The universe existing as a byproduct of God?

[SteveII]

The numbers aren't the point in an argument from probabilities?  News to me.  Now, this lower and higher business has already been discussed as well, at length, and you didn't seem satisfied with the algebra either, the last time this was discussed.  If you like I could repost the spread of solutions using low/high and why they end up being what they are, regardless of any real number contained in either set, like I did last time?

I got smarter. Respond to WLC instead. Where is he wrong in his debate?

[KevinM1]

Many people believed the earth was flat and that illness was caused by demons and curses.  Why did they believe that to be true?

C'mon Steve, you're smarter than this.

Sure, why not believe the earth is flat when you live a little section of the globe and lack the ability and the tools to find out. Were people irrational to believe such a thing? No.

I'm sure some people thought that demons and curses were the cause of problems. Remote tribes still believe that. Was that the common understanding of say the first century Roman empire? I don't think so.

You know what was the common understanding of the first century Roman empire? 
1) people did not line up and get healed from all manner of very common maladies (blind, crippled, leprosy, etc.); 
2) people did not have power over the elements (walk on water, water into wine, weather, etc.); and
3) people did not have power over death.

So when they saw such things:

A) they believed them to be true, 
B) upon hearing the message of the one performing such things, they believed his claims to be true (that Jesus was the messiah) and 
C) this is an important point, they did not understand the complete picture until Jesus rose from the dead. 

I'm curious, since you think the first century Christians' beliefs were not true, what is your theory of why they believed they way they did even before the NT began to be written?

You have to prove that they saw these things before you can move on to A.  Then, you have to successfully demonstrate that what happened (again, if anything did happen) was indeed miraculous.  Why?  Because the issue at hand isn't whether or not ancient people thought they were miraculous, but whether they actually were.

Ultimately, you're acting like the supernatural events - the things in question - aren't actually in question when they most certainly are.

Also, I also don't need to provide an alternate theory.  It's up to you to meet your burden.

You keep relying on the old "People wouldn't believe in a lie" meme, which just isn't lending any strength to your position.  Demonstrate these things.  Provide evidence.  Don't rely on appeals to ancient (or even modern) popularity.

[The Grand Nudger]

The numbers aren't the point in an argument from probabilities?  News to me.  Now, this lower and higher business has already been discussed as well, at length, and you didn't seem satisfied with the algebra either, the last time this was discussed.  If you like I could repost the spread of solutions using low/high and why they end up being what they are, regardless of any real number contained in either set, like I did last time?

I got smarter. Respond to WLC instead. Where is he wrong in his debate?

He's not even wrong - which is worse.  He wasn't foolish enough to pretend that there was math behind the claim.  He just yammered on about a formula that he failed to apply.

You got so much smarter that you're smarter than math...really? The unbelievable claims just keep rolling in. What;s the probability of this one being true, care to assign a value? Perhaps you should use the formula you provided?

[KevinM1]

Once you remove the need for evidence any idea, no matter how insane, becomes equally as valid because there's nothing to validate one belief over another.

For example, you can say a circle has no sides and infinite sides, making it a contradictory. There's no proof for this and posting a picture of a circle will get you nowhere.

But, if we accept the circle has infinite sides, then who's to say the sides of all the other shapes don't fit into this new found infinity and therefore every shape is a circle, or the circle is within the shape, thus changing everything we now know about shapes forever.

Without the need for evidence that holds up under scrutiny what I just pulled out of my ass is every bit as valid as God. And if God is more valid because more people believe or there were books written about it, then all that remains for the circle to be equally valid is to make a bunch of people believe it and write a bunch of books about it, which they likely would've been far more willing to believe if someone came up with this back in the Iron Age and did just that.

Do you see the problem?

You have already admitted to being fine with your circular reasoning. Where would I start with someone who does not want/need to be logical. In case it went over your head, here it is again:


1. There is no evidence for God (i.e. supernatural events)
2. The NT does not count because of supernatural events
3. Therefore there is no evidence for God.

Nope, not circular.  Again, the NT is the/collection of claims.  They're a highly biased source that cannot be taken as evidence for what it's selling.  Try again.

[T.J.]

You're the one going in circles here. It's not illogical not to accept a claim without evidence. My post explains what happens once you remove the need for evidence entirely.

[T.J.]

You got so much smarter that you're smarter than math...really?  The unbelievable claims just keep rolling in.  What;s the probability of this one being true, care to assign a value?  Perhaps you should use the formula you provided?

I'm smarter than math.

1 + 1 can = anything because the one is always adding a new number and therefore EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT MATH IS WRONG!

I can get higher grade now?

[SteveII]

You have already admitted to being fine with your circular reasoning. Where would I start with someone who does not want/need to be logical. In case it went over your head, here it is again:


1. There is no evidence for God (i.e. supernatural events)
2. The NT does not count because of supernatural events
3. Therefore there is no evidence for God.

Nope, not circular.  Again, the NT is the/collection of claims.  They're a highly biased source that cannot be taken as evidence for what it's selling.  Try again.

Because you repeat it over and over does not change anything. The argument above is circular and plain stupid. 

Since when isn't eyewitness testimony evidence? Peter, James and John are eyewitnesses. You also have not answered my objection that the churches predate the epistles and the gospels and they believed the events happened. That belief was based on eyewitness testimony too.

[SteveII]

I got smarter. Respond to WLC instead. Where is he wrong in his debate?

He's not even wrong - which is worse.  He wasn't foolish enough to pretend that there was math behind the claim.  He just yammered on about a formula that he failed to apply.

You got so much smarter that you're smarter than math...really?  The unbelievable claims just keep rolling in.  What;s the probability of this one being true, care to assign a value?  Perhaps you should use the formula you provided?

Sorry it went over your head. Don't put words in my mouth.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope, not circular.  Again, the NT is the/collection of claims.  They're a highly biased source that cannot be taken as evidence for what it's selling.  Try again.

Because you repeat it over and over does not change anything. The argument above is circular and plain stupid. 

Since when isn't eyewitness testimony evidence? Peter, James and John are eyewitnesses. You also have not answered my objection that the churches predate the epistles and the gospels and they believed the events happened. That belief was based on eyewitness testimony too.

b-mine
...so close...soo damned close, and yet? Peter, James, and John didnt write anything you have available as an example, we don't have their testimony, eyewitnesses or not...to whatever it is you claim they saw.... so why would it be relevant?

What went over my head, did you provide invisible numbers or silent argumentation? I doubt that claim as well...perhaps we can apply the formula?

[T.J.]

The irony. It hurts so damn much!