Biff the unclean

Well, the loaded language to one side, it's already been discussed that things can exist physically or conceptually. Imagining something only tells us for certain that it exists as a concept.
And since you are only imagining God and not producing any Gods then you know God is only a concept and not the reality you have previously claimed.

Well, tell me one finite thing that wasn't caused. You made a blanket statement about all finite things, you claimed (again) knowledge you do not posses. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You ignore recent findings in quantum physics that some sub-atomic particles popping into existence without cause.

I'm not trying to say there is a God, we all know there is a God, but what we dispute is the nature of that God. Is He only a concept - does he only exist conceptually - or is He also physically existent, as we are physically existent?
In the entire history of mankind only two types of Gods have been produced --fakes, and Gods who are works of the human imagination. Unless you can product an actual God I'd say that the dispute is over.

Modern cosmologists say the universe was uncaused,
Not at all. They say that they do not know the cause. And I say…neither do you.
I say God was uncaused.
And therefore doesn't exist.
But before you get into details about God, whether he was caused or not, what his turn on's and turn off's are, where he is going on his vacation…you have to actually produce a God. If you can't even demonstrate that he exists why should I listen to you about the fine points?

Which leads us very nicely to Jesus Christ, God's self-revelation to Man. Let me see...

1. Jesus existed as a historical person
There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed.
2. Jesus had a controversial ministry in Israel
3. Jesus was executed by crucifixion for blasphemy
4. His followers claimed he was resurrected and ascended
5. The N.T contains writing on his life, work, death and claims...
All plot points in an obvious work of fiction.

Are we all in basic agreement on the above?
Apparently not

I trust you do not find numbers to be a 'figment of the imagination'?
Are you now claiming that numbers are beings? Mister Three, the lovely Ms One thousand seven hundred? You have claimed so many other screwy things it wouldn't surprise me.

I will limit my comments to those of Jeffery Jay Lowder, a skeptic atheist, who in an online chapter at the Infidels.org site says:
Wells historic Jesus is not the bibles Jesus. Jesus was a common name, about as common as Bob is to us.
There are absolutely no records from the time of anyone, named Jesus or not, how might have had the legend based on him.
However that is not to say that there is nothing from the period that the legend could be based on. Every chapter of Jesus' career form Virgin birth with magic star, shepherds and angels and Zoroastrian priests all the way to Paul on the road to Damascus was already a part of the different pagan religions of Rome

Testimonium Flavianum probably contained an authentic, independent witness to Jesus.
What it contains is a poorly done fourth century "pious fraud" which is attributed to Bishop Eusebius

Infidelettante

quote:

quote:JTVrocher
Third, prove the revelation to be genuine and trustworthy

I would suggest you spend some time with those fine people who publish The Secular Web. Had you done so already you would understand how inane your list is.

I will give you 1., 2., and 3. but warn you they do you no good as 4. and 5. will show them irrelevant.

You have a chance here to redeem yourself, so to speak. You only have to present us with first person eye witness testimony to the resurrection and ascension. Do not be offended that I am unable to accept your claim, as a follower of Christ, that he was resurrected and ascended. Your claim is based on faith and though I am sure you could mount a defense of it based on logic and reason your faith does not establish the resurrection as historical. An eye witness account would. Whose would you care to present?

There are no writings in the NT that are contemporaneous with Jesus. There is no eye witness account of the life of Jesus in the NT. Claims made by persons who did not see the events in question, such as yourself, are worthless. Do you think that just because someone writes about something the something must have happened? Do you think they couldn’t be wrong about Jesus? Do you think everything in the Bible is true? :banghead:

So far you have made no argument whatsoever that the revelation you cite is either genuine or trustworthy. You fail to show that the source you rely on exists. Return to three and try again.

And one more thing. Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition.

JT

wade-w

Let's keep it civil people!

AJ113

I trust you do not find numbers to be an object or being?

Yes. Content requires context, but context - by definition - does not require content. You define your family's content, but not its meaningful, contextual definition/identity.

WTF?

This would include evidence of his ministry and death.

Non-sequitur. This would include evidence that there once was a person called Jesus, and very little else.

Abel Stable

Numbers are a perfect example of something that exists only conceptually...and yes, they are "figments of the imagination". Numbers are invented by humans. They are used to organize the world around us. If you remove every human brain from the earth, then there are no more numbers*. Don't you agree? If not, then where else do numbers exist?

*it is also possible that other animals have counting systems, but I couldn't speak for them

Cipher Girl

Well, the loaded language to one side, it's already been discussed that things can exist physically or conceptually. Imagining something only tells us for certain that it exists as a concept.

Well Danielius, if you apply this to your own arguments, then you can see the fallacies inherent in them. It's funny how theists can say everyone else's concepts only exist conceptually, but don't apply the same standard to thier own concepts.

Again repeat after me "Just because I can imagine something, does not make it true." You need evidence to know something is true.

Infidelettante

Am I too near the edge? I try so hard to dance only so close but the movement is at times uncontrollable. And that is, I guess, the fun of it. I will try to have less fun, or perhaps just not approach so often.

It is a balance don't you think? Will those who balance well be forgiven the occasional misstep? Or, perhaps the movement is open to interpretation. Where did I offend, for it may be no offence at all. In any event, I will keep my eyes open near the edge but the dance will not satisfy as much as it did.

JT

danielius

Actually, that's a theory ('nominalism' I think), and an interesting one, but not a fact. It's a theory I disagree with.

There are writings in the NT that are dated to within 3-7 years of the crucifixion. By ancient standards, this is equivalent to a news flash.

The testimony of the gospels constitutes several sufficiently consistent and reliable attestations as to the life, claims, death and resurrection of Jesus.

The evidence is good that the NT is a sufficiently trustworthy source and that Jesus really was a person of history, who lived and died two thousand years ago.

Danielius

emotional

Daniel,

doesn't this mean anything to you?

Stephen T-B

Who are you trying to convince that Christianity is a reasonable world view, danielius?
You must know by now that you are addressing people here who have been through Christianity and come out the other side for the very reason that it did not provide them with a reasonable world view.
Do you think they didn’t think about it? That they just woke up one morning and thought Sod that for a game of soldiers. I’m not going to believe all that stuff any more?

Many of us moved out of belief quite slowly - some of us painfully and probably all of us after thought and analysis - because the delusions at its heart were becoming just too obvious to ignore; there’s a sense in which the dogmas, the doctrines and the rituals fell away ‘til nothing remained but a hollow frame of pointless beliefs.
I wonder why you are trying to make us see Reason there, instead of Delusions?
For our sakes?
Or for yours?