(October 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: No, you are changing what you said now.
No I'm not.
Quote: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.
That's actually not what I said so I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my position. My OP specifically says that the arguments, when assumed as true in a "cumulative case for Christian theism" fail. I didn't say they don't "hang together. I said they don't and cannot establish Christianity as true or as more plausible than other theisms in principle.
Quote: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.
No, again with you misrepresenting my positions. I said that even assuming the philosophical arguments and thw historical one, there is no way to logically establish that a person claiming to be an emissary/incarnation of whatever supreme being there may be as true: it's just a claim. And I further elaborated this by pointing out that the historical argument can only show that there were people who believed this, not that it was true.
Quote: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).
Strange to an extent, but not unique. Buddha expressed many (if not all) of those ideas 500 years earlier
Quote: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.
Firstly, this fails because there is no evidence for that. Secondly, that is part of why the historical argument is complete nonsense. It's merely written testimonies by people decades later writing down things from an oral tradition, which originated from what people believed. That's tragically weak. And again, miracles (of which the resurrection is one) were not thought to be unique to God.
Quote:It is a complete idea, whether you take it as truth or not.
Your belief is not the same as truth. You make that mistake a lot.
