24 Nov 12
Originally posted by josephwI do concede that it takes a lot more mental prestidigitation to insinuate a god into reality than it does to snip god out of reality with Occam's Razor and leave him on the cutting-room floor.
I feel the same way about atheism.
Even the most ignorant human being can comprehend atheism, because atheism's sole tenent is, "there is no God".
Therefore, atheism promotes ignorance.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczIf timing was irrelevant, or the fact that he could not possibly have witnessed any of the events was irrelevant, then why did you not quote someone from say the 3rd century, or the 20th century?
In my response to googlefudge, I merely provided a link to the works of Flavius Josephus who was a Roman-Jewish historian at the time of Jesus Christ, actually I think he was born a few years after Jesus death, burial and resurrection. Either way, this detail is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Josephus was Roman and Jewish, as a historian he would have been charged with reporting and documenting truthfully.
That doesn't mean he actually did. On top of that it is well known that some of his writings were later modified by Christians.
My purpose in my response to googlefudge was to show there are outside sources aside from the bible that have an account of Jesus Christ.
But what use is it to show this? As I say, the existence of Christians and their beliefs is not disputed. I doubt that googlefudge disputes the dates that the various new Testament books were written (some prior to this work, I believe).
Getting "Jesus loves you is a mystery" from anything I mentioned in my post or quoted by the author (googlefudge) of whom I referenced… is a [b]'mystery' to me. Are you sure you were referencing the right post, because it makes no sense to me. Perhaps you are referencing something else.[/b]
The topic started with whodey saying "Jesus loves you." and Hand of Hecate demanding proof.
Additionally, I was not referring to the existence of Christians during the time of Jesus as reported by Flavius Josephus, which is true... I was referring to the reference of Jesus in 2 different parts of his historical work. Please see 3.3, there is also a reference to John the Baptist. Incidentally, 3.3 also references the resurrection.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
Not only is it well known that that passage was later modified by Christians, but it too quite clearly says:
And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
So, yes, it does refer to the existence of Christians and tells us nothing more than that of value.
Now, with all that being said I do not expect this to mean anything to you or anybody else that adheres to atheism, but hopefully it will.
You presented it supposedly as evidence of the existence of Jesus. Why do you now turn round and say that you expect it to mean nothing to me? Is it good evidence or is it not?
What I have seen in most of the posts in the Spirituality Forum that relate to the existence of God or Jesus Christ is hostility from your camp (if I can use that term).
There is hostility from both sides in any debate. Its hardly surprising, nor does it mean neither side will listen to the evidence presented by the other.
Arguments have more to do with criticizing, belittling, chastising anything that a person who calls themselves a Christian has to say. Typically the atheist argument relies on science and what is understood (from what I have seen), science has not arrived in this respect, it is dynamic and in a constant state of change.
Its not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying science is unreliable? That you cannot make any conclusions from science?
It is almost as if you (generally speaking) don't want God to be true. I think when it comes to faith, spirituality, and existence of god it is probably better not to rely on what science has to say about these matters, because they are in different spheres of understanding.
But when they contradict each other then there is a problem.
The atheists dismissal of arguments and stories related to experiences of the faith of Christians and shared in the forums are insolent, and for no other reason than 'you don't believe'.
Actually there is a much stronger reason: we believe your beliefs are harmful to society.
I realize that you may not call yourself an atheist... I have extrapolated. Am I wrong?
No, your not wrong, I do call myself an atheist.
Dude, in all sincerity... The Bible is true, Jesus Christ is alive and he is coming back again. He is not just a historical figure, great teacher, or brother... he is the Son of God.
So you believe. But admit at least that it is a belief not based on evidence and thus don't try to use evidence to support it as you will find that evidence consistently lacking and unconvincing to anyone who does not already believe as you do.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by SoothfastOn the contrary, I think Occam's razor sees creation as... a creation. The easiest explanation for all this is a Creator of some kind.
I do concede that it takes a lot more mental prestidigitation to insinuate a god into reality than it does to snip god out of reality with Occam's Razor and leave him on the cutting-room floor.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidExcept that:
On the contrary, I think Occam's razor sees creation as... a creation. The easiest explanation for all this is a Creator of some kind.
