On Hell and Forgiveness

[John V]

Fair enough.

As it stands though, were these incidents of people interacting with the, er, “immaterial” enough to convince you of their existence or was it something else along with them? Aside from the obvious “religious teachings/text” I mean. Kind of a given.

I’m not interested in putting you on trial or a “gotcha moment”, I’m just genuinely curious what you think.

The message resonated with my personal experience. I had done things I couldn't forgive myself for. I deserved to be judged and accepted it. When I learned about grace, it was, as the song says, quite amazing.

[polymath257]

Read Livy (the history of Rome) for any number of remarkable claims and corresponding messages from the Gods.

Special pleading concerning 'contingency' is just another aspect of confabulation. To exist *means* to be in the universe. Garden gnomes cannot be detected by ordinary science because of their magical abilities.

Again, firm belief in a delusion isn't evidence of the truth of that delusion. Most of those in the first 500 years had NOTHING to do with the original evidence. Even the *legend* of the resurrection should be held at least as skeptically as the *legend* that the god Pan lead Caesar across the Rubicon.

Livy? Was he making claims about things of which he had personal knowledge? No. So...you don't have a comparison to the 27 books of the NT. You have only proved my point that you don't know what you are talking about in your offhand dismissal of the NT. 

"To exist *means to be in the universe" ??? Really? That is a metaphysical claim that you can not know anything about. 

If garden gnomes have magical abilities, you are positing contingent/emergent magical properties that the universe somehow caused but are not bound by the universe's laws. Science says that is impossible. Your own worldview says that is impossible. Why would I take seriously an impossible analogy? No offence, but between this and the "exists" comment, you don't seem to be equipped to argue metaphysical concepts. 

Your last paragraph is just filled with assertions and proof that you don't know anything about the NT or early church history. It is a fitting end to your series of missteps in support of your 'delusion' argument.

On the contrary, the books of the NT were *not* written by eye-witnesses. Except for some writings attributed to Paul (but not all of them!), we have little knowledge of who actually wrote the texts. They were certainly not written by the attributed authors. So, no, they did not have personal knowledge. They were reporting what others said.

Let's ask the question: what does it mean to 'exist'? Give me an answer to *that* and we can then define the 'universe' and only then deal with your question.

How exactly does science say that contingent magical beings are impossible? What, precisely, is the role of contingency here?

My position is that any talk about contingency is a red-herring. It isn't something science actually *ever* deals with.

And my knowledge of the first 500 years of the Bible is decent (but certainly not perfect).  I stand by what I said until you can give specific reasons to think otherwise.

[John V]

And my knowledge of the first 500 years of the Bible is decent (but certainly not perfect).  I stand by what I said until you can give specific reasons to think otherwise.

Yeah, the argument from ignorance/burden of proof fallacies make it pretty easy to prove your point.

[RoadRunner79]

You don’t seem to understand, you replace evolution with garden gnomes, and therefore it’s delisional. You can even throw in a “from the goo to the zoo” argument to drive the point home.

No, you don't get it. The *evidence* for evolution comes from testable hypotheses and observations. The evidence for neither deities nor garden gnomes is testable. THAT is partly why they are both delusional.

Ok, so you are saying that we cannot just insert "gnomes" in, and call it delusional.

Perhaps just the things claimed of evolution, which are not testable and repeatable.  Those which are arrived at through inductive logic.  We can insert "garden gnomes" there, and call them delusional.  This would allow for the evolution, that pretty much no one disagrees with, while still calling the rest delusional.   Would this work for you?

[John V]

We can easily say the idea that a person with a Y chromosome and a penis is actually a woman a delusion.

[Amarok]

Depends on the nature of the witness and report. I've already noted a difference between witnesses for God and for garden gnomes.

No you didn't you just pulled special pleading from out of your ass

---

Livy? Was he making claims about things of which he had personal knowledge? No. So...you don't have a comparison to the 27 books of the NT. You have only proved my point that you don't know what you are talking about in your offhand dismissal of the NT. 

"To exist *means to be in the universe" ??? Really? That is a metaphysical claim that you can not know anything about. 

If garden gnomes have magical abilities, you are positing contingent/emergent magical properties that the universe somehow caused but are not bound by the universe's laws. Science says that is impossible. Your own worldview says that is impossible. Why would I take seriously an impossible analogy? No offence, but between this and the "exists" comment, you don't seem to be equipped to argue metaphysical concepts. 

