[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2013, 05:20 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2013 10:23 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
AM I seeing things, or did Idioto just say his god was "unconscious". Haha. His god is NEVER "conscious". Consciousness is a temporal process requiring time. If there is a god, space-time would be a creature of that god, and therefore cannot be presumed to be in place before it's creation. If that is true, his god must exist, and have NO PROPERTIES which require LATER created dimensions to exist. Therefore "sentience", and consciousness, BOTH OF WHICH REQUITRE TIME, are out. THEY ARE PROCESSES. PROCESSES REQUIRE TIME. Describe your fairy-god anyway you like Pussy Cat IRC, but don't use dimensions and descriptors which are nonsensical to your OWN god, and it's properties. If you have evidence for consciousness without molecular structure, genetics, and memory please provide it. You will be nominated for a Nobel prize.

Are there any plans for evidence of the resurrection. That IS what you said this thread was about, yet have ignored for almost 50 pages now. AT page 50, can we assume you have none, and stop wasting our time with the likes of you ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-01-2013, 09:11 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2013 09:35 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 07:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Indeed. Let's see if Lion_IRC is going to invoke a double standard to deny the validity of the following argument from intuition.

God is not conscious
P1: Consciousness requires material substance.
P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial.
C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance.
C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious.

P1: Consciousness requires material substance. Define material substance. Is a photon material? Does a gravitron have mass? Is dark energy a substance?

P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. When? Always or just sometimes? My body has mass but how much does the free will which causes it to move weigh?

C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance. Sure, thats metaphysically possible for God. Thumbsup

C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious. There are times when I am unconscious. And yet still exist.




(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...The problem with the whole damn argument is that both of the premises make assumptions that can't be proven, and so the conclusion doesn't hold any water.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Thats why they are called premises, because you dont have to accept them. The negations are ALSO premises.
P1. All dogs have four legs. This is a premise.
P2. Fido is a dog. This is a premise.
It is not obligatory to regard these premises as inviolate facts.
I dont have to prove that ALL dogs have four legs or whether those 2 front legs are arent ''legs'' at all but are really just arms that a dog uses to walk.
If all dogs DO have 4 legs and if Fido IS a dog, then Fido must, by necessary inference logically have 4 legs.

Stop trying to avoid the syllogism itself by obfuscating about the impossibility of knowing whether P1 is empirically verifiable by science. We can NEVER know with 100% certaintly if every single dog ever born has/had 4 legs or not. You either accept the premise or you dont.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is an assumption built upon human intuition, not empirical evidence.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  So what? The negation of this premise would simply be the opposite assumption. Where's the empirical evidence that NO CAUSE exists?
We have a ton of evidence to support our intuitions about the deliberate causation of events. Agent/Mechanism is a process we see going on every day.
Even accidental stuff that happens has an agent we can blame.


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Science has show us that human intuition is not at all adequate to judge what is intuitive beyond our average world.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  This is self-refuting and circular. What field of science studies things ''beyond our average world''?
Youve just claimed that science can evaluate intuition. Therefore intuition is within the realm of science.
And I would argue that science's understanding of ''intuition'' is limited by its primitive technology.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Our understanding, and even our language, breaks down as we approach the very fast, very cold, very large, or very small. So at the level of quantum mechanics nothing is intuitive.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  THAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE FOR YOU!
Not only are you admitting ignorance, but you are admitting that (current) science cant possibly make claims about P1, or intuition in general, being false.
You really have no basis to reject a premise about causation of things or the reality of existence subsequent to non-existence.
And biblical theism does NOT propose a naturalistic explanation for how the Cause did it, so dont demand of thesim that which you agree is ''beyond our average world''


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P2: The Universe began to exist.

Once again, we have an unjustifiable assumption.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I beg to differ. There is overwhelming justification to think the Universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning....WAIT! Why does that sound familiar?



(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...You try to claim fowl on me and point to the Big Bang, to which I must point out that you've missed the boat. Evolution is to Abiogenesis what the Big Bang is to the 'creation' of the universe. Much as evolution explain biodiversity and not the origins of life, so the Big Bang explains the universe's expansion and formation, but not it's 'creation'.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Indeed I do call fowl. If abiogenesis is to evolution as the big bang is to the existence of the universe then you are in no position to make claims about the ''flaws'' in theistic cosmology. Abiogenesis may as well be called a sacred mystery because, like the big bang, all prevailing scientific theories are wishful thinking. And NONE offer any explanatory power for humans asking existential questions.