1. No creation is known to have taken place, that must be assumed without justification, violating Occam's razor.
2. A creator is not the simplest explanation, even though you may find it the easiest (Occam's razor is not about being easy). If you first prove that a cause is required (which you haven't), then the simplest explanation is that there was a cause. Nothing more can really be said about what that cause was. Calling it a 'creator' suggests agency, which is a totally unwarranted complication to the explanation that Occam's razor will cut off.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
If believe as you do.
Originally posted by kd2acz
If timing was irrelevant, or the fact that he could not possibly have witnessed any of the events was irrelevant, then why did you not quote someone from say the 3rd century, or the 20th century?
I fail to see why who I used to make my point matters in this case. I used Flavius because he was close to the time of the events taking place. When it would have been more ‘convenient’ for a Jew to leave out the details about Jesus and rewrite history, he did not do it.
The Roman-Jewish Historian, Flavius Josephus was somewhat of a contemporary of Jesus Christ by a few years. The information sources that I have found put his birth at 37 AD or CE. By 4 years Jesus and Flavius missed being alive on earth at the same time, give or take. To be a historian does not mean you have to be ‘present’ at an event for it to be authentic. Input from others present, stories passed down and of course actually being there can and do account for a historical record. I will give you an example… My family on my mother’s side endured the bombing of Berlin by the allies during World War II and the subsequent invasion by Russian forces. The fact that I was not present and my mother was a baby at the time does not change the fact that this all happened. The stories (experiences) as told by my grandmother of what she went through are true, they are history. I have a part of history, family history that is a part of the overall history, and it is true, but I was not there. So you can see as a historian, it is not always required that the historian witness the event for the event to be true. When I said this small detail was irrelevant, this is what I mean, it really matters not.
What is relevant is that Josephus was Roman and Jewish, as a historian he would have been charged with reporting and documenting truthfully.
That doesn't mean he actually did. On top of that it is well known that some of his writings were later modified by Christians.
Well known to whom? I am not in the position (neither are you) to say what is true and what is not, what happened and what didn’t with regards to Flavius’ writings. I was only providing a source of an account from a man who lived in the era of Jesus that was a historian to GF who does not accept the Bible as accurate when it comes to historical matters (at least that is how I read his comments).
I suppose if Flavius’ stuff has no value to you, other aspects of history and its writers don't as well.
My purpose in my response to googlefudge was to show there are outside sources aside from the bible that have an account of Jesus Christ.
But what use is it to show this? As I say, the existence of Christians and their beliefs is not disputed. I doubt that googlefudge disputes the dates that the various new Testament books were written (some prior to this work, I believe).
Again,
I am not talking the existence of Christians and their beliefs, it is about Jesus Christ and that he existed and that there were accounts of who he was outside of the bible and what happened to him, that’s all.
Twhitehead, In his post dated '23 Nov '12 12:55', googlefudge made the following statement to whodey...
Actually neither of those things would come close to proving JC existed (as described in the bible).
You (collectively) really don't understand what the terms evidence and proof mean do you.
I was responding to GF statement about Jesus Christ existing (as described in the bible), and provided information about a historian from the era, nothing more nothing less.
Getting "Jesus loves you is a mystery" from anything I mentioned in my post or quoted by the author (googlefudge) of whom I referenced… is a 'mystery' to me. Are you sure you were referencing the right post, because it makes no sense to me. Perhaps you are referencing something else.
The topic started with whodey saying "Jesus loves you." and Hand of Hecate demanding proof.
I think you would be the first to admit; threads take a turn and end up someplace totally different from where the OP had intended. The ‘p’ and ‘s’ debate in one of the threads that currently is very active is a perfect example of this, not to mention brain numbing. I was responding to a statement only, as we all do.
Additionally, I was not referring to the existence of Christians during the time of Jesus as reported by Flavius Josephus, which is true... I was referring to the reference of Jesus in 2 different parts of his historical work. Please see 3.3, there is also a reference to John the Baptist. Incidentally, 3.3 also references the resurrection.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
Not only is it well known that that passage was later modified by Christians, but it too quite clearly says:
And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
So, yes, it does refer to the existence of Christians and tells us nothing more than that of value.
Your comment show nothing except that during the writing, Christians still existed which was some years later after the resurrection at the time Flavius put it to paper.
This would be no different than me saying… after Hitler died and Germany was defeated, there existed a following of Nazis to this day. It is a statement relative to the time of the writing; it does not invalidate the writing.
