Resurrections and hyperdimensions

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 169 by Volbrigade]

The problem with your replies is that you aren't providing rational evidence for any of your religious beliefs or claims.

All your posts amount to are the standard "preaching" techniques of this religious cult that tries desperately to denigrate anyone who refuses to join and support it.

It's not going to be productive to simply attempt to denigrate people who refuse to be convinced. In fact, that is actually in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus anyway. Jesus never instructed his disciples to argue with or accuse anyone of anything. To the contrary, he clearly instructed them to move on if people aren't interested in hearing the message.

I'm not sure whether you're lecturing or preaching here. A bit of both?

I fail to see where I have denigrated anybody. I did mention the "vague beliefs" expressed by those with opposing arguments. Is that what you refer to?

But that is exactly what they, themselves, express. "I don't claim to know what our origins are, or what our destiny is..."; "I am comfortable with not knowing...". Sound familiar?

So when a theist does nothing but argue to the bitter death with non-believers I don't see where they are paying attention to the teachings of Jesus.

All due respect, but if I am looking for insight into the "teachings of Jesus", I will look elsewhere than to a non-theist.

"Argue to the bitter death"? That's a colorful way of putting it, isn't it? From my perspective, I'm just visiting a message board dedicated to the discussion and debate of Christianity. And expressing my reasons for being a Christian. Which generates oppositional views, which I then address.

If by "bitter death", you mean until both parties begin to repeat themselves -- well, yes. am willing to engage to that point. A point we seem to have reached, in our discussion.

If I were going to preach to people I would at least follow Jesus' instructions and only preach to those who are interested in hearing the message.

Is that a nice way of saying "shut up"?

Again -- it is perhaps a good thing that the prohibition against "preaching" (however defined -- apparently, it means "sharing the Good News"; which is an odd injunction on a site devoted to Christianity...) does not extend to "lecturing", of which I cetainly have been the recipient of my share -- as here.

I think, in general, theists "preach" (against the rules);
non-theists "lecture" (within the rules).

Perhaps that has a bearing on the subject of the OP?

In the meantime, if you are attempting to argue or debate for why the religion has merit, I haven't seen where you have supplied any compelling arguments.

I certainly regret to hear that.

But I don't see where that is a compelling argument that I haven't made any.

[/quote]

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 120 by JoeyKnothead]

You're probably right, Joey.

It's hard to take the temperature of the air in hyperspace, because we're dimensionally "challenged" in that regard. And we don't have the necessary hyperdimensional "instrument" by which to measure that temperature.

Or do we?

Is our "soul", or "spirit", or "mind", or "heart" (in the Biblically used sense) -- all vocabulary terms, and concepts that exist nowhere in the universe except in regard to homo sapiens sapiens -- are they the instruments by which the hyperdimensional, the "spiritual", is measured?

Now that's a matter for debate.

But I'll refrain, as I find such argument tedious and tiresome, and always boils to to such absurdities as "show me the mathematical formulas for the Resurrection of Christ. I'd like to review your work."

As I said upon reentry to this site -- I prefer the discussion side. Matters of faith are certainly open for discussion.

But what is the point of debate with someone who says "I believe nothing exists other than what can be observed and measured. What observable, measurable evidence do you have for that which is unobservable and unmeasurable?"

Or with someone who uses their intellect and mind to look at an exquisitely designed and ordered universe, and concludes "intellect and mind were not necessary to create this?"

[Zzyzx]

.
In debate when someone has no evidence or reasoning to support their position they can always pontificate about 'hyper-dimensions', multiverses, origin of the universe, beginning of life, speculations, opinions, etc.

With a position that is pure speculation there is no need to provide evidence or rational thought.

[Volbrigade]

.
In debate when someone has no evidence or reasoning to support their position they can always pontificate about 'hyper-dimensions', multiverses, origin of the universe, beginning of life, speculations, opinions, etc.

With a position that is pure speculation there is no need to provide evidence or rational thought.

Gratuitous, cheap shot.

I have provided evidences.

And my thought process surpass yours in rationality.

Prove they don't. Provide evidences.

Debate on spiritual matters, and matters of faith -- past a certain point -- is meaningless.