You possibly dont like those ''why'' questions because they arise in the human psyche as if some intuition in us demands to know whether we exist because we matter
and whether our existence will have mattered after we die.

Mr Krauss runs away from why questions and thinks only of how questions, but what difference does it make to him to how our universe got here? What difference will it make to a few insignificant specs of carbon in this temporary aberration in cosmology we call earth, once we are gone, that we speculated for a brief few yocto-seconds about the age of the rock on which we dwelt?

We didnt cause ourselves to exist and we cant prevent our own death.
But is there any Mind somewhere in or beyond the Cosmos, ''beyond our average world'', to Whom our existence does matter?

You might answer...definitely not or I dont care, but most humans DO care and DO wonder.



(30-01-2013 12:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Next time, try to cherry pick a little less. There is one major point that you ignored, presumably because it wrecks your entire argument. So I'll just copy/paste what I had already said in my previous post...

Just because we don't know, doesn't mean you get to assume what you want and pretend it's factually true or accurate.


I dont need to respond to every non-sequitur I see.

But you are absolutely right about the admission that you dont know.

And as for asserting stuff which isnt factually true, how about you follow the time-honored tradition of intellectual dialogue and muster up some facts to...

SHOW ME WHERE I AM WRONG.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 10:21 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(30-01-2013 09:11 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  P1: Consciousness requires material substance. Define material substance. Is a photon material? Does a gravitron have mass? Is dark energy a substance?

P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. When? Always or just sometimes? My body has mass but how much does the free will which causes it to move weigh?

C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance. Sure, thats metaphysically possible for God. Thumbsup

C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious. There are times when I am unconscious. And yet still exist.




(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...The problem with the whole damn argument is that both of the premises make assumptions that can't be proven, and so the conclusion doesn't hold any water.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Thats why they are called premises, because you dont have to accept them. The negations are ALSO premises.
P1. All dogs have four legs. This is a premise.
P2. Fido is a dog. This is a premise.
It is not obligatory to regard these premises as inviolate facts.
I dont have to prove that ALL dogs have four legs or whether those 2 front legs are arent ''legs'' at all but are really just arms that a dog uses to walk.
If all dogs DO have 4 legs and if Fido IS a dog, then Fido must, by necessary inference logically have 4 legs.

Stop trying to avoid the syllogism itself by obfuscating about the impossibility of knowing whether P1 is empirically verifiable by science. We can NEVER know with 100% certaintly if every single dog ever born has/had 4 legs or not. You either accept the premise or you dont.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is an assumption built upon human intuition, not empirical evidence.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  So what? The negation of this premise would simply be the opposite assumption. Where's the empirical evidence that NO CAUSE exists?
We have a ton of evidence to support our intuitions about the deliberate causation of events. Agent/Mechanism is a process we see going on every day.
Even accidental stuff that happens has an agent we can blame.


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Science has show us that human intuition is not at all adequate to judge what is intuitive beyond our average world.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  This is self-refuting and circular. What field of science studies things ''beyond our average world''?
Youve just claimed that science can evaluate intuition. Therefore intuition is within the realm of science.
And I would argue that science's understanding of ''intuition'' is limited by its primitive technology.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Our understanding, and even our language, breaks down as we approach the very fast, very cold, very large, or very small. So at the level of quantum mechanics nothing is intuitive.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  THAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE FOR YOU!
Not only are you admitting ignorance, but you are admitting that (current) science cant possibly make claims about P1, or intuition in general, being false.
You really have no basis to reject a premise about causation of things or the reality of existence subsequent to non-existence.
And biblical theism does NOT propose a naturalistic explanation for how the Cause did it, so dont demand of thesim that which you agree is ''beyond our average world''


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P2: The Universe began to exist.

Once again, we have an unjustifiable assumption.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I beg to differ. There is overwhelming justification to think the Universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning....WAIT! Why does that sound familiar?



(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...You try to claim fowl on me and point to the Big Bang, to which I must point out that you've missed the boat. Evolution is to Abiogenesis what the Big Bang is to the 'creation' of the universe. Much as evolution explain biodiversity and not the origins of life, so the Big Bang explains the universe's expansion and formation, but not it's 'creation'.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Indeed I do call fowl. If abiogenesis is to evolution as the big bang is to the existence of the universe then you are in no position to make claims about the ''flaws'' in theistic cosmology. Abiogenesis may as well be called a sacred mystery because, like the big bang, all prevailing scientific theories are wishful thinking. And NONE offer any explanatory power for humans asking existential questions.

