Chris Weimer

Because there's never been any evidence for any sort of deity. Meanwhile, there have been attested cases of humans who have started religious movements. P3 is, therefore, a false premise.

On the contrary - you pony up any evidence for any sort of deity and then we'll talk about your premise being true. As it stands, there is no evidence for any sort of deity and plenty of evidence for humans starting religious groups. You can't just take a statement and call it true and expect it to be.

Yes, there are plenty, actually. Like sun worship, for one.

There is a flaw with J-D's argument, spin, you just didn't touch upon it. J-D's argument effectively argues for Jesus, but it makes no case as to what that Jesus was, whether Jesus was a human being who lived in the first century CE, or whether Jesus was an imagined deity fabricated by Jewish Hellenists in the second century CE, or whether Jesus was entirely fabricated by Eusebius in the fourth century CE.

spin

Rubbish, Chris. P3 has not been shown to be false by your rejection of the deity. In fact, I didn't need a real deity for the analogy. In fact, I invited the exact response that you gave. You still haven't twigged. Show me where the 3rd premise needs a real entity for it to be true.

Whether the deity is real or not doesn't change the content of the statement being true. You could have followers of Mickey Mouse and it wouldn't change the premise.

What does sun worship have to do with a deity, unless you infuse the son with deity?

I preferred to deal with it as the absurd set of propositions it is.


spin

J-D

No, you were dealing with an interpretation that was different from the one I intended. See my latest post.

J-D

It may be my fault for expressing my point unclearly, but I have now attempted to rectify this (see above), and to clarify that the intended conclusion is that the Jesus whose existence is being argued for is the real human religious leader of the first group of Christians.

spin

You can say that again.

Now you're being arbitrary. What's wrong with your initial statement??

History is about documentation of a real past. Without the documentation you don't have history. The events you refer to may have happened, but that doesn't make history. You need another term, or at least call your definition "history2".

What ha all this got to do with the price of squid in an egg market? You don't have any historical record... So? You don't have any historical record of the particular religious leader. Be fair in your exposition.

So, because there are other leaders, it means that the one you're interested in must be as well.

"[H]istorical possibility" -- You have a funny use of "historical", is it your history2 at its basis or something? Are we dealing with what can be shown from the past? No. It's a plausible past, a "historical possibility"!

So you are now arguing from what you haven't seen. Substantive cases are more convincing.

This is your 4th premise:

"No other possible historical origin is known for any first group of Christians."

Oh, alright, if I must... Paul, without ever having seen a Jesus, converted all sorts of people to christianity. Therefore a Jesus is not necessary for Paul to convert people to christianity. Therefore there is another possible origin for a group of christians. This group is the first historically known group of christians, so that should be enough to invalidate your proposition. Are you happy now?

Oh wait... Paul is a religious leader... that'd fit your premise #3. Paulianity... Hmmm.

I thought cock and bull arguments got cock and bull responses. Why make a big issue of it?


spin

spin

I merely responded to what you wrote.

Chris Weimer

Deity requires, at least I thought, certain set of characteristics that Mickey Mouse doesn't qualify. While "leader" doesn't require actual existence, deity does. Ideas can lead, but if you state that a god exists, as your conclusion suggests, than you'd need evidence for P3, which you lack.

If you take a deity to mean anything, which your conclusion with your interpretation suggests, or which J-D's conclusion suggests, than you've really just said nothing at all.

spin

I don't see why you say that. It was not necessary in the stated premises.

You're not following the original logic. P3 doesn't require my indicating proof of the deity. It requires the notion to be functional. You are just imposing your theories. Whatever. If you require the proof of existence of the deity in P3, you nullify the original logic.

So you have made my case again.


spin

Chris Weimer

It's entailed with your premise.

P3 is not fuctional. I don't require proof of the deity in P3, I require evidence for any deity. Otherwise P3 is false.

What's your case? That you've said nothing at all? Or that J-D said nothing at all? J-D's argument was meaningless - an exercise in logic, and quite irrelevant to the historical Jesus discussion (as is most of the arguments here). Yours, on the other hand, was illogical since P3 is false.

Amaleq13

I have to agree with spin that both of you are following an irrelevant tangent that is neither implied nor required by his argument.

There is nothing to imply or require that the deity mentioned in P3 be "real". All that is implied and required is there existed a shared belief in the same deity.