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

[Esquilax]

If what you said above is synonymous with my belief of life only coming from life, and consciousness only coming from consciousness, then yeah, I believe it.

But you don't believe life always comes from life, or consciousness from consciousness; you believe god didn't come from something else that was alive, and he's conscious without coming from another consciousness.

So it makes more sense to you to believe that a mindless and blind process was able to create consciousness and vision? It couldn't think, but it created the mind...and it couldn't see, but it created vision?

It doesn't matter what makes sense to me, or to you, or to anyone. Like Min said, that's the argument from personal incredulity, but what you believe makes sense isn't the arbiter of reality. It doesn't make sense that light can be both a wave and a particle, but the double slit experiment still exists. What intuitively makes sense to an untrained single person is not an accurate reflection of reality.

What matters is what the evidence supports, and we simply have no evidence anywhere of an intelligent designer. We do have evidence that nature exists, and that evolution happens, so the balance of probability favors the latter over the former, right now.

If believing in that is the price of atheism, I will stick with my intelligent design theory.

Oh, it's not. It's a false dichotomy made up by assholes like you so they can peddle the argument from personal incredulity to other dullards like themselves. I'm glad to see you're both a shill for it and a dupe of it yourself; your credibility could always go lower than it already is.

Actually, I believe it all came from something....God.

... Who itself came from nothing. Don't forget to finish the sentence next time, conman.

I just can't get myself to believe that life can come from nonliving material...not just any life, but intelligent life. Can't do it.

Argument from personal incredulity again. Since when were you the dictator of what is and isn't possible? And if you aren't, then who the fuck cares what you can or can't make sense of? Astrophysics doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I don't have the arrogance to proclaim that therefore astrophysics doesn't exist. When did you stop trying to learn things, by the way? And what was the motivation that got you to stop and decide that anything you don't understand after that point just doesn't exist? Let me guess: it was religion, right?

Could you imagine if you behaved this way earlier on in your life? Like say, if you arbitrarily decided to stop learning and decided you understood everything that exists when you were a toddler? You'd be sitting here telling us that toilets must not exist because you can't get yourself to believe that there's a special kind of chair filled with water that makes poop disappear.

See how ineffective your argument is now? "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist" is not even a cogent thought, unless you actually think that you understand everything that exists. And if you're not going to claim that, then what basis do you have for arguing that something can't be true because you don't get it?

Golem spell? You believe that nature performed a golem spell, too!!!! Your Mother nature is apparently more powerful than my god, because your mother nature was able to do it without thinking, or seeing. My God actually had to think and see to create...your's didn't.

No, because my position is that we don't know how life formed on earth just yet. Unlike you, I haven't thoughtlessly subscribed to the nonsensical blitherings of bronze age goat herders. Of the two of us, only one has the ridiculous view that golem spells are real, and it's not me.

You say that shit as if there is evidence for abiogenesis

Miller-Urey experiments, John Oros' experiments. That is literally one hundred percent more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for intelligent design, even though the experiments themselves only resolve the initial building blocks of life.

Now, instead of just sneering like a jackass while everyone else presents the scientific evidence you keep saying is so important, how about you present some yourself for the first fucking time?

Right...when I see or hear about magic, I expect there to exist a magician at the beginning/end of it. Since when have you seen/heard of a magic trick performed without the magician...makes a lot of since, doesn't it?

Never seen a mirage, or optical illusion?

Which is, of course, beside the point that you're making an apriori assumption that magic was, indeed, involved in the development of life on earth.

I've never seen life from nonliving material, or intelligence from non-intelligence.

Every single baby that was ever born started out as non-living atoms before the formation of a zygote- the biological matter for sperm and eggs didn't just appear, after all- and every single developing fetus started out non-intelligent before the brain and nervous system develops. Child development is a natural process, and we see it happen all the time; your contention is that it's only possible due to magic creation spells.

Demonstrate this, or admit that you have no justification for believing that it is true.

Looks like someone is upset. I understand, naturalism is very, very tough to defend.

I'm not a naturalist. I'm a rationalist, and it's not my fault that you and the entire history of theological endeavor has failed so miserably at providing a single indication for anything divine.

Bullshit. It can't be a telephone game if we have testimony from someone that is right at the source of the message.

But you don't, because you don't know what the original source was. Do keep up.

