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

[His_Majesty]

As evidence? No. But you're still trying to use it to justify an extraordinary claim.

Ok, well lets pretend that abiogenesis isn't an extraordinary claim...lets pretend that it is a natural, ordinary claim. So, where is the evidence for it?? See, you can't even prove an ordinary, natural claim...but then you have the nerve to say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" when you have a natural, ordinary claim that you can't prove??

My point was that you just saying "that's a played out atheist catchphrase. It's not effective," is not an argument. It's just a flat out dismissal, like the one you just gave when picked up on your dishonest deflection, and it doesn't suddenly make the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" point invalid, just because you think it doesn't work, presumably solely because of how inconvenient it is for your position.

That is fine..the only problem is, I wasn't using it as an argument.

Miller-Yurey, and John Oros' experiments. That's literally one hundred percent more indication than we have for intelligent design of any stripe. Thus, probabilistically- which I'd remind you is the method you asked me to use- it is more likely that no intelligent designer was necessary or involved. I don't happen to think this is some magic bullet sure shot win for natural causes, just one point worth mentioning, but don't ask me to use a certain method and then laugh at me for using that method, asshole.

Did Miller and that other guy experiment create life from nonlife? If you are honest, you will answer "No".

They didn't create life from nonlife, but even if they DID..hypothetically speaking, even if they did...what would that prove? That intelligent design was needed!! And not only that, but then they would have to get that life to think, which is an independent problem from abiogenesis!!!

As I've said before, these are all independent problems, so get Miller back in the lab and tell him to hold his breath until he can conduct the right experiment that will guarantee life from non-life

Incidentally... inanimate matter beginning to live? You mean, like Adam coming to life from dirt?

But the life itself came from something that was already living (God)...so still, it wasn't life from nonlife, it was life from life, you know, what we are all accustomed to actually seeing.

Oh no, I forgot: that's your beliefs. Apparently those don't require evidence at all, nor do any of your arguments also apply to them. Because you said so.

Hey, yeah, I believe in the Genesis account of how life began, but the difference between my belief and yours is simple; I am not calling my belief science...I know my belief is beyond the realms of science and nature itself...your beliefs ARE SUPPOSED to be scientific/nature related, so I expect, based on observation and repeated experiment to be able to witness abiogenesis...so far, nothing.

Not only that, but I can't even conceive the thought of life coming from nonlife or consciousness from unconsciousness...these things are so unnatural to me, that I can't even conceive the thought.

I could say that a brain is a necessary but not sufficient cause for consciousness, with life being another component.

Wait a minute, so there could be consciousness with no brain?

But you're equivocating, since even the sentence you quoted doesn't say anything about consciousness, it speaks about life.

I mentioned consciousness because it is a dual problem for you. I always link the two together to give my point an extra umph.

That consciousness evolves as a part of life is well documented, regardless of your simplistic, offhand dismissals without looking at any of the evidence.

Cart before the horse fallacy, yet again. You are telling me that something evolved, but in order to evolve, it has to exist...but the origin of its existence is what is in question.

But you're not going to re-route the conversation midway through when you can't actually answer the point; we know that the components of life, organic matter and so on, are naturally occurring, and that the building blocks of those can form without direction from outside sources. That was my point, that those things are readily demonstrable as real, and yet magic designers are not.

That is like saying "We have all of the ingredients to make the pizza, we just don't know how to make it".

If Domino's had that kind of mindset, they wouldn't be in business.

Once again, this is a question you asked me. I didn't bring this up, you did, and the least you could do is stay on topic rather than throwing desperate non-sequiturs at me in an attempt to deflect.

One conversation leads to another...such is life

You asked for a probabilistic model, shitlord! Besides, the fact that physical matter exists is demonstrable, as is the laboratory experiments I pointed you to earlier! Jesus fucking christ, are you even reading what you write?

So because "physical matter exists", therefore, abiogenesis is true?

That is about as worse of a non sequitur I've seen.

I don't think you know very much about scientific theories if you think they're that easy to come by.

Apparently they are...but instead of God, it is "In the beginning, nature..."

But probabilistically, which again, is what you asked for, there is a greater probability of abiogenesis happening versus intelligent design, since we have experimental results, and the components of abiogenesis have the advantage of being readily apparent to all.

You have no background knowledge or data to determine what is more probable...so kill that noise.

Oh, and intelligent design by supernatural space wizards has never been observed either, so...

I admit that my belief is one of faith...can you do that for yours?

I actually mentioned that in my probability model above. Strange that you missed it; I guess it was inconvenient to your position too.

What you mentioned was a failed experiment.

Yeah, but oversimplified strawmen are your bag, not mine.

Straw man my ass...if you negate intelligent design, what else are you left with but nature...therefore, NATUREDIDIT!!!

So you believe your god is eternal? After spending a few weeks explaining to us why you think eternities are impossible? Hmm...

I never said eternities were impossible, I said ACTUAL infinities are impossible. Fundamental difference there that you are obviously ignorant of.

Besides, "began to exist" doesn't absolve you of this problem either; you still believe in a lifeform that exists without requiring another life form to do so, something that you're claiming is impossible. So when you say "life comes from life" you evidently don't believe that.

