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

[The Valkyrie]

---

You randomly started bringing it into the conversation to deflect away from your inability to properly defend your claims regarding Jesus. It's a pretty standard tu cuoque fallacy, really.


Probabilistic indicators like all of the ones I've spent the last two or three posts explaining to you repeatedly, only to have you either not understand, or ignore them entirely. Forgive me if I don't feel like rehashing the same stuff again, only to have you undoubtedly shrug it off as though I hadn't said a word. And they're more "virtuous" than what you consider to be indicators for your religion because they are readily demonstrable to everybody, and don't rely on wishful thinking or fallacious reasoning. And before you even start spouting off about that one, I'd remind you that my indicators include things like "natural things exist," and "the Miller-Yurey experiments happened."


No. No it's not an opinion. It is not an opinion that there is no evidence for the supernatural in any shape or form that would stand up to peer review or objective analysis.


And it's so incredibly telling that your reasoning behind why you think this is nothing more than a great big argument from ignorance. "Science can't explain X, therefore god." Well, sorry H_M, but the lack of an explanation from somewhere else does not advance your pet god, nor does it point toward your god specifically. Even if you were right here- and the argument from ignorance is never right- then you would be arguing for deism, not christian theism.


Your inability and unwillingness to comprehend the answers does not mean they aren't satisfactory. They mean you are a dishonest bozo, something for which we have ample evidence.


And you can't keep up with a simple conversational chain without changing topics absurdly to avoid answering for the shit you say.


This is precisely my point. I'm not saying that what you're doing is at all effective, merely that your aggressive need to simply mock everyone around you rather than engage with their arguments, and your seemingly compulsive need to puff yourself up at every opportunity is, indeed, childish. If what I'm saying sounds childish to you, it is because my observations are of thoroughly childish behavior.

If you wish to change this, perhaps consider conducting yourself like an adult in future, rather than a posing twelve year old?


The two things aren't connected in the slightest. It is you, deflecting, and I will have no part of it. I can't provide evidence for quantum physics right offhand, it doesn't invalidate my observations that the sky is blue. Conflating two unconnected things is a classic theistic tactic to avoid answering for one or both of them.


You also said that this wasn't an argument, so I guess I don't need to treat it as such.


Somebody told you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you opted to deflect with a tu cuoque "oh yeah? Well abiogenesis is an extraordinary claim too!" The entire conversation had been about Jesus before that, but your style of throwing out irrelevancies to distract everyone else moved us away from that.


First of all, you do not get to tell me what I believe. Nor do you get to impose your own two dimensional, binary thought processes onto mine; I'm quite capable of holding nuanced positions on subjects, like normal adults can, without falling into this stupid "accept/don't accept" dichotomous prism that you seem to interpret the world through.

I've told you what my position is. If your answer is simply "no it isn't," then my response is simply, fuck off, you presumptuous ass.


If there is no evidence for intelligent design- and there isn't- then I have a basis for arguing against it even without having a stake in the opposite position. Rebuking pseudoscience and lies does not require anything more than a healthy respect for the truth, not some opposing ideological horse in the race.

You don't get to dictate my position to me to maneuver me into a more convenient angle for your rebuttals. It's dishonest and aggressive; you don't see me doing the same, so kindly back off and restrict yourself to arguing against positions that I actually hold. I'm under no obligations to defend positions I don't hold just to satisfy your need to con your way through arguments you otherwise cannot win.


If someone was claiming that all dogs are pink, and you respond that no, they aren't, does that make you an apologist for non-dog-pinkism? Or does it just mean that you've observed that the world is different from what someone is claiming, and you've sought to correct the record in favor of the truth?

Can someone have a position without having precisely the opposite position to what they're disagreeing with, in your world?


A long way from life is still leagues closer to it than anything the intelligent design movement has ever been able to produce. Some evidence is more than no evidence at all, H_M. And this conflation of consciousness with abiogenesis is dreadfully dull.


Only if you're willing to claim that evaporation doesn't happen in nature, which is pretty dire for the water cycle that relies upon it, and that electricity doesn't occur naturally. You may want to have a chat with lightning about that.


Reducing the accomplishments of science doesn't somehow enhance the evidence for intelligent design. No matter how small the piece is, it's still bigger than no piece at all.

All you can do is attack the other side, because you have no defense of your own at all.


They observed the effects of things happening on their own. Experiments don't always require direct intervention from scientists; observation of variables on a natural setting is enough.

It's hilarious; every time you open your mouth you reveal yet another facet of science that you don't understand, yet you still act as though you understand it sufficiently to argue with it.


And saying it in all caps still doesn't make it so, shockingly.


What the Miller-Yurey experiment showed- and by the way that's twenty proteins, not two as you indicated. Shows how much you actually know about what you're saying- is that the generation of these compounds is possible without the intervention of an intelligent agent. I acknowledge that a possibility isn't much, but when intelligent design hasn't even gotten to demonstrating that non-human intelligent designers are possible, it's still the safer bet.


Since when were improbabilities impossibilities? Can you demonstrate that your god is even possible? Or that creation through speaking is?


Argument from personal incredulity.