I don’t want to be rude, please don’t take this the wrong way. You don’t seem to be able to see the trees through the forest. My point has nothing to do with the existence of Christians; it has everything to do with a historical account of Jesus by a source other than the bible, and what he went through. Period.
Now, with all that being said I do not expect this to mean anything to you or anybody else that adheres to atheism, but hopefully it will.
You presented it supposedly as evidence of the existence of Jesus. Why do you now turn round and say that you expect it to mean nothing to me? Is it good evidence or is it not?
In saying this, I am reacting to what I believe is the norm in these forums and that is to reject anything said by a Christian as being valid. I admit, this was a poor choice of words in making an argument with you. I don’t know you and I should have had more respect for you in that maybe you don’t adhere to the general consensus. This was short sited on my part, and you have my apology. I will be more cognizant of this going forward. As far as good evidence, you be the judge.
What I have seen in most of the posts in the Spirituality Forum that relate to the existence of God or Jesus Christ is hostility from your camp (if I can use that term).
There is hostility from both sides in any debate. Its hardly surprising, nor does it mean neither side will listen to the evidence presented by the other.
You are correct that hostility exists on both sides. I can admit when I am wrong or my tone is off and do what is necessary to correct, as I have. However I have seen from a few an unwavering almost relentless attack on the Christian faith, no matter what is said. But I am good with it; something gets us all to where we are in life, we are like canvases that are painted. Experiences and knowledge are the paint. These are just my observations.
Arguments have more to do with criticizing, belittling, chastising anything that a person who calls themselves a Christian has to say. Typically the atheist argument relies on science and what is understood (from what I have seen), science has not arrived in this respect, it is dynamic and in a constant state of change.
Its not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying science is unreliable? That you cannot make any conclusions from science?
From what I have seen, arguments made by atheists rely on what science has found with regards to faith, spirituality, etc., or not found. One poster indicated to me that science can disprove the spirit, I disagree. Science is reliable, of course, for some things, not all. This is what I meant.
It is almost as if you (generally speaking) don't want God to be true. I think when it comes to faith, spirituality, and existence of god it is probably better not to rely on what science has to say about these matters, because they are in different spheres of understanding.
But when they contradict each other then there is a problem.
My belief is that the physical world (science) and the unseen world (spiritual) operate in two different spheres, planes, dimensions… you pick which you like. Where is a contradiction when you are talking two different things? Because it cannot be explained does not invalidate.
The atheists dismissal of arguments and stories related to experiences of the faith of Christians and shared in the forums are insolent, and for no other reason than 'you don't believe'.
Actually there is a much stronger reason: we believe your beliefs are harmful to society.
The actions of a few that have formed your thought patterns do not represent the whole.
I don’t remember what thread I read it in, but there was a conversation going back and forth about Josef Stalin and atheism. Now one could look at what he did and his atheism and say his/your beliefs are harmful to society. For the people in Stalin’s day, those beliefs were harmful. Does that mean I think you or anyone else here are harmful? No I don’t, and I would not make that judgment unless you gave a reason to do so.
I realize that you may not call yourself an atheist... I have extrapolated. Am I wrong?
[i...
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are a raving lunatic.
Maybe the best evidence that Christ existed are the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXXUeLETRgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv0l0jhnRL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPm-ObxBt8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKuvYKbzlro&feature=fvwrel
25 Nov 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadOccam's Razor is not "violated" when an assumption is made. An assumption HAS to be made in order to come to a conclusion when no difinitive evidence exists either way.
Except that:
1. No creation is known to have taken place, that must be assumed without justification, violating Occam's razor.
2. A creator is not the simplest explanation, even though you may find it the easiest (Occam's razor is not about being easy). If you first prove that a cause is required (which you haven't), then the simplest explanation is tha ...[text shortened]... is a totally unwarranted complication to the explanation that Occam's razor will cut off.
All Occam's Razor asks, is that we determine the simplest answer to the question. A Creator is the simplest answer. Things existing that came about without an antecedent cause is infinitely more complex, and thus is eliminated using Occam's Razor.
25 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidSo who created the creator?
Occam's Razor is not "violated" when an assumption is made. An assumption HAS to be made in order to come to a conclusion when no difinitive evidence exists either way.
All Occam's Razor asks, is that we determine the simplest answer to the question. A Creator is the simplest answer. Things existing that came about without an antecedent cause is infinitely more complex, and thus is eliminated using Occam's Razor.