Listen carefully...because you are apparently lost in your own pile of crap...when I talk about how life can't come from nonlife, I am talking about life that BEGAN to exist. Being the monotheistic Christian that I am, I don't believe in any necessary being besides God, so therefore I believe that God is an uncaused cause...which means that God doesn't require any outside source to sustain his existence. You follow me?

I dont know what part of that you dont understand..but I dont think I can help you any further.

The really rich thing is that if I tell you that life didn't "begin to exist" either, you'd probably start yammering about how impossible that is.

If you told me that life didn't begin to exist, you will be intellectually dishonest, and if you have to be intellectually dishonest just to hold on to your atheism, then that is very, very ,very sad and it goes to show the great lengths one will go to continue in their disbelief.

Another problem with what you just said is that we've never seen a life or consciousness that didn't begin to exist, so under the same logic you were using on me a moment ago, we have no reason to believe it... And yet you do. Still a hypocrite, I see.

Well I will put it to you this way; we know that life on this earth began, so the question is where did it come from...and we know there couldn't have been an infinite number of causes which lead to it...therefore, in order for the event of life's origins to come to past, it had to come from a past-boundary...and a first cause which initiated the chain of events which lead to it.

Yes, I'm aware that a lot of christian apologetics comes down to "god is the thing that does the thing that resolves the problem Ive defined into existence by fiat, by being able to violate the rules I've set in place by similar fiat." I'm just also aware, apparently unlike apologists, that if you have to propose a thing that violates the rules you've set in order to resolve a problem, then those rules evidently do not apply consistently, and thus are not a problem at all.

Please enlighten me on exactly what rules are being violated.

Seriously, boiled down, your first cause argument is basically "Life only comes from life, so therefore we need a life which doesn't come from life in order to make the first life, and that thing is called god." Your conclusion, regardless of the semantic "begins to exist" tricks you want to pull, violates the first premise you erect as a problem that needs to be resolved.

It is not a semantic trick, it is a fact...life on this earth began...no one is disputing that. If we go back in time to when there was no life, either we will go back in time to eternity past at which no future event would be possible, or we go back in time to where we would reach a past boundary at which the trail leads to something that was already living.

The first one is logically impossible, so the second one wins by default...hands down.

If you don't believe that life needs to come from life then fine, but don't pretend that you do so that you can force other people to play by rules you have no intention of playing by yourself.

A first cause' life doesn't need to come from life, obviously...but a life that BEGAN to exist, like yours and mines, does need to come from life.

By the way, how did you determine that it's possible for life to exist without beginning to exist? How did you observe that?

Because the existence of life cannot be extended into past eternity, that is why...I can observe the logical absurdity on that notion. And not only that, but we KNOW that life on this earth BEGAN to exist...you want to talk hypotheticals as if that will somehow help your position, but unfortunately for you, it won't..it will just lead you right back to the absurd notion of infinity.

Once again, you cannot be trusted to come up with accurate conclusions as to how these exchanges are going. Like a lot of apologists, you seem to have mistaken self-aggrandizing bullying for winning an argument. But it doesn't work on me, nor anyone else here. We've dealt with real hostile theists in the past; your passive aggressive nonsense is just too obvious.

Bullying? Passive aggressive? Not I. I just kick the actual factuals.

Are you running away, then? Can't handle what I'm saying, finally realized I won't just let you change the subject whenever you want to escape via rhetoric, and so you're going the route of every other theist we've thwarted here; "You guys is dumb, stop talking to me!"

Since when has pleading for silence ever led to a decent debate, H_M? You don't see me commanding everyone to shut up. I wonder what you have to hide?

You beat a person up, and they just come back begging for more SMH.

---

A little list of atheist biblical scholars who do not believe in the historicity of Jesus:

G. A. Wells, an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He does allow the the possibility of historic Jesus he just doesn't think it's likely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

Earl J. Doherty, a Canadian author with bachelor's degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages but no completed advanced degrees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

Robert McNair Price, doctorates in theology and former Baptist preacher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price

Richard Cevantis Carrier, PhD in ancient history from Columbia University in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier
Looky, Looky, a man whose background really is history---that makes him a rare man in the Jesus wars.

If we discuss whether Jesus was crucified, the list will get longer.

Does this prove Jesus wasn't a real man? No. But note how easy it is to come up with a list a men who have studied the NT and come to rather different conclusions. What do they lack? Christian bias. So, can we discuss the texts and not the scholars?

Right, but those individuals are among the MINORITY.

Look in the wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

In the footnotes for the second paragraph (#8), states that Robert Price' (the same guy you have above) opinion of the historical Jesus: Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views.

---

Don't forget Dawkins.
http://youtu.be/Ant5HS01tBQ

You, my friend, just put the nail in the coffin. Thank you, and God bless you

---

WOW!

Bart Ehrman actually said that? Well, I supposed it depends what you mean by "almost anybody". How many historical characters are allowed for with that "almost" fudge factor?

Clearly, he really isn't a historian. Or he's being dishonest.

The problem is, he isn't the only one that said it.