They're two different problems; not having an answer to one doesn't invalidate the other. You're acting like a fool by continuing to pretend like this hasn't been pointed out to you.


If "some" is not sufficient, then "none" must be even less so. Hence, probabilistically, it is rational to give the higher probability to "some," and not "none." Thank you for proving my point yet again. Your inability to provide even a shred of positive argumentation for your own position really is an- ahem- godsend for me.


Semantics.

As I say below, you're demanding that everyone else play with one category while you get to play with two, and you've offered no justification for this beyond your own special pleading preference for ideas that you agree with.


Your inability to support why you think it's the best explanation with anything other than arguments from ignorance is why I disagree with you. Moreover, you're deflecting again, apparently to avoid the fact that you blatantly strawmanned me here.


So you actually think that "I just can't conceive of it" is an argument for the nonexistence of that thing?

Oh my, you may be beyond all hope.


Read again, fool. I said "necessary, but not sufficient." Which means that it's a necessary component, but not sufficient for the effect on its own.

If you can't even read a simple sentence, what hope do we have for your conclusions about anything else?


Strawman again. You're utterly pathetic.


Which is like asking me why my car is red, and then dismissing my answer as untrue because it didn't also explain the origin of color perception in human eyes.


Not all life forms are conscious. Many of them don't even have brains. Abiogenesis could be true, and yet consciousness could have been poofed into existence by a god; there are theists on this site that believe precisely that. The former is not connected to the latter, in that the truth of it is not reliant on the demonstrability of the other. You're being ridiculous.


Which one of us added a non-existent "not" before the word necessary above, H_M?


Still no defense against my point that your side has no evidence, then? Sorry, but attacking the opposition is not a rebuttal. I don't need to play defensive when you've offered no attack.

As to why I'll defend this, I don't need to accept naturalism to know that your ridiculous position is fallacious. You want me to stop defending it? All you've got to do is lift your game. The moment you stop fallaciously arguing for your position is the same moment I'll be on your side.


If a naturalistic hypothesis is true, then obviously the things involved would be natural. Natural things do exist; are you claiming they don't?


But if it were to happen naturalistically, then natural things would be all that's required, which is my point. Natural things are easily demonstrated to exist, where supernatural things are not. All the "ingredients" for a naturalistic claim already obviously exist. All the ingredients for a theistic claim do not.


You keep expanding and contracting the boundaries of the questions you're asking whenever it suits you. I've started including my own earlier responses now to obviate that; everyone can see when you suddenly change subject, you know. You're not going to get away with even a little of it anymore, if it's intentional. And if it's not, maybe get yourself diagnosed with ADHD or something? You're bouncing all over the place.


The universe isn't about what you like. And you're deflecting again.


And yet, they've still done one hundred percent more than intelligent design ever has!


But if god is eternal, then how would he ever be able to do anything? He'd be like a baby in an infinite series of babies! hock:


So you believe the category "life that did not come from life" is not empty. You just assume without evidence that god is the only thing in that category.


I'm sorry, but "that's dishonest!" without actually supporting it is not an argument. Are you really that hard up for excuses now?

So, what's your reason for thinking god is the only being in that category? Without saying "we've never observed any other life not coming from life," because we've also never observed god, and that's also an argument from ignorance.

You don't have one, do you?


Why on earth do you think the baseless assertion that god didn't begin to exist is at all compelling or reasonable?


What's the reason, without relying on an argument from ignorance, or an appeal to observations? You haven't given the reason before now so why are you acting as though you have?


Oh look, another thing you haven't demonstrated!


You're covering for one baseless assertion with another. It's hardly a revolutionary tactic for theists, but it's no more effective from you than anyone else.


But it does violate logic and reason, in that it violates the premises you're asserting to be true in order to make the argument at all.


*Life that began, that is.

Which still makes the "life" category larger than just "life that comes from life." You haven't bothered to support your assertions about god's place in that system at all.

No, I said actual infinities are impossible...Now yeah, when dealing with actual time, infinite time and eternity mean the same thing...but eternity can also mean "without time" or "timelessness" or "atemporal" <----these are all synonymous with each other and also with "Eternity"...and this is the eternity I am talking about when I said "God is eternal", meaning that he wasn't living through infinite duration of time...he transcended time altogether...he was above and beyond time.

Timelessness is also impossible; the moment a conscious entity perceives a progression of events, time is happening. If god did anything at all, even just existing, then time was happening around him, because the length of his existence is quantifiable with demarcations of time.

But I recognize that there couldn't be an infinite chain of "life producing life" going all the way back to eternity past, which is a view that is quite consistent with me arguing against infinity on the other thread.

Dude, there are no "gotcha" moments with me on this subject. None.

So, have you ever observed a timeless being? Kicking the problem down a level doesn't eliminate it.

*Life that began.

It is ok, the more you keep attacking straw man, I will be there to put you right back on path, you know, the path of my actual position.

You no longer even know what you're arguing against. It's amazing.

You are right, I am an intellectual bully...so after school...me...you....playground.....and I will intellectually beat the crap out of you regarding any subject that we've been discussing.

---

"You can have the last word, for now. Right now, I have bigger fish to fry."




About time you got back to frying fish.

and yes, I do want fries with that!