Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[Talishi]

The fact is; God objectively exists.

God may exist, or he may not, but so far we have found his existence to be indistinguishable from non-existence.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 137 by For_The_Kingdom]

Actually, I do have an idea. Again, back to the arguments...if the kalam argument is true, then this intelligent designer is obviously able to create from nothing. That lets us know that this designer is extremely powerful. That is a characteristic right there. Need I say more?

Well...yes. You could, you know, discuss Kalam, show that your 'if' actually has merit.

Sure, then these robots would have to be...gods. Geez, Blastcat, you are doing the same thing that certain posters were doing in the MOA thread.

It seems that you didn't think through your response. The machines in the Matrix movie series were certainly not gods, they didn't create universes out of nothing, yet humans were shown to be plugged into a simulation.
Basically, Blastcat is asking you how you have managed to defeat/refute solipsism.

All you are doing is stripping the traditional "god" of his characteristics, and applying it to other "beings"...but if you do that, those other beings would be...god(s)....which is the same as saying "what if it isn't your god, what if it is some other god(s)?"

Well, even if that was the case, that would undercut your position, wouldn't it?

More the point, it undercuts yours. You believe in the Judaeo-Christian god, you believe that all this evidence points to him and him alone. Well, it can't be valuable evidence if it can point to other proposed beings, now can it?
What happens to you if we examine all this evidence and we find it points to two proposed beings, both mutually exclusive of the other?

Even with that definition above, it seems to me that if agnosticism is the idea that "god is beyond the grasp of man's finite and limited mind", that strikes me as "maybe he does, maybe he doesn't".

It doesn't mean that the possibility for him existing or the possibility for not existing are equal (50/50). It could be the possibility for existence is 10%, with not existing being 90%, or the other way around. We don't know.
Basically, if I'm reading Blastcat correctly, he's saying we can't put a percentage number to these possibilities.

You could just kill 2 birds with one stone and just say "I am an unbeliever".

Unlike yourself, we value nuance, we value being able to express and describe ourselves precisely. I for one don't want to be lumped in with the Hindus or the Muslims.

Critical thinking...open mindedness...common sense...logical reasoning....experimentation...stuff like that.

If that is true, why is it you don't value nuance? Where is the logic in grouping all non-believers of your specific religion together in one group?

I think what I was trying to say is, you are an unbeliever because you don't want theism to be true. I don't think it is a matter of evidence, it is a matter of people not wanting/liking the mere idea of a Cosmic creator, especially one that holds people accountable for their actions.

This is of course my opinion.

Now you're being contradictory. Remember before when you lumped all un-believers into one group, and included Hindus and Muslims in that group? Well now...why say of those Muslim 'unbelievers' that they don't want or don't like the idea of a Cosmic Creator?
You are not displaying evidence of understanding and applying logic and consistency in your arguments.

but I don't believe that most unbelievers are non-believers based upon the evidence (as I mentioned previously). It isn't about the evidence, it is about the idea of God and most unbelievers not wanting such a being to exist.

Again, my opinion.

Your opinion is not based on fact here. You are contradictory and deliberately not taking in what 'unbelievers' say. If a Muslim says he doesn't believe Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God but that he is a follower of Allah's last prophet, you ignore that, put him in the category called 'unbeliever' and say of that group that its members don't like the idea of a creator god.

The arguments that I defend are all logically sound/valid

How can they, when you call Muslims afraid of the idea of a creator god?

I merely stated that it takes an unreasonable person to reject the idea of a Cosmic Creator, considering all of the evidence there is for one.

Those pesky Muslims, ignoring the evidence for a creator god!

I think unbelievers know deep down inside that God exists...but they don't want him too...so they spend their time in forums like this trying to convince themselves that God doesn't exist.

They tell themselves this, and they fight against their own subconscious every single day.

Mind sharing this mind-reading power with the rest of us?

The fact is; God objectively exists.

And if Blastcat or myself say we disagree, your go to response is to say that we really do believe it, deep down, and just fight against him by...posting on internet forums?

I'm not seeing much logic from you, good sir.

Try and put yourself in the position you put us. Imagine you, as a Christian, posting on a forum with a heavy Muslim presence, and they do to you what you do to them. They say that an unbeliever is an unbeliever, and that since you don't recognise Muhammed (pbuh) as Allah's last prophet, you are an unbeliever. They say that deep down...you know that Muhammed was the last prophet and that you spend your time on that forum trying to convince yourself it isn't true.
Now...doesn't that accusation from those Muslims sound ridiculous?

I am saying that it is impossible for God to NOT exist...and the best argument to demonstrate that is the kalam cosmological argument.

I'd love to see that argument. I'd love to see what you can make of it, given the sound drumming you got in your modal ontological thread.

[otseng]

If your belief/worldview is worth a damn, you should welcome the concept, which is DEFENDING YOUR SHIT

Moderator Warning


Vulgarity is not allowed on the forum.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well...yes. You could, you know, discuss Kalam, show that your 'if' actually has merit.