You possibly dont like those ''why'' questions because they arise in the human psyche as if some intuition in us demands to know whether we exist because we matter
and whether our existence will have mattered after we die.

Mr Krauss runs away from why questions and thinks only of how questions, but what difference does it make to him to how our universe got here? What difference will it make to a few insignificant specs of carbon in this temporary aberration in cosmology we call earth, once we are gone, that we speculated for a brief few yocto-seconds about the age of the rock on which we dwelt?

We didnt cause ourselves to exist and we cant prevent our own death.
But is there any Mind somewhere in or beyond the Cosmos, ''beyond our average world'', to Whom our existence does matter?

You might answer...definitely not or I dont care, but most humans DO care and DO wonder.



(30-01-2013 12:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Next time, try to cherry pick a little less. There is one major point that you ignored, presumably because it wrecks your entire argument. So I'll just copy/paste what I had already said in my previous post...

Just because we don't know, doesn't mean you get to assume what you want and pretend it's factually true or accurate.


I dont need to respond to every non-sequitur I see.

But you are absolutely right about the admission that you dont know.

And as for asserting stuff which isnt factually true, how about you follow the time-honored tradition of intellectual dialogue and muster up some facts to...

SHOW ME WHERE I AM WRONG.



Do you understand at all the concept of the burden of proof? When someone makes a claim, it is up to the claim maker to support their claim, or else withdraw their position. You've made a claim in favor of the Cosmoligical Argument, all I am doing is playing the role of the skeptic. You have made a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim, not on the skeptic. I do not have to 'prove you wrong' by supporting a counter-claim, all I am doing is showing that your claim is unfounded.


You perceive, and are trying to project, a false dichotomy here. There is no opposite of the Cosmoliogical Argument, and disproving the CA does in no way endorse any other claim; nor am I making a claim. I'm just showing your claim is unfounded, that is all. I need not show more evidence than I already have. You're assumptions are unfounded and I have already made my case, as case you have yet to refute. It is your job to back up your claims with better evidence and logic, or conceded the point and withdraw your claim. You refuse to do either, insisting I present evidence for a non-CA point of view. Sorry, I'm not making a positive claim here; you can't force me to present and argue for a position I haven't claimed nor hold.

So in essence...

Your previous arguments are unfounded, present better evidence or withdraw your claim.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
31-01-2013, 03:51 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(30-01-2013 09:11 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  P1: Consciousness requires material substance. Define material substance. Is a photon material? Does a gravitron have mass? Is dark energy a substance?

P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. When? Always or just sometimes? My body has mass but how much does the free will which causes it to move weigh?

C1: Therefore, the hypothesized god possesses no material substance. Sure, thats metaphysically possible for God. Thumbsup

C2: Therefore, the hypothesized god is not conscious. There are times when I am unconscious. And yet still exist.




(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...The problem with the whole damn argument is that both of the premises make assumptions that can't be proven, and so the conclusion doesn't hold any water.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Thats why they are called premises, because you dont have to accept them. The negations are ALSO premises.
P1. All dogs have four legs. This is a premise.
P2. Fido is a dog. This is a premise.
It is not obligatory to regard these premises as inviolate facts.
I dont have to prove that ALL dogs have four legs or whether those 2 front legs are arent ''legs'' at all but are really just arms that a dog uses to walk.
If all dogs DO have 4 legs and if Fido IS a dog, then Fido must, by necessary inference logically have 4 legs.

Stop trying to avoid the syllogism itself by obfuscating about the impossibility of knowing whether P1 is empirically verifiable by science. We can NEVER know with 100% certaintly if every single dog ever born has/had 4 legs or not. You either accept the premise or you dont.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is an assumption built upon human intuition, not empirical evidence.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  So what? The negation of this premise would simply be the opposite assumption. Where's the empirical evidence that NO CAUSE exists?
We have a ton of evidence to support our intuitions about the deliberate causation of events. Agent/Mechanism is a process we see going on every day.
Even accidental stuff that happens has an agent we can blame.