Your last paragraph is just filled with assertions and proof that you don't know anything about the NT or early church history. It is a fitting end to your series of missteps in support of your 'delusion' argument.

On the contrary, the books of the NT were *not* written by eye-witnesses. Except for some writings attributed to Paul (but not all of them!), we have little knowledge of who actually wrote the texts. They were certainly not written by the attributed authors. So, no, they did not have personal knowledge. They were reporting what others said.

Let's ask the question: what does it mean to 'exist'? Give me an answer to *that* and we can then define the 'universe' and only then deal with your question.

How exactly does science say that contingent magical beings are impossible? What, precisely, is the role of contingency here?

My position is that any talk about contingency is a red-herring. It isn't something science actually *ever* deals with.

And my knowledge of the first 500 years of the Bible is decent (but certainly not perfect).  I stand by what I said until you can give specific reasons to think otherwise.

Hilarious he goes on about assertions when that's Steve does assertions long winded smart sounding assertions then accuses you of being ignorant by displaying his own ignorance

[SteveII]

Livy? Was he making claims about things of which he had personal knowledge? No. So...you don't have a comparison to the 27 books of the NT. You have only proved my point that you don't know what you are talking about in your offhand dismissal of the NT. 

"To exist *means to be in the universe" ??? Really? That is a metaphysical claim that you can not know anything about. 

If garden gnomes have magical abilities, you are positing contingent/emergent magical properties that the universe somehow caused but are not bound by the universe's laws. Science says that is impossible. Your own worldview says that is impossible. Why would I take seriously an impossible analogy? No offence, but between this and the "exists" comment, you don't seem to be equipped to argue metaphysical concepts. 

Your last paragraph is just filled with assertions and proof that you don't know anything about the NT or early church history. It is a fitting end to your series of missteps in support of your 'delusion' argument.

On the contrary, the books of the NT were *not* written by eye-witnesses. Except for some writings attributed to Paul (but not all of them!), we have little knowledge of who actually wrote the texts. They were certainly not written by the attributed authors. So, no, they did not have personal knowledge. They were reporting what others said.

Wait, what? Peter, James and John were certainly eyewitnesses and authors of books of the NT. Luke wrote Luke and Acts by speaking to eyewitnesses. So...there's that. No one thinks that the apostle with the name actually took up the pen. It was understood that the other three gospels were the accounts from three different groups surrounding the apostles and undertaken by three editors ALL WITHIN the lives of eyewitnesses --including any rebuttal witnesses. Further, there is no reason to suspect the content of the gospels because the content was already believed decades earlier in the churches as well as referred to in ALL the epistles.  So, over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ. Even further--there are no coherent alternate theory that explains the books AS WELL AS the churches across the Roman Empire that believed that Jesus rose from the dead PRIOR TO 50AD. 

So, it would seem that your "the NT were *not* written by eye-witnesses" is not only an assertion, it is plain false. 

Let's ask the question: what does it mean to 'exist'? Give me an answer to *that* and we can then define the 'universe' and only then deal with your question.

Exist: have objective reality or being.

How exactly does science say that contingent magical beings are impossible? What, precisely, is the role of contingency here?

Because science is in the business of explaining things by way of physical laws and processes--yet you need the universe to have produced 'magic' which then goes on to violate the laws of the universe that created it. You cannot logically hold together a theory that magical creatures exist as part of this universe. As such, belief in such creatures is delusional.   

My position is that any talk about contingency is a red-herring. It isn't something science actually *ever* deals with.

Wow. Science as it's core requires the concept of contingency. That's what cause and effect are. 

And my knowledge of the first 500 years of the Bible is decent (but certainly not perfect).  I stand by what I said until you can give specific reasons to think otherwise.

Really? You are not even referring to it correctly. I think you mean Church History.

[Abaddon_ire]

Well thanks for the laugh.  And now when atheists call a religious person a delusional, I will just chuckle... and feel a little sad for them.

You believe in a magic sky fairy, we do not.

Curious that you  reject truth.

[RoadRunner79]

Well thanks for the laugh.  And now when atheists call a religious person a delusional, I will just chuckle... and feel a little sad for them.

You believe in a magic sky fairy, we do not.

Curious that you  reject truth.

I don’t believe in a “magic sky fairy”.

And if you think I’m rejecting truth, I would ask you to give your reasons and facts to support that.

[Amarok]

More crazed fundie talk from Roadkill