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

[SteveII]

An infinite regress of causes is not inherently illogical. You are assuming there is a start, and *then* an infinite sequence of causes. That *would* be problematic (requiring an infinite amount of time, potentially), but that is NOT the situation. Even with an infinite regresss, there is a finite number of causes between any two.

I am not assuming a start--that's nonsense. I am saying that with an actual infinite number of events that must pass before you get to the present event--you will NEVER get to to the present event--ever. Your last sentence is truly silly and has absolutely no basis in reality. 

No, the subatomic particles *are* the fluctuating fields. The fluctuations are uncaused. There is no mechanism for producing fluctuations.

You require the field (which was caused)--so there is no real parallel to the very first event having a cause now is there. So which is it: Did the universe (or multiverse) come about uncaused or are you hanging your hat on the infinite past event concept above?

I'm having difficulty finding a case where Aristotle gets the metaphysics correct. he does OK with basic logic, but even fails with quantifiers.

I'm not specifically a positivist. That philosophers dismiss them, however, doesn't make the position unreasonable. But I am a verificationalist. Ultimately, claims about the real world need to be testable to gain truth value.

You said my metaphysics was faulty. Non-specific complaints about Aristotle has nothing to do with that claim. Should I wait for a response with some substance? 

Fine, you want to hold to a philosophical position that all the professional philosophers reject--that's fine. But any arguments you make using it will be rejected for the very same reasons.

---

Sure. That's why I don't take stranger's experiences as proof of anything. It is entirely rational to take one's own experiences and of those he trusts as evidence. You have no logical grounds to deny this. When you go from the position of "I don't know" to "you are delusional" and "brain-fart" you have assumed the burden of proof by making a positive claim of knowledge. You have no evidence to help shoulder that burden. Instead, your argument seems to amount to "some people are obviously wrong, therefore everyone must be wrong". Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. 

If you, as an eye-witness, claim something happened that directly contradicts known laws of physics that have been extensively tested, I will justifiably conclude you are mistaken and misinterpreted your experience. Unless you have *very, very* good evidence, enough to show the otherwise testable results are wrong, I will make that conclusion. If you persist, I will conclude you are delusional.

You can believe I am mistaken. You cannot know I am mistaken. When call a group of people "delusional" and they are having a "brain fart" you are saying that you know they are wrong. You have made an unjustified logical leap. Gleaning from the rest of your comments, you think you know because you believe beforehand that the supernatural does not exist and miracles cannot happen. But that is the very question you are saying experiences and miracles can't prove. This is a perfect example of question begging. 

And yes, that is fully justified.

And that goes tenfold for writings from a superstitious culture, where the provenience of the writing is unknown, and the claims are 'miracles'. Even if Matthew was an eye-witness, my conclusion is that he was mistaken in his interpretation and/or elaborated on the story for effect.

More question begging. You are assuming your conclusion about the very thing Matthews evidence shows. 

Now, for areas that have not been extensively tested, or where results are ambiguous there are allowances that can be made.

But that is not the case in Biblical myths.

You are just another in a long line of atheists who are so sure their position is right that they feel like Christianity will crumble before your enlightened reasoning. Two things. One, you are not as good at reasoning as you think, and two, there are a thousand books written for every objection that you can come up--written by way smarter people that you. 

Your confidence is so very unwarranted.