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Science has show us that human intuition is not at all adequate to judge what is intuitive beyond our average world.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  This is self-refuting and circular. What field of science studies things ''beyond our average world''?
Youve just claimed that science can evaluate intuition. Therefore intuition is within the realm of science.
And I would argue that science's understanding of ''intuition'' is limited by its primitive technology.

(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Our understanding, and even our language, breaks down as we approach the very fast, very cold, very large, or very small. So at the level of quantum mechanics nothing is intuitive.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  THAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE FOR YOU!
Not only are you admitting ignorance, but you are admitting that (current) science cant possibly make claims about P1, or intuition in general, being false.
You really have no basis to reject a premise about causation of things or the reality of existence subsequent to non-existence.
And biblical theism does NOT propose a naturalistic explanation for how the Cause did it, so dont demand of thesim that which you agree is ''beyond our average world''


(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...P2: The Universe began to exist.

Once again, we have an unjustifiable assumption.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I beg to differ. There is overwhelming justification to think the Universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning....WAIT! Why does that sound familiar?



(29-01-2013 01:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...You try to claim fowl on me and point to the Big Bang, to which I must point out that you've missed the boat. Evolution is to Abiogenesis what the Big Bang is to the 'creation' of the universe. Much as evolution explain biodiversity and not the origins of life, so the Big Bang explains the universe's expansion and formation, but not it's 'creation'.

(29-01-2013 07:50 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Indeed I do call fowl. If abiogenesis is to evolution as the big bang is to the existence of the universe then you are in no position to make claims about the ''flaws'' in theistic cosmology. Abiogenesis may as well be called a sacred mystery because, like the big bang, all prevailing scientific theories are wishful thinking. And NONE offer any explanatory power for humans asking existential questions.

You possibly dont like those ''why'' questions because they arise in the human psyche as if some intuition in us demands to know whether we exist because we matter
and whether our existence will have mattered after we die.

Mr Krauss runs away from why questions and thinks only of how questions, but what difference does it make to him to how our universe got here? What difference will it make to a few insignificant specs of carbon in this temporary aberration in cosmology we call earth, once we are gone, that we speculated for a brief few yocto-seconds about the age of the rock on which we dwelt?

We didnt cause ourselves to exist and we cant prevent our own death.
But is there any Mind somewhere in or beyond the Cosmos, ''beyond our average world'', to Whom our existence does matter?

You might answer...definitely not or I dont care, but most humans DO care and DO wonder.



(30-01-2013 12:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Next time, try to cherry pick a little less. There is one major point that you ignored, presumably because it wrecks your entire argument. So I'll just copy/paste what I had already said in my previous post...

Just because we don't know, doesn't mean you get to assume what you want and pretend it's factually true or accurate.


I dont need to respond to every non-sequitur I see.

But you are absolutely right about the admission that you dont know.

And as for asserting stuff which isnt factually true, how about you follow the time-honored tradition of intellectual dialogue and muster up some facts to...

SHOW ME WHERE I AM WRONG.
Every time I say the word "hippopotamus" a deer materialises in the forests of Canada.

You can't prove me wrong, so it must be true!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like hedgehog648's post
31-01-2013, 04:29 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(31-01-2013 03:51 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  
(30-01-2013 09:11 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I dont need to respond to every non-sequitur I see.

But you are absolutely right about the admission that you dont know.

And as for asserting stuff which isnt factually true, how about you follow the time-honored tradition of intellectual dialogue and muster up some facts to...

SHOW ME WHERE I AM WRONG.
Every time I say the word "hippopotamus" a deer materialises in the forests of Canada.

You can't prove me wrong, so it must be true!


An interdimensional pug named Samuel created the universe and he sits on in a forever rotating teacup. He plays his acoustic guitar to stimulate the movement of the strings which the universe is made of. He is also inside Saturn.


Therefore: God is a pug named Samuel. String Theory is correct because he causes it with his guitar. Saturn is the centre of all String action in the universe.



Disprove Samuel.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
31-01-2013, 04:36 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(31-01-2013 04:29 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 03:51 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  Every time I say the word "hippopotamus" a deer materialises in the forests of Canada.

You can't prove me wrong, so it must be true!


An interdimensional pug named Samuel created the universe and he sits on in a forever rotating teacup. He plays his acoustic guitar to stimulate the movement of the strings which the universe is made of. He is also inside Saturn.


Therefore: God is a pug named Samuel. String Theory is correct because he causes it with his guitar. Saturn is the centre of all String action in the universe.



