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

[His_Majesty]

well lets put Bill Nye up to hovind. Bill Nye Gotten ken ham to defeat himself and the bible.

Nahhh, Bill Nye needs more of a Craig booty spanking...Hovind will only spank Nye on evolution, but Craig would spank Nye on cosmology, naturalism, evolution, morality, miracles...it would be more of an all-around spanking.

[Cyberman]

The truly sad part of all that is you probably believe it.

[Esquilax]

If the man starts off with an argument that's so factually inaccurate that it isn't even addressing the topic he's purporting to debunk, what hope do we have that the rest won't follow the same meandering, fallacious path?

First off, I disagree with the notion that what he said was inaccurate. There is this thing in astronomy called "Cosmic Evolution"

http://www.astro.wisc.edu/our-science/re...evolution/

The term "evolution" is not just limited to bio phenomena...so you are the one that is factually inaccurate. But hey, this is Esquilax we are talking about...what else is knew?

Oh, so you want to take the path of sophistry, rather than factual inaccuracy? Okay...

If this is the way you want to go, then I'll just remind you that in that case, Hovind is speaking in irrelevancies, rather than inaccuracies. He's clearly talking about biological evolution, his early slides were almost exclusively biology textbooks, he quotes Dawkins talking about biological evolution- and then purports to respond directly to Dawkins on that point- before leaping directly to astronomy, which again, has nothing to do with the topic he's talking about.

So which is it, H_M? Is he wrong, or Gish Galloping? Neither says anything particularly positive about his argument against evolution, nor about your desperate need to defend him: "No, you don't understand! He wasn't wrong, he'd just immediately spun off on something completely unconnected to the topic at hand moments after starting the meat of his presentation!"

And I'd remind you, the fact that "cosmic evolution" is unconnected with what he was attempting to debunk was my sole point. You called me wrong, while confirming that I was right.

[pocaracas]

Did you know that merriam webster is not a good unbiased dictionary?
Just look at their definition of atheist:
athe·ist: a person who believes that God does not exist

Can you spot the bias?
No?
Pretend you're a hindu.

You sound like Jesse Ventura...9/11? Conspiracy....JFK assasination...Conspiracy...Vietnam War...Conspiracy...ISIS...Conspiracy...

it's not a conspiracy... it's a fact.
Now, let's look at another dictionary's definition of atheist, shall we?
atheist:
noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Did you spot the difference?... there's an "or" in there that adds something more to the definition... also, no mention of just one god... much less a "God".

Let's get back to those definitions for being and deity.
a being is a living thing, or something that exists.
A deity is a god, or the nature of that god.
So, you want me to accept that you have 3 different living things in the nature of the god... is that it?

3 different living things share an essence of "God". Hey, you don't have to accept it when just the mere thought of Jesus of Nazareth's existence is to much to accept...not saying you in general, but you get the picture.

It's not a matter of acceptance.
I can understand the words, I can understand a cerebrus kind of god.
It's just the way you phrase it that renders the trinity definition somewhat weird. Three different things within the same god... why the extra baggage?
Just to make christianity stand apart from judaism?
I don't think it's worth it...

Perhaps you could say "manifestation", instead of "persons" or "beings"... maybe that would work better.

I think we need the definition of god, now (from the same merriam webster):
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

I'm going with 2, seeing as the first is clearly biased, and the third and fourth apply to people (odd that).
"A being".... as in "one"... not multiples...

Yeah but that is because the definition given is a general one...hell, lets look up Trinity..same dictionary..

Trinity: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

How about we look back at the unbiased definition, huh?
1. Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being.
2. a representation of this in art.
3. Trinity Sunday.
4. (lowercase) a group of three; triad.
5. (lowercase) the state of being threefold or triple.

Number 1 looks a lot like your version... but there are 4 more versions.... 4 more applications of the word. This first one is the one implied by christianity, right?
However, for the non-believer, you must work with definitions 4, or 5.

If you define it like that, then we have a team of 3 gods, polytheism... or tri-theism.... if the word doesn't exist, I claim royalties!

It would be polytheism if they were three different gods...but they aren't three different gods, they are three different persons, each which has the SAME divine attributes.

Three persons which have the same divine attributes? I translate that to "three gods with the same job"... somehow, I get the feeling that's not what you want to convey.

[His_Majesty]

But they are three different gods. You just said they are three individuals. Earlier, you said "three separate persons". Since they are separate, this makes them three gods.

Polytheism.


I can't misrepresent what's never explained.

Odin, Thor, and Loki are three separate God's..they don't share the same power, knowledge, benevolence, will, etc. If Odin has more power than Thor and Loki, then that would make Odin's mere essence different from the other two, and for the other two, likewise....so that would make them three separate god's. They are three separate individuals, and also three separate god's.

But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same power, knowledge, benevolence, and will..all three are of the same essence...the one definition that defines one also defines the others...it is based on that ONE definition which applies to all three that makes them ONE God

You keep saying "one god". So one being then, since a god is a being.

"God" is a title that applies to all three beings.

I'm going to assume "four omni's" is your way of shorthand for "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent" but please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct.

Needless to say this opens up a can of worms if you just assert such things about one being, never mind three. I'm going to paraphrase what the ancient Greeks nailed long ago:

[*]Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

If God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, then he won't prevent it...non-sequitur .

