Cold Foreign Object writes:
The fact that you are an Atheist-evolutionist and I am a Christian-creationist explains your opinion concerning my understanding of history and science.
Prove us wrong then. And I'm NOT an "atheist-evolutionist". Not that you'll believe me on that.
Do you know what historic certainty is, Brian? Concerning Jesus HC exists. Concerning other ancient histories it is, most of the time, lost.
Yes, which is the point we're trying to make, all that stuff has to be accepted on FAITH, not on any EVIDENCE.
Plausibility, as defined by your usage (message-wide), is ad hoc.
Ad hoc? This can be applied to ANYTHING for which there is no direct evidence, and is thus NOT an ad hoc argument.
The main point here is that the ad hoc position presupposes the facticity of doubt and uncertainty.
Is it just me or does this sentence simply not make sense? Anyway, it is NOT an ad hoc argument.
Admitting to the possibility of uncertainty is ad hoc
No it isn't. In fact we can't be certain about ANYTHING. Speaking in a strict "everything in science is tentative" sense, of course. But the point is that saying we can't be certain because there is NO evidence of it, is NOT an ad hoc argument. It is true in ANY situation.
The agenda in service to Skepticism is seen and supported.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm sorry, but this sentence again makes NO sense to me.
Blue box comment is a claim that presupposes no evidence to exist supporting the claim that Christ lived.
There isn't
If this were true where did anyone obtain the idea that Jesus lived?
From the bible of course. It's in there isn't it? Just like Superman is in the Superman comics. So, if someone, one million years from now, were to find a superman comic, and he spread around that this all actually happened, and a large part of the world agreed with him, based ONLY on that comic, would he be right?
What is your source for the Jesus you speak of?
He isn't speaking of an actual Jesus, therefore there is no source. He is simply using logic and the facts we DO know about that time to come up with a plausible explanation for the inspiration of the Christ in the bible.
Again, the agenda in service to Skepticism is supported.
Am I the only one that is having trouble understanding some of the things he says? Again, what is this all about?
We have, of course, studied the claims of the N.T. Anytime that you are ready to get specific let me know.
I'm ready now. But please, provide REAL evidence for your claims, I'd hate to go around an entire thread with nothing else to do then answer: "Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true". That would be ever so boring for the casual reader.
"May or may not" Which is it?
We don't know. Which is the ENTIRE point. You claim this did happen, so it's up to you to provide evidence for that claim. We say there isn't any evidence for it, and so far, you haven't provided any.
Of course since you are an Atheist you have made up your mind
Of course, since you are a creationist, you have made up your mind. But there are people out there that haven't. If they would ask you for evidence for your claims, what would you tell them?
(= ad hoc uncertainty tactic exposed and supported).
Once again, it is NOT an ad hoc argument, it can be applied to many situations.
All this says is that St. Matthew and St. Mark and St. Luke and St. John and St. Paul (= five separate sources) are liars.
You have evidence of the writers of the gospels? You have evidence they were in fact describing accurately what happened? If so, please provide it, if not, then you can't claim they're telling the truth, other then that that is what you believe. Oh, by the way, if they ALL got it right, why are there inconsistencies between them?
We explain your belief by remembering that you are an Atheist
We explain your belief by remembering you are a creationist. But there are people out there that are undecided, if they asked you for evidence, what would you tell them?
Since we already know that Atheism believes N.T. authors to be liars what is your point?
They don't, they say they don't see any evidence that they are telling the truth. And if no such evidence is provided, their stories are just as true as any Superman comic.
Hundreds of millions of persons from diverse backrounds disagree.
Almost got through an entire post without this one, but noooo, you just had to. So, here we go again: "Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true."
What evidence do you have that said sources are liars or deluded?
None, which is why I'm not calling them liars, which evidence do you have that they are telling the truth? You see, I'm saying that when there is NO evidence to support something, how strongly should we advocate that thing as being true?
Plausibility is rendered subjective.
Yes, what is plausible to some is not plausible to another. However, you can't claim something to be true by how strongly someone believes in it.
You have made claims thus far and nothing else.
No, he has presented a plausible solution to the inspiration for the Christ of the bible, using logic and data. You, on the other hand "have made claims thus far and nothing else."
Skepticism and Agnosticism are not presupposed by History or Science.
False, Scepticism is VERY important in science, and I would say for history also.
Your "NEVER proven" claim is ad hoc, and I have explained why.
Since it is NOT an ad hoc argument, you have NOT explained why.
Since the most vocal and vituperative critics of the Bible (= Jesus Seminar "scholars," which includes Atheists) agree that Jesus lived, your opinion, in addition to being ad hoc and deceitful, exists within the lunatic fringe.
I'm pretty vocal and a critic, and I say the Christ of the bible NEVER existed. And for you to be claiming someone to be in the lunatic fringe.....well, I'm not even going to comment.
LOL!
Couldn't have summed it up better myself.
I hunt for the truth
)
™ Version 4.2