Disprove Samuel.
You forgot the part where Sammy lives. He lives with his minions, the goonies. They all orbit Pluto in a 1957 Chevy limmo. It's called Goonie Heaven. There are levels of goonies, cuz the Gospels of the Goonies (GG's) tells me so, and they are written in Greek, so it must be true. If I put up a picture of them, that is evidence for them. There are goonies, the archgoonies, the dominigoonies, the cheribigoonies, seraphiminigoonies, you get the picture. If you're a good boy or girl, when you die, you will go orbit Pluto also, and the better you are, the closer you will sit to Sammy in the limmo.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
31-01-2013, 07:59 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(25-01-2013 04:11 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(25-01-2013 11:01 AM)tokutter Wrote:  What's wrong Lion IRC, you didn't get slapped around enough over on atheistsforum.org., so you come over here for some more. Sheeeeshck!


Welcome tokutter,
Are you following me?

mmmmmmmmm.......look at the joined dates
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 01:56 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(24-01-2013 03:20 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Say what ?

EXISTING BELIEVERS.

Well BEFORE the written Gospels appeared.

...many of whom would have been eye-witness corroboration sources for what we read in those Gospels.

(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...You DO know that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark Luke and John right ? There is absolutely no dispute about that by Biblical scholars.

Correct. Nobody has claimed that.

The name of the person who physically wrote down the text on paper is not known.

Neither do we know for certain that the oldest extant text is the very first time the accounts were written. What we have may be the later result of earlier drafts.

It stands to reason that the sources would want to cross-check and verify details BEFORE committing them into writing.

And as I said earlier, the sources may have required translation.

That the Gospels are given appropriate ''names'' (or letter designations like "Q") for simplicity and convenience has never been a problem for any bible scholars INCLUDING theist scholars.

Now lets get to your noble lie theory and see if it applies to people who faced crucifixion for their stating their unshakable belief that Jesus was seen alive after death.


(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...The content of a lie, or the fact that is "sounds nice" in no way proves the motives for the lie, or the truthfulness of a text. The debate is NOT the motive for the gospels.

The Gospels dont ''sound nice''.

The Gospels state things which make their sources look like idiots, cowards, doubters, disloyal to Jesus. The Gospels assert things which, in context, are laughable such as...Jewish women in 33AD being reliable primary witnesses testifying to a male Jewish audience, like the Jewish Messiah being flogged and Crucified, like a physical Resurrection, etc. They would otherwise be ashamed to profess much of what is in the Gospels. And the way a historical text sounds IS a valid method historians use to evaluate its likely authenticity.

Nobody is saying it PROVES anything, but it is certainly a factor used by historians. Embellishment and self-flattery is a motive which distorts the likelihood of a text being entirely factual.

And in this case the historical sources had the additional motive not to write or say anything at all if they wanted to avoid arrest and execution! So they were writing unflattering stuff about themselves that could get them stoned, beheaded, crucified.... Consider


(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...The debate is the resurrection. The motives for the gospels was to gain adherents to the new cult, obviously.

The Gospel writers were doing what they were told by a person they NOW thought without doubt was a divine Being. If they had doubts, they would have waited until the risk of arrest and execution had subsided - they would have waited maybe 400-600 years to pass.

And that leads me to your supposed noble lie examples...



(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ..."I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'." Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

Pammachius 395AD. What does this have to do with the Gospels 350 years earlier?

Jerome is having a petty dispute with someone over a matter which he thinks goes to personal/intellectual credibility.

Nobody in 395AD is getting arrested and tortured for sending letters back and forth debating theology and squabbling about Church politics.

Are you seriously forgetting that the Roman Empire at that time was being ruled by a CHRISTIAN who accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?




(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine...
..."We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

Yep. Eusebius stating the bleeding obvious. When writing history propaganda, leave out the unflattering stuff.

The Gospels fail the propaganda test. They were unflattering, embarrassing, shameful, and proclaimed stuff that went not only against Messianic Jewish orthodoxy, but also against Roman theism and politics. The only motive Christians had was to please God. And lying displeases God.

The Nazis would torture you if you DIDNT affirm the Hitler-flattering Nazi propaganda. But thats the exact OPPOSITE of what was going on in AD 50 when the authorities were torturing early Christians.



(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

Again with the...Church Fathers. Christianity was already firmly established as a contending viable, credible theistic worldview. So much so, that it had attained tolerance and the ability to be openly discussed by intellectuals in the safety of an uncensored public square in cosmopolitan Alexandria.


