Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 12-25-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think what we both agree is that neither one of us has ever seen a pig fly nor are we aware that it is ever happened. So, given that we have four reliable, independent witnesses, we can ask what it was that they saw. Of course, maybe some physics students rigged a harness to make a pig fly and we are wrong.

You mean the four "reliable" witnesses rigged the story then.

Or just related what they thought they saw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

]The problem is that you cannot disprove those things. Thus, we deal with things that cannot be proved or disproved.

So, you are just wasting time by telling people about YOUR GOD.

You cannot prove your God exist.

You cannot prove your God can see.

You cannot prove your God can hear.

You cannot prove your God can talk.

You cannot prove your God can help people.

Your prove that one single God exist.

You cannot prove it is rather easy for a God to raise people from the dead.

You cannot prove not one single thing about YOUR UNPROVABLE god.

Please, stop wasting time.

Looks like you are the one wasting time reading about a god in which you do not believe. Perhaps you are afraid God is real and you cannot prove that He is not.

spin · 12-25-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The gospels for example lack at least four things:

they are unprovenanced;
they are undated;
they are anonymous; and
their purpose is not transparent.

They each contribute to the philological problems of the gospels.

The surviving textual documents are sufficient in quantity and quality to overcome these issues. However, you will have to take it up with the textual critics to sort it all out.

Nothing more than a bald opinion and one that you can't even pretend to support?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The allegation of a flying pig (in your example) is made by four independent and reliable witnesses.

You tacitly assume what you need to demonstrate, ie the quality of the gospels as witnesses. You refused to do so earlier. That negates any argument you base on the assumption.

Hard to tell, because you don't seem to be able to explain what you mean.

You need to concentrate more.

spin

spin · 12-25-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You mean the four "reliable" witnesses rigged the story then.

Or just related what they thought they saw.

The relationship between the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke is a literary relationship. There is no reason to assume firsthand reporting from Matthew and Luke which are based on Mark, as there is none for Mark which evinces a Latin cultural context for its production.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.