I don't know how long this website has been around. I began visiting years ago.

That "point" has long been passed.

As I told the johnny-come-lately who reawakened this dormant thread, with a challenge that I'm sure he thought was "jest as clever as all get-out":

I'm here to share information.

Do you have any to share?

[Zzyzx]

.

In debate when someone has no evidence or reasoning to support their position they can always pontificate about 'hyper-dimensions', multiverses, origin of the universe, beginning of life, speculations, opinions, etc.

With a position that is pure speculation there is no need to provide evidence or rational thought.

Gratuitous, cheap shot.

Did a shoe fit? If not why protest? That was a general statement – which some seem to personalize.

I have provided evidences.

Perhaps I missed the presentation of verifiable evidence supporting claims of knowledge regarding 'hyper-dimensions', multiverses, origin of the universe, beginning of life (beyond speculation).

Some apparently consider 'My mother said so' to be evidence – or unverifiable tales, testimonials, legends, myths, folklore, claims, OR their own opinions, etc.

And my thought process surpass yours in rationality.

Self-aggrandizing opinion noted. Readers will decide if the claim is true.

Prove they don't. Provide evidences.

Among the most amateurish and obvious blunders in reasoned discussion or debate is to throw out claims and demand 'prove me wrong' (or 'provide contrary evidence').

A more rational approach is to support one's position with verifiable information to show that it is valid.

Those who pontificate about 'hyper-dimensions', multiverses, origin of the universe, beginning of life, are SPECULATING since they do not present verifiable evidence to show that what they say is anything more than overworked imagination.

Debate on spiritual matters, and matters of faith -- past a certain point -- is meaningless.
That "point" has long been passed.

That point may be the beginning point.

I don't know how long this website has been around. I began visiting years ago.

What difference does it make to your position?

As I told the johnny-come-lately who reawakened this dormant thread, with a challenge that I'm sure he thought was "jest as clever as all get-out":

Condescending attitude toward other members noted.

I'm here to share information.

That is certainly a magnanimous gesture. Notice that it is a debate site – not a podium or a revival meeting.

Do you have any to share?

Heck no. I'm just a country bumpkin from Arkansas who hasn't been around the Forum very long and doesn't have many posts. I just hope to learn from the super-wise whose purpose is to share their great knowledge with the less fortunate and less informed.

Occasionally I debate those who are willing to actually engage in debate.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 124 by Zzyzx]

Volbrigade wrote:

Do you have any to share?

Heck no. I'm just a country bumpkin from Arkansas who hasn't been around the Forum very long and doesn't have many posts. I just hope to learn from the super-wise whose purpose is to share their great knowledge with the less fortunate and less informed.

Occasionally I debate those who are willing to actually engage in debate.

Well good for you.

This is the discussion side, however -- ostensibly, the place where people can have reasoned, civil discussion about their divergent views -- as TON and I were doing until, frankly, I got bored -- without (e.g.) tiresome and asinine calls for "substantiating mathematical equations to support your claims for the Resurrection."

Which is what I responded to. Notice, I left this thread weeks ago, until notified of a response. Rik has chosen not to respond to may invitation to share any info he might have, that would merit further discussion.

And you have chosen not to either.

Which begs the question -- what IS your purpose in commenting on this thread?

[Zzyzx]

.

Which begs the question -- what IS your purpose in commenting on this thread?

Perhaps my point escapes notice: (From post #124)

Those who pontificate about 'hyper-dimensions', multiverses, origin of the universe, beginning of life, are SPECULATING since they do not present verifiable evidence to show that what they say is anything more than overworked imagination.

And

Some apparently consider 'My mother said so' to be evidence – or unverifiable tales, testimonials, legends, myths, folklore, claims, OR their own opinions, etc.


The above holds true whether in discussion or debate -- provided that reasoning is present.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 126 by Zzyzx]

I see.

So it is your speculation that those who talk about hyperspaces are speculating.

It is my speculation that those who maintain that a universe doesn't require a Creator, or that microbes became men through mindless, unguided processes, are speculating.

Do you speculate that makes us about even?

Care to discuss it?