The real religion?

[Jesster]

So because some of the comic books I've read contain some actual events that happened in the natural world, we should all accept all the other claims those comic books make. Got it. I think I'm following your patterns now. This is so enlightening!

[Edwardo Piet]

Steve.



Your argument is invalid.

[robvalue]

That picture is so fake. There's no way anyone would go to the effort of making a baby burger and not put ketchup on it.

[SteveII]

You might not find it convincing, but it certainly objectively evidence for God.

So, if I, and a bunch of other people collected all the accounts and personal experiences with the Mandela Effect from around the world and catalogued them into a book, this book would be objective evidence of people experiencing parallel universe slips.  Right?  Indisputable evidence of parallel universe slips happening all the time.  I mean...if THAT many people INSIST (and they do vehemently insist) they are experiencing parallel universe slips, then it must be true.  Yes?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, your conclusion does not follow from the evidence. If you cataloged all the experiences and they were the same...you would have a catalog of experiences that were the same. How do you leap to the existence of a parallel universe? The parallel universe is a theory attempting to explain the evidence and not a condition of the evidence being true.

[SteveII]

The stumbling block that I can never get passed with Steve is the fact that the NT is the claim, not the evidence.  It's no more evidence for Jesus/God than the Koran is for Mohammed/Allah.

And I will keep pasting this (from an earlier post) when the subject is brought up...

You are saying that period descriptions of historical events are not evidence of historical events. By your definition, we would never ever know anything about any historical events. In addition, the NT describes the events that were already believed to have happened and either written by eyewitnesses or people with access to eyewitnesses (either personally or through additional documents). Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works. Characterizing all 27 documents as the claim, is simply either (a) a misunderstanding of what it is they contain or (b) a catchy phrase used by atheist that has no real meaning.

[Edwardo Piet]

He's not getting the message! Activate Nicolas Cage!

Steve.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nicholas Cage's bird hair is more evidence of the Godlessness of the world than the NT will ever be evidence for God.

[FatAndFaithless]

The stumbling block that I can never get passed with Steve is the fact that the NT is the claim, not the evidence.  It's no more evidence for Jesus/God than the Koran is for Mohammed/Allah.

And I will keep pasting this (from an earlier post) when the subject is brought up...

You are saying that period descriptions of historical events are not evidence of historical events. By your definition, we would never ever know anything about any historical events. In addition, the NT describes the events that were already believed to have happened and either written by eyewitnesses or people with access to eyewitnesses (either personally or through additional documents). Churches (which already believed that Jesus came, performed miracles, died, and rose again) existed before Paul started writing to them and before the gospel editors completed their works. Characterizing all 27 documents as the claim, is simply either (a) a misunderstanding of what it is they contain or (b) a catchy phrase used by atheist that has no real meaning.

And this is what I mean.  Just because it's written down doesn't mean it happened, that's it's an accurate description of what happened, or that it's an accurate description of what people believed happened, especially since any purported eyewitnesses are utterly anonymous and uncorroborated.  You've got a lot of legwork to do in establishing that the NT is even a reliable account of what people think happened, let alone that it depicts anything that actually happened.

You'll probably just keep using the NT as 'evidence,' but don't expect to get anywhere with it.

[Jesster]

I see. So when someone properly spins his argument back at him, he ignores it. That evidence must be really strong. You've made a true believer out of me.

[Edwardo Piet]

To be honest I think it's just an admission that my "Nicholas Cage's hair is a bird" argument completely destroyed his "NT is evidence, neener neener" argument.