Yeah and when the thread is created, I want you to have a front row seat.

It seems that you didn't think through your response. The machines in the Matrix movie series were certainly not gods, they didn't create universes out of nothing, yet humans were shown to be plugged into a simulation.
Basically, Blastcat is asking you how you have managed to defeat/refute solipsism.

Um, and my response to him in that regard was the question of WHAT REASONS DO WE HAVE TO BELIEVE SUCH A THING. I granted the mere possibility, then posed the question. Or did you not see that, sir?

More the point, it undercuts yours. You believe in the Judaeo-Christian god, you believe that all this evidence points to him and him alone. Well, it can't be valuable evidence if it can point to other proposed beings, now can it?

Again, I stated why I believe in Christian theism, didn't I? Any traditional argument for God would support theism (in general). However, the Resurrection argument for Jesus supports Christian theism (specifically). Got it?

What happens to you if we examine all this evidence and we find it points to two proposed beings, both mutually exclusive of the other?

No need for hypothethicals...simply present this evidence, and then we will take it from there.

It doesn't mean that the possibility for him existing or the possibility for not existing are equal (50/50). It could be the possibility for existence is 10%, with not existing being 90%, or the other way around. We don't know.

Um, you are sadly mistaken, sir. Those percentages only represent our personal certainty of our belief/lack of belief in the existence of God, it was not meant to represent the actual mathematical probability of God's existence, which is impossible to calculate.

Basically, if I'm reading Blastcat correctly, he's saying we can't put a percentage number to these possibilities.

Which is not what was happening anyway.

Unlike yourself, we value nuance, we value being able to express and describe ourselves precisely. I for one don't want to be lumped in with the Hindus or the Muslims.

So you would say "I am an unbeliever in any Gods". That would seem to cover both atheism/agnosticism.

Those distinctions are unnecessary when it comes to Christianity, because if you are not be for Christ, you are against him.

If that is true, why is it you don't value nuance? Where is the logic in grouping all non-believers of your specific religion together in one group?

Because the Bible is clear, good ole' John 3:16..."whoever believes in him shall not perish"....now of course, the flip side is "whoever don't believe in him shall perish."

Now, there are a lot of "don'ts" in that category...and whatever name or label you'd like to put in the category of those that DON'T believe, go right ahead.

Now you're being contradictory. Remember before when you lumped all un-believers into one group, and included Hindus and Muslims in that group? Well now...why say of those Muslim 'unbelievers' that they don't want or don't like the idea of a Cosmic Creator? You are not displaying evidence of understanding and applying logic and consistency in your arguments.

And you are not displaying adequate reading comprehension skills. I lumped all unbelievers into one group as it relates to unbelief in CHRISTIANITY, not unbelief in general theism.

And when I said "some don't like the idea of a Cosmic Creator", I was specifically referring to ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS/NATURALISTS, because I was responding to a question that Blastcat asked me about his personal beliefs (or lack of), which, as he puts it, is atheist-agnostic (or whatever).

So please, before you criticize, make sure you know what is going on.

Your opinion is not based on fact here.

And I am not basing it on fact, am I?

You are contradictory and deliberately not taking in what 'unbelievers' say. If a Muslim says he doesn't believe Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God but that he is a follower of Allah's last prophet, you ignore that, put him in the category called 'unbeliever' and say of that group that its members don't like the idea of a creator god.

The above quote is a follow-up of a previous quote that you gave which you've demonstrated a lack of comprehension, or you maybe simply just missed it...either way, again, you are conflating two topics...the conversation that me and Blastcat were having was constantly shifting from my belief in general theism, and my belief belief in Christian theism, which I explained above.

How can they, when you call Muslims afraid of the idea of a creator god?

Still knawing away at that straw-bone, huh?

Those pesky Muslims, ignoring the evidence for a creator god!

Yup, you still are.

Mind sharing this mind-reading power with the rest of us?

He asked, and I gave my answer.

And if Blastcat or myself say we disagree, your go to response is to say that we really do believe it, deep down, and just fight against him by...posting on internet forums?

Pretty much, yeah.

Try and put yourself in the position you put us. Imagine you, as a Christian, posting on a forum with a heavy Muslim presence, and they do to you what you do to them. They say that an unbeliever is an unbeliever, and that since you don't recognise Muhammed (pbuh) as Allah's last prophet, you are an unbeliever. They say that deep down...you know that Muhammed was the last prophet and that you spend your time on that forum trying to convince yourself it isn't true.
Now...doesn't that accusation from those Muslims sound ridiculous?

SMH. Still going at it.

I'd love to see that argument. I'd love to see what you can make of it, given the sound drumming you got in your modal ontological thread.

Drumming? You boys got spanked in that thread.

[For_The_Kingdom]

God may exist, or he may not, but so far we have found his existence to be indistinguishable from non-existence.

