Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Gwaithmir]

@ SteveII:

Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
> Cite your Sources.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry.
> Prove it.

c. They presided over the early church.
> Prove it.

d. This early church instructed Paul.
> Prove it.[/size]

e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written).
> Prove it.

f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels.
> Prove that apostles Peter, James and John were the actual authors of said gospels.

g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day.
> Prove it.

h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses).
> Prove it.

i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book.
> Prove it.

j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
> Prove it.

k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop).
> Prove it.

THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.
> Only if the above claims can be proven to be historically accurate.

[Amarok]

@ SteveII:

Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
> Cite your Sources.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry.
> Prove it.

c. They presided over the early church.
> Prove it.

d. This early church instructed Paul.
> Prove it.[/size]

e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written).
> Prove it.

f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels.
> Prove that apostles Peter, James and John were the actual authors of said gospels.

g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day.
> Prove it.

h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses).
> Prove it.

i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book.
> Prove it.

j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
> Prove it.

k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop).
> Prove it.

THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.
> Only if the above claims can be proven to be historically accurate.

And he won't Steve thinks his assertion are evidence and no it's all bullocks apologist tripe .

[Gwaithmir]

@ SteveII:

Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
> Cite your Sources.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry.
> Prove it.

c. They presided over the early church.
> Prove it.

d. This early church instructed Paul.
> Prove it.[/size]

e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written).
> Prove it.

f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels.
> Prove that apostles Peter, James and John were the actual authors of said gospels.

g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day.
> Prove it.

h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses).
> Prove it.

i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book.
> Prove it.

j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
> Prove it.

k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop).
> Prove it.

THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.
> Only if the above claims can be proven to be historically accurate.

And he won't Steve thinks his assertion are evidence and no it's all bullocks apologist tripe .

You probably have him down exactly.

[Amarok]

And he won't Steve thinks his assertion are evidence and no it's all bullocks apologist tripe .

You probably have him down exactly.

Well i have been watching him fail at defending Christianity for awhile .Don't let his bluster intimidate you . 

[GrandizerII]

You are an idiot. Just as 0/0 = indeterminate is not a logical contradiction, it's the same with infinity - infinity.

Not surprised you still don't get it.

I wasn’t talking about that. I’m talking about the concept of an anctual infinity or of crossing an actual infinity, by stepping through each one.  As I said, not talking about the math. The problem is with its assumptions.

You said that the math leads to logical contradictions, did you not?

And no, polymath and I already addressed all these "issues" about the concept of actual infinity in the other thread. You can keep saying "it's a problem all you want", but is not a compelling response.

[RoadRunner79]

I wasn’t talking about that. I’m talking about the concept of an anctual infinity or of crossing an actual infinity, by stepping through each one.  As I said, not talking about the math. The problem is with its assumptions.

You said that the math leads to logical contradictions, did you not?

And no, polymath and I already addressed all these "issues" about the concept of actual infinity in the other thread. You can keep saying "it's a problem all you want", but   is not a compelling response.

It’s funny that you think disagreement is 
I suppose I shouldn’t expect too much from someone who reasons to contradictions and thinks that’s ok.

[GrandizerII]

Oh, speaking of infinity, here's a link to a thread in which both Steve and RR showed they couldn't do maths and consequently got their asses spanked badly by a number of us. It's an amusing read, enjoy:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-53460.html

And here are my posts that you could not address because you got in way over your head:

I know you like to think that I couldn't address your points, despite the effort and patience it took me to respond to pretty much all your responses to me in that thread. And I also know how much you love to project. It's you who gets in way over your head, and you see it in others instead.

1. An actual infinite consists of real (not abstract) objects.
2. In 100% of our experiences and 100% of our scientific inquiries, quantities of real objects can have all the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division applied to them.
3. As Hilbert's Hotel shows, these operations cannot be applied to the concept of an actual infinite without creating contradictions and absurdities
4. Classical propositional logic does not allow for contradictory statements to be true.
5. Therefore an actual infinite of real objects is logically impossible.

And here we're at it again. Oh, well, I guess I'll have to try responding again (because why not).

The problem, Steve, is that indeterminacy does NOT mean logical contradiction.

0/0 is indeterminate. Does this mean an actual zero of real objects is logically impossible? Of course not.

Math is one thing, "plain English logic" is another thing. If you conflate both systems, you're just going to get yourself confused. How about using "plain English logic", via some reductio ad absurdum argument, you demonstrate to us that an actual infinity of things is logically impossible?

You also have to remember that infinity is not a real number (in the sense that it is an element of the set of real numbers). It's a concept that is related to quantities of things, just like "finity". So when you're doing addition or subtraction or whatever on infinity, it's not really the same as doing these operations on real numbers. It's more like doing operations on ideas that could mean a lot of things without context.

If you look at the concept of "finity", for example, "finity" - "finity" could be any real number as well. But we don't know which one until we have a clearer context. Similarly, we can't know what "infinity" - "infinity" is exactly without context. Mathematically speaking, we say the answer is indeterminate.

Infinite set theory is not a defeater for (2) because infinite set theory is not itself a conclusion derived from a logical process. To defeat (2) you have to give logical reasons why we should expect an infinite quantity of objects to behave fundamentally different than a finite quantity of objects.

What do you mean by "fundamentally different"?

If I have four apples, and you take two away from me, I'm left with two apples, right?

In this case, "finity" - "finity" = 2.

If, on the other hand, I have four apples, and RR took three apples from me, that's "finity" - "finity" = 1.

You have two different answers to "finity" - "finity". Does this mean that a finite number of real objects is logically impossible? Of course not.

1. An event is a change in a real object
2. From any point in the past, there is a finite amount of events to the present and can be counted down en...e3...e2...e1...e0(now).
3. If there are an infinite amount of events in the past, we could never count down from infinity to e3...e2...e1...e0 because there would always be an infinite amount of events that would still have happened on the leading edge of the series.
4. With an infinite series of past events we could never arrive to the present.
5. Therefore an actual infinite series of past events is impossible.

Again, this implies the A-theory of time is true. So even if you have successfully shown a problem in this argument against traversal of actual infinity, you're making the wrong assumptions on time.

I mean, I've told you this so many times, Steve. I don't know why you keep bringing this up like a broken record, lol.

Also, where's your response to my other post? Are you working on it? Or is it too much for you to handle?

---

You said that the math leads to logical contradictions, did you not?

And no, polymath and I already addressed all these "issues" about the concept of actual infinity in the other thread. You can keep saying "it's a problem all you want", but   is not a compelling response.

It’s funny that you think disagreement is 
I suppose I shouldn’t expect too much from someone who reasons to contradictions and thinks that’s ok.

What contradictions? Do you ever say anything much of substance, RR?

[RoadRunner79]

By saying that you can have something which is both endless and completed.

Do you think that atheist constantly insult everyone and feel the need to declare victory on everything, because they are insecure about their position, or is it just like an angry child?

[GrandizerII]

By saying that you can have something which is both endless and completed.

Yes, it's not logically incoherent. You just don't find it intuitive.

Do you think that atheist constantly insult everyone and feel the need to declare victory on everything, because they are insecure about their position, or is it just like an angry child?

I don't care what you think. As far as I'm concerned, you're a troll. And if not, you come off as really passive aggressive. And, before you judge atheists for being angry and childish, you should look at some of your angry Christian brethren here who are constantly condescending and belittling atheists in this very forum.

[Amarok]

Do you think that atheist constantly insult everyone and feel the need to declare victory on everything, because they are insecure about their position, or is it just like an angry child?

There is so much projection and Christian martyrdom complex in this statement