(October 29, 2013 at 12:28 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:(October 29, 2013 at 2:55 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: MindForgedManacle's original post to which I was responding claimed that the arguments made by Christians can not be taken together. The claim that there was a disconnect between the first set of arguments and the last two.
I was asking for clarification on this point. He made no case as to the fact that it was made-up and therefor irrelevant.
Actually, I thought I had. My point was is that the philosophical arguments establish a supreme being, and all the historical argument could do even in principle is establish that there was an individual whom claimed to be an emissary or incarnation of that supreme being. But worse, all that argument can do is inform one that there were people who believed said individual was from that supreme being. Even if it could be demonstrated (it can't) that said person actually performed miracles, even that wouldn't do so. Christians don't believe only God can perform miracles, and the Bible itself refutes his claim (Pharaoh's magicians, demons/angels, priests), even at one point going so far as to say that even the elect can be deceived by the miracles of false prophets.
That is the disconnect: Even if I assume the truth of both the philosophical and religious arguments (neither of which are good or work), they don't even establish Christian theism, not as more plausible than ANY other theism, in any case.
No, you are changing what you said now.
The original post presented several arguments that Christians use in regards to proving their stance. Your claim was that they did not hold together, and the only argument you made to plausibility was as a side note to remind the reader that you did not take the arguments as fact in either case.
You claimed that there is a disconnect in reason between a supreme being and His ability to become a man. I disagree. If something is all powerful it can therefore do all things. This idea has no disconnect in itself, whether you take it as truth or not.
Christ's "proof" that he was God was not just in miracles, but in actions and presentation of a ideas that were completely strange (like loving your enemy, and the poor inheriting the Earth). He also rose from the dead of His own volition. I think that helped seal the deal. This idea connects back the to idea that God could so all things.
It is a complete idea, whether you take it as truth or not.
". . . let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist." -G. K. Chesterton
