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

[Esquilax]

So because you don't like it, presumably because of how inconvenient it is for your argument, it's not true, based solely on that assertion from you alone?

"Extraordinary" is a subjective term, anyway.

Yes, but I don't see any definition of extraordinary that resolves to just "some guy who was never involved in the event in question said something that some other guys, who he never sees fit to identify, might have believed about it."

I notice also that you've chosen to cover for your baseless dismissal with vague deflection; did you really think that would work? That I wouldn't remind you, and everyone else, of your total failure to address the point I made?

That's why we aren't taking the simplistic, binary path you want us to, with those claims. We're using a scientific, probabilistic approach.

Use the scientific, probabilistic approach to demonstrate life from nonlife, then.

We know that life exists, and that things that are not alive also exist. We do not have any indication, despite the best efforts of chumps like you, of the existence of magical designers of life. We also have never observed life being created from nothing with magic, which means that no matter your objections, both naturalistic and supernatural means of life-creation have the same level of direct observation.

However, since we can readily determine that the things required for natural life exist, and we cannot do the same for supernatural things of any kind, probabilistically it is more likely that natural things were involved, than supernatural.

That was easy.

Oh, and by the way, did god come from life? Did his consciousness come from consciousness?

No and no.

So, you believe exactly the same shit that you keep making fun of us for believing in. Thank you, you hypocritical ass.

Your answer to both of those questions is probably no, and if that's the case then how dare you pretend that what you just said doesn't also apply to you? And if the answer is yes to both of those, then all that blathering you do about infinite regressions was either a lie, or is a problem for you.

Wait a minute, what???

Do I really have to go this simple? If you believe god didn't come from anything alive, then you believe that nothing living was involved in his existence, which is another way of saying you believe god came from non-life. You might be tempted to respond by saying god is eternal, that he always existed, but that's just a semantic trick to avoid the issue. If he didn't come from anything living, then he violates the rules you're trying to mock us for not following.

If you believe god is conscious, but that his consciousness didn't come from another consciousness, then you believe his consciousness came from non-consciousness. Again, don't bother going to eternal: aside from being an obvious deflection you spent quite a long time in the other thread telling us how eternal things aren't possible. Don't go violating your one argument to preserve another (for the one post it'd take me to remind you that it's total bullshit.)

The short version is that you believe in the existence of a life that required no other life to start it, and a consciousness that didn't require another to develop. These are precisely the things you just got done telling us are impossible, and if you thought you'd just be able to palm that card and expect us not to notice, you are fucking wrong. You believe in everything your argument hinges on asserting is impossible; thus, you are a hypocrite, and the entirety of your position against atheism- which was an argument from ignorance from the get go- loses all power.

You really are a dishonest little git, aren't you?

Dude, I just told the freakin truth. Is the truth a foreign concept to you or something?

I don't think you've said one truthful thing since you got here. Remember, your very first post of any substance contained a demand that we all believe things that none of us do, and you continued to argue that actually, we do believe the things that none of us believe, but that you don't believe those things, because that would be foolish.

Only the truth is, you believe every last thing that you've been saying we're unreasonable for believing. Life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness, matter just suddenly getting up and being alive and talking... all features of your religion, all things you believe, and all things you've been taunting us for believing. Your every argument, since you got here, has been hypocritical, fallacious trash, that you haven't even had the decency to be ashamed of.

I don't recall claiming that "god's life coming from non-life". Can someone sayyy, straw man?

Did god require another life to come into existence? No? Then god is alive, without requiring another life to be so; he's alive, coming from non-life. Just because you think his life requires no matter at all to happen doesn't somehow make it okay.

Hey man, just open your heart...be open minded. I am not trying to deceive anyone...I just think we have good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. That is my opinion, and yeah, a lot of historians share that belief with me. Just open your heart & mind.

"Just be open minded!" Said every conman working with insufficient evidence ever, when a rational person doesn't immediately follow his every word.

At least try not to poison the well, eh?