100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Arguments for the existence of God | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I do not understand how God has changed by doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His nature does not change. That is what we mean by unchanging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you studied the historical Jesus? As you know there is little to no historical evidence for Jesus no matter how you cut, there is a counter argument to any evidence you may quote. No writers living at the same time mention him and many references, ie- Josephus are demonstratably later additions, even Tactius is questionable as the insertion contains a factual error that he would never have made. This is the same error that Lee Strobel makes by trying to prove something he a priori believes is true and you get a mess. Even the early church fathers argued that if the pagan myths are true then their myths are true, that was their whole argument. Funny because most pagans viewed their myths as allegory not as truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Mon 01/12/09 12:14 PM
|
|
No, thats why I specifically said the historical Jesus. You are wrong, no scholar liberal or conservative would agree with you. We know quite a bit about the person of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh really tell me something about him. Like how if you go by the Biblical timeline, he spent 10 years in his mother's womb?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most scholars agree that Xianity was created by Paul, not Jesus. Paul who never saw or spoke to Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most early Xians followed James not Paul; there are still large James' cults in the Middle East and in fact it is speculated that is one of the origins of Islam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Mon 01/12/09 12:23 PM
|
|
I would encourage people to read about Anthony Flew. Probably one of the greatest philosophers of our time. Up there in the ranks of Bertrand Russel. He was a staunch atheist, militant, but recently lost his faith in atheism. He converted to Deism. The was do to a series of talks he had with the renowned christian philosopher Gary Habermas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, how about the ossuary with the name jesus on it, which was a proven fake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His nature does not change. That is what we mean by unchanging. But character is nature. You can't solve problems by drowning people one minute, and then offer to send them a savior the next and claim that you haven't changed your character. Have you studied the historical Jesus? Yes, it is my firm believe that Jesus was a Buddhist and attempted to teaching the ways of Buddha. He was murdered for blaspheme. Idolized by the people as a martyr. And and then finally used by the religious authorities as a dead marionette doll when they wrote the gospels to try to make it like Jesus had actulaly supported the very dogma that he has genuinely denounced. That's my very honest and sincere conclusion. In fact, there were many early Christians who felt this way. They were mass murdered for their views and that has also been historically well-documented. The church wrote up their version of what Jesus stood for and demanded that anyone who speaks out against their "Holy Bible" will be excuted for blaspheme. And that's the version that people worship today. When you worship the Bible you are actually worshiping the enemies of Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TBrich your questions are for a different thread. If you start on I will be happy to answer some of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are now referring to philosophers and faith, I thought we were discussing historical facts. I do not question anyone's faith, that is too personal and important thing to each individual. Faith requires a leap into believing something is there when you can not see feel touch etc. I know many pagans when asked about their faith state well the sun shines, the wind blows, the seasons change and the earth provides, much more easier to leap into something like for many people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His nature does not change. That is what we mean by unchanging. But character is nature. You can't solve problems by drowning people one minute, and then offer to send them a savior the next and claim that you haven't changed your character. Have you studied the historical Jesus? Yes, it is my firm believe that Jesus was a Buddhist and attempted to teaching the ways of Buddha. He was murdered for blaspheme. Idolized by the people as a martyr. And and then finally used by the religious authorities as a dead marionette doll when they wrote the gospels to try to make it like Jesus had actulaly supported the very dogma that he has genuinely denounced. That's my very honest and sincere conclusion. In fact, there were many early Christians who felt this way. They were mass murdered for their views and that has also been historically well-documented. The church wrote up their version of what Jesus stood for and demanded that anyone who speaks out against their "Holy Bible" will be excuted for blaspheme. And that's the version that people worship today. When you worship the Bible you are actually worshiping the enemies of Jesus. If we start a new thread I can address some of these. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His nature does not change. That is what we mean by unchanging. But character is nature. You can't solve problems by drowning people one minute, and then offer to send them a savior the next and claim that you haven't changed your character. Have you studied the historical Jesus? Yes, it is my firm believe that Jesus was a Buddhist and attempted to teaching the ways of Buddha. He was ed for blaspheme. Idolized by the people as a martyr. And and then finally used by the religious authorities as a marionette doll when they wrote the gospels to try to make it like Jesus had actulaly supported the very dogma that he has genuinely denounced. That's my very honest and sincere conclusion. In fact, there were many early Christians who felt this way. They were mass ed for their views and that has also been historically well-documented. The church wrote up their version of what Jesus stood for and demanded that anyone who speaks out against their "Holy Bible" will be excuted for blaspheme. And that's the version that people worship today. When you worship the Bible you are actually worshiping the enemies of Jesus. Here is another interesting thing, in the New Testament, Jesus saves a woman from stoning and yet later there is suddenly a law that only the Roman's can order an ? Poor history. Look if you believe it, believe, we can even argue some points, but don't try to foster on others; this is a difficult thing in people's lives. Look at poor Mother Theresa when she lost her faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I got to go to work soon anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will start one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 01/12/09 01:00 PM
|
|
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This is a simple outline of the Kalam Cosmological Arguement. #2 cannot be validated. I have read the Kalam argument and it is wholly lacking. ______________ As far as the ontology of god, I am waiting for a coherent and primary ontology of god, never has one been proposed . . . " Just think about it for a minute. If the universe never began to exist, then that means that the number of events in the past history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self–contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self–contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."" Divide 10 in half, then again, then again, then again . . . will it ever stop? There are more then one type of infinity, saying that god started everything, but nothing started god is just as absurd as saying something came from nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 01/12/09 12:59 PM
|
|
I will defend the Cosmological Argument and the moral Argument. I have not studied the others enough to be able to defend them. I only pointed them out to show that they are there. Well the Cosmological Argument is already in trouble because you can't confirm that your second premise is true. I wouldn't argue hard against it anyway because I'm a pantheist, not an atheist. I have no problem with spirit creating the universe. The Cosmological Argument doesn't support the Mediterranean picture of God anymore than any other spirituality or religion. So it's a wasted argument unless you are trying to convince an atheist of spirituatity. But then they might choose pantheism, or any of the pagan philosophies. ~~~ Give your moral argument. I would love to hear it, but I doubt that I'll be impressed. I'm willing to bet that I will disagree with some of the premises there too that you also cannot prove. #2 can be established |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way each argument you posit for the existence of god is logically flawed. Mainly you start out with the fallacy of Reification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the premises I set forward have no problems with them
|
|
|
|
|
