Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

What advantage did they gain by lying about this?
They got themselves oppressed and martyred in Christs name? That sounds like a good motivation to me does that. You clearly understand human nature. You can imagine them hatching their plot "Hey lets steal Jesus body from the tomb, claim he has come back from the dead and we can become an oppressed minority outcast within Jewish society!"

Just want to edit the followers plot a little bit, here it goes:
'Hey lets steal Jesus body from the tomb, and claim he has come back from the dead. That way, we don't lose face by admitting we were wrong and we get to enthral the guilbile people of this time and so make a lot of money'
Or stupid people believe stupid things, maybe when Jesus didn't resurect they still believed it all anyway. What with the ridiculous ways theists rationalize things nowadays, I theorise it was even worse back then.

(emphasis mine)

look at all the religious folks now. People are clearly willing to believe whatever they're told without evidence. And when asked for evidence you point to other believers and say: why would they lie?! Well SoC, why are you lying?

[The Reality Salesman01]

A very good argument in favour of a naturalist/coincidental origin of humanity and the universe could possibly win me over, but there hasn't been anything so far.

You're so close, you're just a bit confused. I'm not trying to be an ass, but really, look at what you've just said...

"a naturalist/coincidental origin of humanity and the universe could possibly win me over, but there hasn't been anything so far."

Natural is all we have to go on. There is no evidence for the supernatural. You are insisting that supernatural exists, yet, you have been unable to prove it. This isn't a personal attack on you. Nobody has been able to prove it. That's why there's good reason to think that The Universe IS natural. You see? We know we can't prove that everywhere in the universe is natural in every little particular, and to do so would be quite impossible. So, we can't and don't say for 100% certain that it IS natural, so we just say it's more likely and feel comfortable leaning in that direction. But it's only possibly false by virture of intellectual honesty.

All we have is natural.

There's no evidence for supernatural.

We don't believe in supernatural (or anything else) without good reason.

This HAS to make sense to you. It's the most rational and reasonable position that anyone could offer you. Don't believe stuff without evidence or reason. That's an Atheist dude!! It's a pretty sweet way to live.

[Bad Writer]

How do you know they loved him, because they said so?

They wouldn't have been his followers if they didn't?

I'll let you in on a little secret, everybody lies

What advantage did they gain by lying about this? They got themselves oppressed and martyred in Christs name? That sounds like a good motivation to me does that. You clearly understand human nature. You can imagine them hatching their plot "Hey lets steal Jesus body from the tomb, claim he has come back from the dead and we can become an oppressed minority outcast within Jewish society!"

They got the satisfaction Joseph Smith got...and he died too.

[Mystical]

How do you know they loved him, because they said so?

They wouldn't have been his followers if they didn't?

I'll let you in on a little secret, everybody lies

What advantage did they gain by lying about this? They got themselves oppressed and martyred in Christs name? That sounds like a good motivation to me does that. You clearly understand human nature. You can imagine them hatching their plot "Hey lets steal Jesus body from the tomb, claim he has come back from the dead and we can become an oppressed minority outcast within Jewish society!"

Let's say for arguments' sake that Jesus was a real bonafide prophet flesh and blood. And I am one of Christs' followers, and I think he's going to bring about the Jewish uprising like everyone thought. But instead the dunce goes and gets himself killed, with no fight whatsoever. Yeah I know this is upsetting you: get over it. I'm left with nothing but a name, a name renowned around the communities (do you even have any proof that this was the case?). I have no meaning left. So how do I go on now? How can I get what I want, which is freedom for my people at best and free room and board at worst? Hmmm well pretending he was a god is a good idea; that he's supernatural. Then I can go around and still teach his teachings and get all the bounties that come with having followers in his name. His popular name. You ask me what the motivation is I will flood you with all the things people have bought in Christs' name with money given to them in the belief that Christ is the only way to heaven. What's more is why do I want the Jews freed from oppression? Surely there's a reason. Could it be the financial and political issues they undermine? The limits they put on the Jewish citizens? Yes, that seems more logical than for no reason.

[CleanShavenJesus]

If you cannot accept that the universe just is, then you also cannot accept that God just is without reasonably stating that there must be a reason behind His creation.

1) The universe exists and has an explanation for it's existence and the explanation for it's existence is an eternal non-physical source outside of time and space which is Creator of time and space.

2) Universe is...well it just exists without any explanation at all.

Any explanation for something makes far far far more sense than literally no explanation at all.

I know this is now 20 pages back, but you didn't even offer a counterpoint. You just rephrased what you already said. His point is still valid. You could take out the word "universe" in your post and replace it with "God"!

If you were to come up with a decent argument rather than just give short sentences that state your own opinion you can. I'm not interested in opinions I'm interested in good arguments and objections presented in a half civilized manner. A very good argument in favour of a naturalist/coincidental origin of humanity and the universe could possibly win me over, but there hasn't been anything so far.

I've read every page of this thread and every point you've brought up has been debunked, proven incorrect, slashed, destroyed, burned, turned into compost....you get the point. If you disagree with that, then bring up an instance in this thread where your point remained valid. In this very post I already brought up an argument of yours that failed.

[Sword of Christ]

My statement was directed at your statement "God exists beyond time and brought time into existence so you can have events that run in a sequence" to show that events MAY NOT run in sequence and therefore POSSIBLY nullify your assertion. Please don't try to argue around what I say by taking it out of context.

*drops a pen to the floor*

Apparently things happen sequentially. If it fell upward from the floor to my hand that's still a sequence it doesn't matter which way it goes you have a series of events running along a continuum. Something of course had to get the entire ball rolling to begin with, and whatever that was was not in itself rolled by anything else.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Part of believing in God is knowing a basic rule required to be followed by all who believe:

1. God just is. He is all. His existence is immune to the inquiry of origin. His abilities and attributes are immune to logical laws.

Once convinced of this, they think the following to be quite obvious,and in fact feel quite confident in fabricating the following...

2. God is the origin of all things. Logical laws are prescribed by him. No ability or attribute held by God can be rationally understood by man.


The third rule is excersised quite frequently here, which is:

Any objection to rule 2, refer to rule 1.

[Esquilax]

*drops a pen to the floor*

Apparently things happen sequentially. If it fell upward from the floor to my hand that's still a sequence it doesn't matter which way it goes you have a series of events running along a continuum. Something of course had to get the entire ball rolling to begin with, and whatever that was was not in itself rolled by anything else.

Read: things happen in sequence, except for this one thing that doesn't happen in sequence because I don't want it to. And that doesn't invalidate every word of my post because... because!

Could you maybe stop contradicting yourself at every turn? It's making my head spin.

[Jackalope]

I get the impression from you that you do not believe this is a good argument. So I will accept the challenge, if that is what you are extending to me, to defend the argument.

As I said prior, I have no intention of having this debate again. It's been done to death. I believe the words I used were "would rather claw my eyes out with a fork".

Also - you are correct in that I reversed the meaning of "valid" and "sound" with respect to logical arguments. Mea culpa. That error does not detract from the point of my post that P1 and P2 of the KCA are not known to be true, for the reasons I gave.

[Walking Void]

If I had any interest in textually debating people like SoC or whoever, I would.

I find the effort mute, and I would prefer to discuss things with him on a video conference.