole arguments that both you and he use (Hovind actually goes on to expand his "cosmic evolution" argument to include a few more things, most of which also aren't evolution) aren't even discussing the topic you purport to know about. How much can you really understand, if the majority of your arguments are so bad they aren't even addressing the topic?

I'm sorry you're frustrated that people keep reminding you of your ignorance regarding this theory, but the fact that you refuse to even entertain the possibility that you don't know absolutely everything isn't our problem. You genuinely do not understand evolution: either learn about it, or get over it.

But I'll tell you this for free: you're not going to convince everyone by lying and distorting information.

We don't believe in evolution, not because of what we don't understand, we don't believe in evolution because of what we DO understand...

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, H_M? It's this metacognitive bias, all humans share it, where people who are uneducated in a given subject tend to vastly overestimate their own prowess in that subject, as they don't know how much there still is for them to learn. Conversely, people who do understand that subject tend to underestimate themselves, given that they're cognizant of ll the factors involved and know how easy it is to fail.

I'd say you fall into the former category with regards to evolution, and that's why you eat up Hovind's nonsense. Because, and I want to be clear on this, literally a few seconds of research will show that the things he, and you talk about aren't even connected to evolution. But because you don't understand this, because you don't understand even basic things about the biological sciences, you've mistaken it to be as simplistic as your view of it is. There's no shame in that if you correct it, but you've been singularly resistant to any intimation that you might be wrong on any point in the past, so I doubt you'll even consider the idea that there might be more for you to learn.

.and with respect to Mr. Hovind, the man has a longggg history of debating evolutionists, and he actually debated three evolutionists at one time...and during his lectures, he actually quotes and uses illustrations from actual biology books, right there on the projector screen, for all to see. So in the video, it isn't as if he is willing to have his beliefs challenged, he was actually out there on the forefront willing to debate anyone on the theory, and has debated many evolutionists, from the likes of Massimo Pigluicci, to Kenneth Miller, to Eugenie Scott.

Uh, your pal William Lane Craig does debates too, even after he admitted in both print and speech that he would never change his beliefs, even if he was given conclusive proof that his god did not exist. There are plenty of reasons someone could do debates other than having their beliefs challenged; in Craig's and Hovind's case, it's probably publicity and money.

So you can say what you want about Mr. Hovind, but you can't ever accuse him of getting his ass handed to him in any debate on the subject of evolution...but the same can't be said for the evolutionist that he's debated.

Sure I can accuse him of that, just as I can accuse him, and the people who lap up his garbage, of being intellectually incapable of seeing just how badly he performs in debates on these subjects.

Tell you what: let me demonstrate that. What's the "best" Hovind debate, in your opinion? Post a link to it, lemme see.

[robvalue]

Thing is, I've seen a theist and atheist comment on the same debate, and both sides think their representative crushed the other one.

The victory conditions are very different I think.

[Esquilax]

Thing is, I've seen a theist and atheist comment on the same debate, and both sides think their representative crushed the other one.

The victory conditions are very different I think.

Which is why I'll be looking exclusively at Hovind's factual case, as I think it'd be pretty hard for anyone to argue that he's winning a debate in which his position is factually incorrect. I don't really care about declaring a winner or a loser, just autopsying the man's reasons.

[abaris]

Which is why I'll be looking exclusively at Hovind's factual case, as I think it'd be pretty hard for anyone to argue that he's winning a debate in which his position is factually incorrect. I don't really care about declaring a winner or a loser, just autopsying the man's reasons.

Fact is, he can't win, since his position is in fact incorrect by every standard.

[robvalue]

For sure. The theist participant thinks they have won if they can bombard the opponent with so much shit they don't have time to dispute it all, or they run them in circles with malformed questions.

You think someone with God on their side could manage something more impressive.

I honestly don't know if people are just too lazy to open up Wikipedia and read for 5 minutes, or whether they just aren't interested in learning. Or they read, but it goes through a "theist filter". This applies to the professional dishonesters too.