(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople:

The 5th Century?!!! Man you are late to the party.

(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...The 5th and 6th centuries were the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop and opponent of Augustine Faustus said:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

Again, completely ignoring the fact that the Gospel authors werent living in the 5th and 6th Centuries by which time Rome was ruled by a Christian. By this time there was certainly a motive to assert POLITICAL influence - nothing to do with pleasing God and EVERYTHING to do with terrestrial self-gain. (Money/power)
Yep - people WILL lie for THAT.

(22-01-2013 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Once the Church had gained acceptance by much of Europe and the Middle East, it's forgery engine went nuts.

See? You know that the motive to lie for self-gain here is entirely driven by different circumstances.
''Once the Church had gained acceptance...''
YEP. And not before.
Re..."EXISTING BELIEVERS.

Well BEFORE the written Gospels appeared.

...many of whom would have been eye-witness corroboration sources for what we read in those Gospels."

I challenge you to name one eye witness. And prove it. A "Tradition" will not do.

Re..."And in this case the historical sources had the additional motive not to
write or say anything at all if they wanted to avoid arrest and
execution! So they were writing unflattering stuff about themselves that
could get them stoned, beheaded, crucified...." OH DEAR! You have almost no understanding of the history. Rome tolerated all religions. Look it up. Rome, in fact, probably created the gospels.

Re...."But thats the exact OPPOSITE of what was going on in AD 50 when the authorities were torturing early Christians. " HUH? What "authorities?" What "Christians?" Methinks your imagination is out of control.

Re..."Again with the...Church Fathers. Christianity was already firmly
established as a contending viable, credible theistic worldview." BULLSHIT! You have no understanding of the real history. Christianity always was and still is a bloody mess of incoherent ideas. Some people only started to believe the same things after the council of Nicea, early 4th century.

Re..."By this time there was certainly a motive to assert POLITICAL influence -
nothing to do with pleasing God and EVERYTHING to do with terrestrial
self-gain. (Money/power)
Yep - people WILL lie for THAT. " And you're claiming Christianity isn't all about power and money? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 02:06 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 12:36 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(22-01-2013 02:47 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  For reference, external evidence, means evidence outside the bibal.

And supported means the evidence is supported by another external piece.

This overlooks the fact that there is no equivalent or comparable historical text from that time which provides as much historical detail about a historical figure
as the Gospels do about Jesus of Nazareth.

The Gospel texts are separate historical documents which corroborate one another.

And these texts did not become part of The Bible until hundreds of years AFTER they were written. So asking for extra-biblical corroboration of the Gospels is ignorant.
Re..."The Gospel texts are separate historical documents which corroborate one another."

Mate....you're just plain ignorant. Google "Q source" Google "two source hypothesis." Come back after you've had an education.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2013, 02:21 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(26-01-2013 01:38 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(26-01-2013 12:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  ...In other words, you have the gospels vs all other historical books, authors of the time who make no mention of this character....

Well the claim that nobody makes mention of Jesus is simply false. (2 users Like Rahn127's post) Laughat

And yeah, We DO ''have'' the Gospels!
Just as we "have'' the writings of Tacitus and Josephus.
Saying that there is no mention of it is false. What you really are asking instead is...how come the Romans didnt publicise the apparent Resurrection of Jesus? Why didnt the prevailing Jewish authorities who Crucified Jesus help the Disciples get their work published?
Do you want me to explain why?

The really glaring absence is that of the missing counter-gospels?
Where are all the historical texts debunking Saul of Tarsus?
Why cant the Jesus mythers come up with historical texts showing that there never was a historical Jesus?

Its grossly disingenuous to demand extra biblical sources to corroborate one part of the Gospels, when the historical existence of Jesus is accepted almost universally by historians who would otherwise reject a historical Jesus if the Gospels didnt exist.

Why bother demanding secular corroboration of just page 49 of a book if you think there is no corroboration for any of the previous pages either? You could just dispose of everything in the bible by demanding page-by-page, extra-biblical corroboration.
Re..."Where are all the historical texts debunking Saul of Tarsus?"

If you're genuinely interested I'll tell you.

Re..."Why cant the Jesus mythers come up with historical texts showing that there never was a historical Jesus?"

So your proof for Jesus is that no one said he didn't exist? Remove head from arse please.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: