10 votes
Posted 19 May 2014 - 11:02 PM
Remember earlier this year (2014) they retested carbon 14 and it showed a dated age of BC300 to AD 400 as the date. This puts the New Testament period, right in the target. But, here are the final two videos I have in this series.
Posted 20 May 2014 - 02:24 AM
When are all of you people going to realize that you cannot have a rational conversation with a religious person. Hopefully all of this "debate" is done for entertainment purposes.
It is being done for entertainment. We always wonder what logical fallacy he's going to accuse us of next.
Read these but a few examples of many more, Non Christian Posts, spam, and derailment, in the “IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY,” topic and then support the claim religious people are not rational. And how is this anything but more name calling and ad hominem nonsense.
Here, shadowhawk labels anything he cannot refute a logical fallacy, as I was mentioning. He claims that people are just calling names and attacking him personally, almost seemingly without doing anything to those posts he's talking about except calling them logical fallacies and not addressing any of the points, as if they were beneath reproach, instead of them usually being very well constructed arguments. I've had a few decent runs of posts with him, which inevitably end in him looking through each thread for the problems, not addressing any of the posts, and then him going on with his postings about "evidence".
And then, just to spice things up, threads like the Evidence for Mohammedanism, where he basically just spews out hate speech and talks about how evil Islam is.
And he'll call this an ad hominem, even tho it's all completely true.
Posted 20 May 2014 - 05:04 AM
MajinBrian: It's just such an irrational way to make himself known. Like Castiel was saying, the entire plan god came up with is quite simply ridiculous and idiotic. Step one of his ingenious plan: have an invisible ghost knock up a virgin. The product being a demigod, who is in fact god's only son, who preaches for a couple years only to be tortured and killed. This bothers me primarily because Christians point to god as the ultimate father figure and role model. He is an absolutely terrible role model. An omniscient and omnipotent god could come up with no better plan then to send his only son to be mocked, tortured, and crucified. It's absolutely ridiculous. What a horrible and cruel plan... He knows all, but he still chose to have it all go down like that. I don't know what's worse - the plan or the results of the plan.
So if you were God you would do it differently. OK. Ill watch Do it, we all need your help. Start a new topic, MY PLAN TO SAVE THE WORLD. Ill participate. Right now we are discussing the evidence for the resurrection, in this topic. This would be a Red Herring.
Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html
I see why so many people have come and gone from this thread. You need to stop with the whole fallacy call-out tactic.
The point Castiel, Jeoshua, and myself have been bring up is COMPLETELY RELEVANT. All of your 'proof' of the resurrection and such is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. You are trying to deal with these small micro issues - which, as you've already mentioned, are completely faith based due to their incomplete evidence. We are calling out the macro... the big picture. The very foundation of Christianity. We are questioning the very legitimacy of your god. Which kinda makes your micro, side points a bit irrelevant and insignificant.
Your god has less commonsense and rationality then my 6 year old sister. Though you claim he is omnipotent and omniscient.
I'm still waiting for a legitimate reply to this. Multiple people have brought this point up, yet you choose to disregard the question in favor of your go-to fallacy call out tactic.
Edited by MajinBrian, 20 May 2014 - 05:06 AM.
Posted 20 May 2014 - 05:43 AM
ShadowX, what you're arguing for is the God of the Gaps. The God that even highly learned men invoke when they cannot explain something. You can't find the reason that the universe should exist, therefore God.
This is a useful tactic, but a dangerous one. If there comes a time where the unexplained reason that you invoked the belief in god is actually explained without needing God, does that mean now that God does not exist? If we find out that there is a basic mechanism that caused the stars to form, and the planets to revolve around them, does that mean God isn't real? If an explanation is found that shows that not only can life come to exist on a planet without divine intervention, and that intelligent beings can form without being breathed on by the breath of God almighty, himself, does that mean that He ceases to be?
No, don't use that line of reasoning. The God of the Gaps is not how you should rationalize your belief in God, if you want to keep that belief.
That kind of reasoning isn't reasoning. Using "if" this happens or that happens isn't a valid reason or substantial enough to contradict as you say, "God of the Gaps" reasoning. Basicly, the reasoning that I presented is currently the only valid reasoning anyone can get unless a direct intervention with God occurred.
See you must understand some fact about humanity, We know very little about what's even existing on our planet currently. Let lone space and how it functions. We can only observe so much of space and the rest will forever be beyond our reach. Not to mention space is expanding and eventually given mankind lives long enough and our sun doesn't go super nova on us. Then well kids will look up at the sky and see....nothing. They will not know the stars like we do and the universe like we see.
My point is that we have a limit to our knowledge and when it comes to existence in itself you can't test it. Because the point of creation has already happened so the conditions needed to test or recreate it isn't obtainable anymore.
So the only conclusion that can remain is that whatever created all of existence can possibly be anything. An since a God is pretty much transcendent and basically everything it fit the conclusion perfectly. But the problem persist you can't test it. You get infinite possibilities of what the source could be, but never a obtainable answer. Its a perfect paradox. This means you can't eliminate possible conclusions like God or a Paradox or a strange phenomenon.
So you can't prove God Exist and you can't Disprove God Exist, So your left with God May Exist. - One can argue then that both believers and non-believers are wrong and everyone should conclude God May Exist. In a way this would be correct. Unless, God directly interferes and communicates with individuals.
This leave only two possible answers, God Exist or God May Exist but until God reveals that he exist to you, you should remain believing that God May Exist.
Posted 20 May 2014 - 12:42 PM
Remember earlier this year (2014) they retested carbon 14 and it showed a dated age of BC300 to AD 400 as the date. This puts the New Testament period, right in the target.
Posted 20 May 2014 - 12:44 PM
But my point there is that if you pin your understanding on God to that which we haven't yet explained, in a world where every day we understand more about the universe, and as you know God cannot be proved or disproved, then God gets relegated to an ever-receding pocket of that which we do not yet understand. If you say God is in the clouds, and then one day we go up there and find he's not there, then maybe the idea changes to that he's on one of the planets. Then we go there and find he's not there, either, so he gets moved somewhere else. Wherever we shine the light to see, we won't find God. And that's not to say that as proof that he doesn't exist, of course, only to point out how if you place God in that which you don't understand, once you understand it, that no longer functions.
God being Transcendent would mean that he is not present in anything... that he "transcends" reality. Greater, more powerful, and therefore outside and not truly of world.
Posted 20 May 2014 - 09:43 PM
On the age of the earth, see section 1. Evidence for God
http://www.longecity...-30#entry662206
So far we have looked at evidence for Christianity and have considered a number of things and now the Shroud. Oh yes the derailers are here wanting to call names, commit logical fallacies and say nothing. I am going to add a final section to this topic, DIFFICULTIES, where I will come back to some of these issues that would derail the current discussion.
THE SUDARIUM of OVIEDO:
One of the relics held by the cathedral in the town of Oviedo, in the north of Spain, is a piece of cloth measuring approximately 84 x 53 cm. There is no image on this cloth. Only stains are visible to the naked eye, although more is visible under the microscope. The remarkable thing about this cloth is that both tradition and scientific studies claim that the cloth was used to cover and clean the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. We are going to present and look into these claims.
Such a cloth is known to have existed from the gospel of John, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7. These verses read as follows, "Simon Peter, following him, also came up, went into the tomb, saw the linen cloth lying on the ground, and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself." John clearly differentiates between this smaller face cloth, the sudarium, and the larger linen that had wrapped the body.
Edited by shadowhawk, 20 May 2014 - 09:45 PM.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 05:56 PM
I would like to note that God wasn't concerned about evidence for the future generations, in fact reading kings in the bible is a good example because each generation would fall away from God just like this topic shows, time passes and since we didn't see the events for our self we can't believe it really happened or is. God focused mainly on his message, a teaching of life and love. No simple scientific calculation is going to be evidence enough for any conclusion. The best thing we have as evidence is a story that is fragmented and historical evidence, such as other writings, traditions and cities and events that align with the collection of writings we call the Bible.
Although, I have already stated that its a fundamental flaw to denounce the existence of God considering the circumstances and limitations we are in as humans.
Its inevitable to say the least that Humans are flawed in their own ways, but for this topic even to be fair, everyone who commented regardless of their previous standing should enter this topic as an optimistic. Open-minded, That everyone should come here to find evidence. Even non-believers are capable of looking for evidence that helps support Christianity's claim. If non-believers can't come in without an open-minded view that they may be wrong then there is nothing to gain from you. I alone can serve as the devils advocate (as they say) and argue against my brothers and sisters about why its not enough and yet still be fully committed to believing without those people.
This is the topic for evidence for Christianity so beyond that its for another topic.
I have given the only conclusive answer and logical evidence we have based on our circumstances as humans and the existence of origins. The evidence I reveal is that we can't say God doesn't exist. Which is a good start and truthful and fair to say.
Beyond this, the evidence given and its accuracy can be argued, everyone will have to live with the fact that its going to be weak evidence. Its going to be just enough to suggest truth and some of it is going to be proven completely wrong in time and unrelated and it will be used against Christianity, like a person counting how many mistakes you made and never letting it go.
If anything came out of this, I would say all of you doubting should consider God May Exist. Just leave it at that, don't even pick a religion. Don't go to church. If you really want to know the truth and this is what this topic is really pointing toward. Then ask God, because he does interact with us, I started asking God after I came to the conclusion that it was impossible to say he didn't exist and impossible to say that he does. Forever in limbo wondering, ever since then, from time to time I was ask, "Give me proof, something I can understand that you are real and care about me". It took a year and I argued with my imaginary God that supposedly loved me more than i knew many many times, before I got my answer. I was homeless and sick but I got my answer.
But like i thought, if God is real, and he does care about me and I can't believe unless I have proof for me. Then I'll ask, I knew if the God everyone spoke about was real, he wasn't going to let me die and go to hell. (if it existed at all). Plus I had plenty of moments in my day to tell, ask, demand, and argue with God, I needed proof or else i'm a lost cause.
You either experience God in a way that is enough for you to believe or you don't want to know and would rather live a life without thinking about God. Sadily, we all die and get a conclusion in the end, regardless of if we believed or not.
Edited by ShadowX, 21 May 2014 - 05:57 PM.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 06:10 PM
Posted 21 May 2014 - 06:35 PM
WHAT IS FAITH?
Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence. Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith. Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.
American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence." To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true. It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact. Trust.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 07:23 PM
Even non-believers are capable of looking for evidence that helps support Christianity's claim. If non-believers can't come in without an open-minded view that they may be wrong then there is nothing to gain from you. I alone can serve as the devils advocate (as they say) and argue against my brothers and sisters about why its not enough and yet still be fully committed to believing without those people.
The problem is that christ's so called sacrifice is considered meaningless by those who attest that it is not his sacrifice but belief in the tall tale of a resurrecting godhuman hybrid that is necessary for salvation. It is this belief that saves you not the sacrifice, at least according to some, to trust on what I believe is clearly insufficient and questionable evidence, such as so-called witness testimony of a few.
I just don't see this overwhelming importance in believing a tall tale, and joining a cult, as a means of gaining some sort of salvation. IF the sacrifice was all that was needed and important, then it needn't matter if the faith died out, and no one believed anymore in the tall tale.
Add to that the fact that the new testament depends crucially on the god of the old testament, at least according to mainstream christianity. Yet much of the old testament has been virtually proven to be fiction, such as adam and eve, and noah and exodus. If the tales of the old testament god are fiction it all but increases the odds that the god described is itself fiction. And if the old testament god is fiction, then Jesus' divine half is also fiction.
The evidence I reveal is that we can't say God doesn't exist. Which is a good start and truthful and fair to say.
We can't say that a noninterventionist deist God doesn't exists, but we can certainly say that in all likelyhood Ra, Zeus, Odin, don't exist, and if we go just by the old testament then Jehovah/YHWH joins that list.
You either experience God in a way that is enough for you to believe or you don't want to know and would rather live a life without thinking about God. Sadily, we all die and get a conclusion in the end, regardless of if we believed or not.
There are those who are trying to call forth godlike entities into this world, able to ellicit massive change upon the world. Whether humanity enters a utopia cared by godlike beings in an immortal state or whether it is wiped out will depend on the new lifeforms that emerge this century.
Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence. Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith. Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.
The problem is extraordinary claims of violating the laws of physics, tend to require extraordinary evidence. All the experiments that verify them, count as evidence against such claims. Noah, Adam, Eve being fiction is evidence against too.
Edited by Castiel, 21 May 2014 - 07:24 PM.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 07:29 PM
Posted 21 May 2014 - 07:46 PM
THE SUDARIUM of OVIEDO: continued
John 20 says this cloth was separate from the other linens. He says it was the one over the face of Jesus. There are three sets of stains on the Sudarium.
The first set of stains is coagulated blood from the crowning of thorns. The Sudarium would have been over the head of Jesus for about 45 minutes. During that time Joseph of Arimathea would have gone to Pilate and the body would have been removed from the cross. We don’t know if the crossbar of the cross was taken down or only the body taken down.
When the body was taken down a second set of stains was made. The cause of death in crucifixion is asphyxiation, fluid building up in the lungs. When the body is put in a horizontal position this fluid exits through the mouth and nose. This fluid is six parts lymph and one part blood. From the Sudarium scientists can calculate how long the body was in the horizontal position.
A third set of stains was made the body was lifted and taken to the tomb. There is a thumb mark on the Sudarium pushing it against the face of Jesus, probably put there by Joseph of Arimathea or John or somebody else. People can judge the size of that person by the size of the thumbprint.
The Shroud was placed over Jesus in the tomb because the women intended to come back on Sunday morning and wash the body. There is no imprint on the Sudarium because the Sudarium was not on Jesus at the moment of the Resurrection. We believe that the Shroud received its image due to the burst of radiation energy at the moment of the Resurrection.
So what is the evidence the Sudarum was the face cloth of Christ and with the Shroud?
----------------------
1. Blood type is AB, the same as on the shroud. AB type is one of the rarest in the world, nost often found in the middle east.
2. Pollen around head is Gundelia, Tourniefortil Thorn Thistle bush, indigenous to Jerusalem. The same as on the shroud.
3. Blood marks on the Sudarum match those on the Shroud in size, shape and location. Blood marks from wounds from crown of thorns match those on shroud.
4. Ratio of blood/pulmonary edeomic fluid is the same as on shroud. 1:6
5. Nose is sane size exactly as shroud. It has been broken.
We have solid evidence that the Sudarium historically was in existence back to 614 ad and evidence that it existed much earlier. If the Shroud and Sudarium record the same event. Then the Sroud is much older than the first carbon dateing suggests. However as noted that date was overturned early in 2014.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 08:38 PM
Posted 21 May 2014 - 08:44 PM
If boring, do something else. Works every time. Here again is something interesting
http://www.longecity...-32#entry663899
Duchykins: His definition of faith renders it fairly useless, and not the action of intelligence, but merely something that everyone has to do regardless of IQ, education or cognitive ability in order to make some sense of the world with incomplete sensory information
He basically redefined it as the assumption everyone makes about reality - that it exists.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 09:02 PM
WHAT IS FAITH?
Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence. Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith. Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.
American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence." To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true. It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact. Trust.
Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. This means institutions like the Church, religious traditions such as the sacraments, and written pieces like the Bible require no evidence or proof to back up their claims on the grounds that its faith based. Faith seems to be an excuse of the ignorant and naive. How can you honestly say that your faith is based on intelligence and conviction... You have zero proof of your god and you have zero proof backing up the majority of the stories within the Bible. Especially when there are a thousand religions claiming their religion is the truth and requires faith. On top of that, as various people have already continued to point out, your god has the commonsense of a child. He doesn't learn from his mistakes. The Shroud and other examples you find refuge in are so irrelevant and insignificant when you take a step back and realize there is no proof of the Christian god and that the Bible cannot possible be looked upon as a reliable historical document due to all the misinformation/improbably information.
EDIT: Castiel, "The problem is extraordinary claims of violating the laws of physics, tend to require extraordinary evidence. All the experiments that verify them, count as evidence against such claims. Noah, Adam, Eve being fiction is evidence against too."
I am not saying that there is not some sort of god or underlying essence at the foundation of physical reality. I am just saying that Christianity and your god is unreasonable, illogical, and based on faith (belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence).
Edited by MajinBrian, 21 May 2014 - 09:06 PM.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 09:05 PM
Everyone lives by faith, all the time. You cant make sense of the world without it. I didnt redefine it, it is trust. Why do you need trust? Because you have incomplete knowledge.
Faith is intelligent. What else beside intelligent beings have faith?
Edited by addx, 21 May 2014 - 09:25 PM.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 10:03 PM
I didn't say faith is useless, I said your definition of it is useless. Read.
So, you want to give it a try?
Duchykins: There is something broken inside you, SH. The New Testament clearly illustrates Jesus' body being prepared according to the Jewish custom of the time, which is BOUND in linen strips, with spices and with a separate cloth over the face, exactly the same as Lazarus' dressings. Not one big cloth loosely draped over the body like you see in theatre.
You can't have it both ways, lmao.
No trace of spices found on the Shroud, btw. And you can be sure Christians looked for evidence of spices.
John 19:40 -- All translations speak of strips and cloths [plural not singular] with spices, bound or wound around the body
http://biblehub.com/john/19-40.htm
John 20:5 -- Again, plural strips or cloths
http://biblehub.com/john/20-5.htm
John 20:6 -- Plural again
http://biblehub.com/john/20-6.htm
John 20:7 -- cloth found apart from main [plural] wrappings
http://biblehub.com/john/20-7.htm
Thank you for your usual ad hominem you are a pro at name calling.
Obviously you havent been following the evidence I have been presenting. There were three pieces of cloth found in the tomb (plural) There was the face cloth which I have just been posting on, THE SUDARIUM of OVIEDO. Then there was the strip of cloth which has been sewn back on the shroud, which was used to tie the shroud to the body as shown in the videos I presented. John mentions at least three, one if them being a strip.
http://www.longecity...-31#entry663540
http://www.longecity...-31#entry663544
As for the spices and plant material. NONSENSE. You havent a clue what you are talking about.
http://www.people.fa...ach/shroud.html
https://www.shroud.com/danin.htm
http://shroud3d.com/...f-avinoam-danin
https://www.google.c...iw=1120&bih=562
https://www.youtube....Pde-j2XXRM#t=17
Edited by shadowhawk, 21 May 2014 - 10:04 PM.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 10:35 PM
Edited by Duchykins, 21 May 2014 - 10:36 PM.
Posted 21 May 2014 - 10:46 PM
If boring, do something else. Works every time. Here again is something interesting
http://www.longecity...-32#entry663899
Duchykins: His definition of faith renders it fairly useless, and not the action of intelligence, but merely something that everyone has to do regardless of IQ, education or cognitive ability in order to make some sense of the world with incomplete sensory information
He basically redefined it as the assumption everyone makes about reality - that it exists.
Everyone lives by faith, all the time. You cant make sense of the world without it. I didnt redefine it, it is trust. Why do you need trust? Because you have incomplete knowledge. What about that, makes it useless? My definition is as old as the Bible. Faith is intelligent. What else beside intelligent beings have faith?
The problem is that many religious individuals claim that rather than depend on any evidence you must depend mostly on that trust itself,mostly on faith itself for your beliefs. Trust in trust is circular and meaningless. While evidence is incomplete, the more spectacular the claim the more and stronger evidence is demanded. There is a reason why perpetual motion machines are practically always dismissed out of hand, and it is because everything points against it.