Then the arguments for God's existence would not be sound/valid...but yet...they are.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 135 by benchwarmer]

Are you hoping to corner someone live and show you have quicker wit? It would probably work with me. I'm not that fast on my feet in live conversation.

Given what we saw in FtK's Modal Ontological Argument thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it's that. The MOA works by essentially doing a "Gotcha!" If some readers are unaware, I will elaborate.
The Modal argument is formulated as a logical argument, designed (as its adherents say) to prove the existence of God. However, when For_the_Kingdom created the thread, he wrote a preamble before he got to the actual argument proper. In that preamble, FtK defined God as (among other things) "cannot fail to exist". This meant that the conclusion of {God exists} was put into the premise, which is a big no no in logical arguments (in the premises, the word 'God' could be replaced with 'the being that cannot fail to exist').
The way the 'Gotcha' tactic worked was that readers (presumably atheists) were invited to read the argument and asked "Is it possible for God to exist?" However, if those atheists did not pay close enough attention to the preamble, they would say yes, unaware that they were saying yes to a loaded question, essentially saying "Yes, it is possible for a being that cannot fail to exist, to exist", instead of what they would usually say "It is possible for God to exist and it is possible for God not to exist".
FtK's 'Gotcha' rested on the inattention of the atheist. When several atheists replied saying "Yes, it is possible for God to exist", FtK sprung his gotcha.
He even linked a video at one point in the thread, that had an overlay explaining that the purpose of the MOA wasn't to lead the atheist to some new understanding, but to essentially trick the atheist into saying a specific phrase.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'm just curious, what point do you think you can make in real time that you can't via these posts.

It is called something different. Of the hundreds of posts that some of us make on here, you mean to tell me we can't have one good real time dialogue?

Are you hoping to corner someone live and show you have quicker wit? It would probably work with me. I'm not that fast on my feet in live conversation.

I admire your honesty...and I am with you...I am also not fast on my feet live. But, you can't work out the kinks unless you try.

I personally prefer non real time for debates. It allows time to think, research, and cool off if the conversation is getting heated. Just my personal opinion of course.

You are right, but the problem is...who knows when I will have a conversation like this in "real life" in "real time", where there may not be time to sit there and gather my "thoughts".

When you are in a "real fight" on the street, there is no time to watch "film" of your opponent or come up with strategies...it is time to get busy.

And this a real time discussion is something that I need, because I honestly need practice. Honestly.

Actually, this raises another interesting point....I've noticed that my hero, Dr. William Lane Craig, is excellent when it comes to formal debates...but when it comes to informal debates and dialogue, he does noticably not so good.

I also don't think I've done well in real-time, informal discussions...but, I am up for the challenge of doing better.

If you do manage to convince someone to have a real time discussion, I hope one or both of you will report on the outcome. It looks like blastcat might be interested. I guess we'll know if the chat was successful if the rocket propelled cat avatar grows angel wings and a halo

Hey, this is not to take away anything from this great forum. I just would like a real time discussion for once in a while. On Yahoo, if they still have the IM conferences, we could all probably meet in there. I'm down.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 130 by For_The_Kingdom]

I want one-on-one conversations in REAL time.

I'm just curious, what point do you think you can make in real time that you can't via these posts. Are you hoping to corner someone live and show you have quicker wit? It would probably work with me. I'm not that fast on my feet in live conversation.

I'm game for it. I've a battle-hardened veteran of bible chatrooms on IRC since 1996, where you thump the Bible by invoking a bot. I'll see your Ephesians 2:8-9 and raise James 2:14!

Dont talk about it, be about it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 145 by For_The_Kingdom]

When you are in a "real fight" on the street, there is no time to watch "film" of your opponent or come up with strategies...it is time to get busy.

Is this what you view these debates as? A fight? Live or death?

When it comes to contemplation, to things of the mind, it is best to take it slow, to think things over calmly and rationally.
There are people who are quick-witted and have no problem debating live, but nothing beats a spaced out argument. Why penalise the thinker who is able to deliver cogent points but simply is unable to do it live? His points aren't worth 'less' or are of a lesser quality simply because he needs time to type it out.

Anyway, I'm game for a real live chat. I've got a week off work starting next week (technically Sunday 2nd October), with no real plans for activities.
If you agree to do it with me, I have one stipulation - we have a discussion about how exactly we're going to do this in regular posts on this forum, as in, one of us creates a topic like we usually do and hash things out there. This is so that there is a clear record of what it is the two of us agree to (whatever our agreement turns out to be).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 130 by For_The_Kingdom]

I want one-on-one conversations in REAL time.

I'm just curious, what point do you think you can make in real time that you can't via these posts. Are you hoping to corner someone live and show you have quicker wit? It would probably work with me. I'm not that fast on my feet in live conversation.

I'm game for it. I've a battle-hardened veteran of bible chatrooms on IRC since 1996, where you thump the Bible by invoking a bot. I'll see your Ephesians 2:8-9 and raise James 2:14!

Dont talk about it, be about it.

*cough* Kalam thread *cough*