Bullshit. The Jews were people of oral tradition...traditions, speeches, sermons, songs, oracles, etc....all of these things were passed down from generation to generation in a time when there were no telephones, tape recorders, camcorders, television, internet, social media, etc. These things were carefully preserved and sacred...and Paul still remembered the creed that was given to him word for word, 20-25 years after he received it.

And if you trace the lineage of oral traditions even today, when we have technology to record stuff like our urban myths and so on, what do you find? Mutations, divergences, and area specific iterations of various myths and stories. We can barely keep a story straight today, and here you are baselessly asserting that they somehow got it perfect back when there wasn't the ability to record them in even half the clarity we can today. Are you saying every single Jew had perfect recall? And if not, isn't it feasible, even likely, that the content of their traditions would change over time as certain segments were misremembered, or fell out of favor, or were lost to time?

Don't just assert what is convenient for your argument again: actually think and justify it if you're gonna say it, or at least say something realistic instead.

So keep on trying, boss man. Keep on with the feeble objections...you set'em up, and I'll knock'em down.

Bravado is the last bastion of those with nothing worthwhile to say.

According to my own fucking religion, the messiah has already come...and we know and expect there to be clones of the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords...but we worship the innovator, not the imitators.

So you're aware of the exact things a person could say to attempt to discredit a putative messiah... you just pretended not to know earlier to be an asshole.

When the going its tough, change the context. We were first talking about Jesus and his situation with the miracles and stuff..now you are changing the context from that and putting it in the context of the antichrist.

So apparent, and so sad.

I'm not changing the context at all. I said originally that what we'd expect would be Jewish denouncement of Jesus, not total silence like you claimed. Your response was that there was no possible way to spin the accounts of Jesus' actions as anything other than positive, meaning an attempt at denouncing Jesus would only backfire on the Jews who tried. I responded to that by providing a context in which the Jews could denounce the man without doing so, proving you wrong... and because you simply cannot admit that you're wrong about anything, you deflect.

Either that, or you're incapable of remembering a conversation thread that's three posts long and exhaustively archived in quotes.

I can post material that back up my position...so what?

You haven't once, in all the time you've been on this board, which means you probably don't have any. And you just asserted that I had no references for my claim, which I did, so you're wrong. That's what.

I understand that you are not used to be corrected when you spew your false shit...I understand...but, you've been wrong and corrected on so many other occasions, we may as well go ahead and keep the party going...first off all, I mentioned the fact that Christianity spread fairly quick back then and is now the #1 religion in the world with just over 2 billion followers...

Bravado isn't that effective as a deflection when everyone else has already caught on to your arrogant nonsense.

You then came up with some nonsense about how the only reason it spread so fast was because of the crusades, violence, and blah blah blah...

Oh, so now you're lying? Interesting.

Your claim was that your entire religion was the legacy of just one man, which is something everyone else can look up, since it's here in this thread. My response was to remind you of all the religious violence, missionary work, preaching... you know, all the religious things that maybe, just maybe, contributed to the spread of christianity a bit. Ever since then, your responses have either been total strawmans, or yet further demonstration that you're unable to read.

I had to then inform you that the Crusades was stuff that happened hundreds of years after Christianity began and that Christianity had already had its fair share of followers before that, so you can't use the Crusades as a reason why Christianity is where it is today (quantity-wise) if it was already in the millions before the crusades.

Yes, you either missed the point or strawmanned me, even after being corrected twice now.

And now above you completely ignore what I said by going on some irrelevant tirade yet again about how violent the crusades was...

sigh

People, people.

It's interesting that you even quoted my second attempt to correct you, but apparently didn't get the message and barreled on with your misrepresentation of what I said, despite an explicit response saying that's not what I'm saying.

So, is it that you're lying, or not reading the blatant, blunt corrections I'm writing? Which is it, H_M? Asshole, or idiot? Arrogant applies either way, but you're either lying about what I'm saying, or too stupid to read an obvious correction, starting with "I wasn't just talking about straight up violence," in the very paragraph you quoted up there.

Yes, and I call it how I see it.

How so? Explain what the genetic fallacy is, and how my quote falls into it.

Oh, and if you can't? If you attempt to dodge with another snide, arrogant remark? It'll just be evidence that you don't know what it is, and are talking out your ass.