RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 5:47 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 5:48 am by Light of Truth.)
CreedofHeresy
Um, no. To quote from Tacitus: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilatus." He clearly mentions the "man himself." How is Jesus but an afterthought to Josephus? He says some of the same things Tacitus does. For instance, they both reference Pontius Pilat.
Also, how do you disregard Papias' writings of Mark writing Peter's (an eye witness) account of Jesus (not just the man, but his divinity)?
I gave another possibility - "the universe came out of nothing." Did you skip over that part of my post, perhaps?
Norfolk and Chance
How is it hardly a "biggie" if Jesus did exist? Did you even read all of my post? Or did you just copy and paste? Papias' writings of Mark add to the veracity of the gospels, which would, in turn, add to the veracity of Jesus' divinity. That is a HUGE deal.
You say that none of the argument is any evidence of god/the supernatural. How so? If Mark's gospel is reliable, per Papias' writings, then Jesus would be divine. Therefore, he is god and did create the universe. All of that comes with his divinity. All that has to be proven is Mark's account because the other two synoptic gospels are derived from him. The above is a good argument for the veracity of Mark, which would prove that god exists.
Forsaken
I am an atheist and do not believe that god(s) exist for, presumably, a lot of the same reasons you do. I just don't disregard things as easily as you. I am not "absolutely sure" of anything. Some Christians may be, but I am not a Christian. Why are you lumping me in with them? All I am saying is that the case can be seen as a good one because of evidence. So, we both say that the universe "possibly" has always existed. Why can't it be the same for god(s)? There is no evidence that proves contrary. We have no knowledge of what was before the big bang. No knowledge at all. How can you be so quick to disregard things that you have no evidence for when you, apparently, seem so high on the concept of evidence?
Quote: Tacitus also briefly mentions followers of 'Christus' but never mentions the man himself.
Um, no. To quote from Tacitus: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilatus." He clearly mentions the "man himself." How is Jesus but an afterthought to Josephus? He says some of the same things Tacitus does. For instance, they both reference Pontius Pilat.
Also, how do you disregard Papias' writings of Mark writing Peter's (an eye witness) account of Jesus (not just the man, but his divinity)?
Quote: Actually no, the universe has NOT always existed.
I gave another possibility - "the universe came out of nothing." Did you skip over that part of my post, perhaps?
Norfolk and Chance
Quote: So jesus might have been real? Well it's hardly a biggie even if true.
The thing is, I can't believe anybody cares to argue the case for the existence of jesus, it's just a distraction.
The real argument is whether god is real and supernatural. None of the above stated is even close to evidence for that.
How is it hardly a "biggie" if Jesus did exist? Did you even read all of my post? Or did you just copy and paste? Papias' writings of Mark add to the veracity of the gospels, which would, in turn, add to the veracity of Jesus' divinity. That is a HUGE deal.
You say that none of the argument is any evidence of god/the supernatural. How so? If Mark's gospel is reliable, per Papias' writings, then Jesus would be divine. Therefore, he is god and did create the universe. All of that comes with his divinity. All that has to be proven is Mark's account because the other two synoptic gospels are derived from him. The above is a good argument for the veracity of Mark, which would prove that god exists.
Forsaken
Quote: Who created your god?
We say that there is a "possibility" of the universe existing forever. You religionist are "absolutely sure" that your god exists, but fall short of providing any evidence.
Nevertheless, the "arguments for" the existence of your god are very weak; so unless you can prove with demonstrable proof that your god exists, a universe existing without god has a better probability of existing than an universe with one.
I am an atheist and do not believe that god(s) exist for, presumably, a lot of the same reasons you do. I just don't disregard things as easily as you. I am not "absolutely sure" of anything. Some Christians may be, but I am not a Christian. Why are you lumping me in with them? All I am saying is that the case can be seen as a good one because of evidence. So, we both say that the universe "possibly" has always existed. Why can't it be the same for god(s)? There is no evidence that proves contrary. We have no knowledge of what was before the big bang. No knowledge at all. How can you be so quick to disregard things that you have no evidence for when you, apparently, seem so high on the concept of evidence?
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