As I've said there's substantial evidence against christianity, such as several tales of the old testament being made up. Yet we're supposed to rely mostly on scant testimony of a few men. Why, must we trust this testimony? Because we should take it on faith, and faith is a virtue, solely by faith is good for us.(because if we HAD MUCH MORE EVIDENCE it wouldn't require MUCH FAITH, and blessed are we who can rely mostly on faith for our beliefs.)
Posted 21 May 2014 - 11:50 PM
Pollen is not a spice used by Jews for anything, let alone burial. The burial cloths would have been practually saturated with spices. Apparently you know nothing of Jewish tradition, or the burial traditions of people who tend to live in dry, desert-like environments ... not unsurprising for a Christian.
John talks about linen strips the same kind that Jews had been using for generations, same as Lazarus... similar to the Egyptians. You're still lying.
When the cloth is flattened, the image shouldn't look so proportional, there should be some distortion somewhere, it doesn't matter if the image was "burned" into the cloth with magic or not. The image onthe Shroud was obviously created on flat surface or while the cloth was stretched flat. Even most Christians understand this. The only people who fail to see it are those who have shit for spatial reasoning.
Flowers have pollen and there were many flowers and pollen on the shroud that only come from the area around Jerusalem. You can see where the flowers were placed here. http://shroud3d.com/...f-avinoam-danin
They were not finished preparing Jesus for burial and this is the reason they had come to the tomb. Obviously they had removed the face cloth, taken a strip from the shroud and bound his body in the cloth after putting flowers on it but they were not finished because of the
Sabbath. They had not applied the spices or washed the body yet. This is obvious because of the blood. This does not contradict the New Testament. http://digitalcommon...xt=lts_fac_pubs
As for the cloth being flattened, the image is in fact distorted from the way the cloth was draped over it. Here is how the scientists handled the problem. Go to Ray Downings site. http://www.raydownin...otional-images/
Again rather than blow smoke and call names these questions are addressed in the videos I presented.
http://www.longecity...-31#entry663540
http://www.longecity...-31#entry663544
Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:15 AM
Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:50 AM
If boring, do something else. Works every time. Here again is something interesting
http://www.longecity...-32#entry663899
Duchykins: His definition of faith renders it fairly useless, and not the action of intelligence, but merely something that everyone has to do regardless of IQ, education or cognitive ability in order to make some sense of the world with incomplete sensory information
He basically redefined it as the assumption everyone makes about reality - that it exists.
Everyone lives by faith, all the time. You cant make sense of the world without it. I didnt redefine it, it is trust. Why do you need trust? Because you have incomplete knowledge. What about that, makes it useless? My definition is as old as the Bible. Faith is intelligent. What else beside intelligent beings have faith?
The problem is that many religious individuals claim that rather than depend on any evidence you must depend mostly on that trust itself,mostly on faith itself for your beliefs. Trust in trust is circular and meaningless. While evidence is incomplete, the more spectacular the claim the more and stronger evidence is demanded. There is a reason why perpetual motion machines are practically always dismissed out of hand, and it is because everything points against it.
As I've said there's substantial evidence against christianity, such as several tales of the old testament being made up. Yet we're supposed to rely mostly on scant testimony of a few men. Why, must we trust this testimony? Because we should take it on faith, and faith is a virtue, solely by faith is good for us.(because if we HAD MUCH MORE EVIDENCE it wouldn't require MUCH FAITH, and blessed are we who can rely mostly on faith for our beliefs.)
Where is the evidence you have presented? Opinion, yes, evidence no. I use the same faith you do. Trust is not circular and not meaningless. What has perpetual motion have to do with anything? Right now we have been dealing with the evidence for Christs resurrection despite attempts to derail it. This is nothing new because the problem with the non religious is they don’t deal with evidence, they just call names and attempt to keep real discussion from taking place.
Every person has a different rabbit trail but they abandon it when the discussion becomes more than logical fallacies. There are millions of trails. Just look at the Is There Evidence for Atheism topic. What a joke. I just let them go down what ever trail they wanted. Insane. If you have a serious subject regarding the OT I will come back to it in the DIFFICULTIES section at the end.
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
This topic is locked