[*]Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not omnibenevolent.

Again, God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Non sequitur.

[*]Is God willing and able to prevent evil but just not aware of where and when evil is happening? Then he is neither omnisient nor omnipresent.
[*]If God is willing and able to prevent evil and aware of when and where evil is happening, whence commeth evil?

Non sequitur based on the first two fallacious assertions.

Additionally, any one of these omni words completely fails philosophically. This YouTube poster described why in great detail so I'll save myself some typing and invite you to let him educate you:

No, you tell me.

We've seen in my quotations in the Bible that Jesus has a subordinate will to his father (not omnipotent), lacks knowledge his father has (not omniscient), travels from one place to another (not omnipresent) and admits his morality is inferior to his father's (not omnibenevolent).

I've already responded to that.

Also, simply sharing traits does not make them the "same deity". The gods of other mythologies share traits of great power, immortality and strange need to be worshiped. This does not make them any less polytheistic.

Yeah, but all we need is for ONE deity to be powerful than either one of them, and that would separate one god from the other..we don't have that with the Biblical Trinity.

You believe in a paradox. If you seriously want to defend all parts of it, you're going to have to do better than this. Good luck.

If you seriously want to offer a defeater of the concept, you have to do better than this. The doctrine is what it is, you don't believe it, you don't accept....that is on you...but it is what it is. You can just continue to deny the doctrine just like you deny the religious altogether...it is a package-deal, ya know.

But they do underscore how these three gods of yours are separate persons. You can't be a separate person and be the same god.

Actually, you can...I can certainly conceive the notion of me and two other people sharing the same knowledge, power, benevolence, and presence. It really isn't that difficult to conceive, and no one has given me any reason why such a concept is logically unsound.

There is no "flesh side" of you.

I think it is, you think it isn't *shrugs*

You feel an impulse because of hormones and how they interact with your brain.

See, now we are REALLY getting off subject...even though we have already been off subject. I don't want to spoil any future spanking of you people regarding consciousness and morality, so I would rather wait until I make a thread for it.

The hormones are not people. They're not conscious beings. You're injecting a lot of needless woo on matters that science has better explained.

Did science explain the origins of consciousness yet? Ok ok, I won't go any further than that.

[Minimalist]

I've always wondered what kind of idiot would fall for such obvious bullshit.


Now I know.

Had been around for quite some time, before the first christian even raped his first sheep in the desert. Amongst others, Egyptians had the trinity with several of the deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity

The Egyptians did not claim to be monotheists, though.

[DeistPaladin]

You sound like Jesse Ventura...9/11? Conspiracy....JFK assasination...Conspiracy...Vietnam War...Conspiracy...ISIS...Conspiracy...

...says the man who believes that science textbooks are "full of lies" and that apparently the entire science community across all national boundaries and for a hundred years has been taken over by a cabal of atheists who have subverted the entire process of peer review and suppressed all the contrary evidence to foist a flawed theory onto an unsuspecting public.

This sounds so much more plausible as a conspiracy theory than one book is biased.

3 different living things share an essence of "God".

So your god is an essence and not a being?

Trinity: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

What's a Godhead?

It would be polytheism if they were three different gods...but they aren't three different gods, they are three different persons, each which has the SAME divine attributes.

Zeus, Poseidon and Hades all share the same divine attributes. All three are gods. All three are masters of one domain (sky, sea and underworld). All three are very powerful. All three are immortal.

The Greek mythos is polytheistic. So is your religion.

If you want to explain it as being otherwise, do better than "nuh uh uh".

[His_Majesty]

You act like Hovnid has added credibility because he debated three evolutionists at once; it doesn't.

Dude, when he went against those three evolutionists, that was one of the worse intellectual spankings I've ever seen.

During his presentations, he shows illustrations and segments of biology books? Is this supposed to be impressive? We do the same fucking thing with bible verses here and theists casually dismiss those.

No shit. My point was some people on here are making it seem as if Hovind doesn't know what the hell evolution is or he is making up his own version of evolution, and I am just pointing out that this can't be the case since he is actually using text books and EXPLAINING why he believes it is false.

Of all the debates I've seen him in, no one has ever accused him of being ignorant of the issues...they may accuse him of being WRONG in his interpretation and vice versa, but he doesn't get accused of being ignorant or misinformed.

Just to be clear, Hovind is a raving psychotic. He readily dismisses available evidence

He has ever right to dismiss evidence that he thinks is insufficient...kinda reminds me of atheists, right?

I don't know where you get the idea that only atheists can dismiss evidence...Creationists can do it too.

a guy who has been convicted of defrauding the IRS, mail fraud, obstruction and impeding tax laws, and other crimes.

Mike Tyson was convicted of rape, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a damn good boxer in his prime.

Do you not think that a guy willing to lie and break the law would be above lying and distorting the truth about anything else?

Judge not lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1). Hovind also points out lies in the text books, too. So how about you try to reconcile those lies?

Damn, take the blinders off already.

Blinders my ass, heaven is the destination.

[Cyberman]

Dude, when he went against those three evolutionists, that was one of the worse intellectual spankings I've ever seen.

Finally, we agree on something.

[Minimalist]

What's a Godhead?

I hope it's like a maidenhead!