Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Lion IRC]

Smyrna & Philadelphia are the churches that got the full approval of Jesus.

Putting aside all this other stuff for a moment … do you have a cite for this?

Given that, you know, all the churches were established decades after Jesus’s death …

You mean decades after Jesus' Resurrection.
You know...when He was alive and well.

Ah, I see … begging the question. So dead Jesus gets to put the stamp of approval on Smyrna and Philadelphia churches because … he wasn’t really dead. But, see, that is what you are required to prove — that he was resurrected. You can’t assume your conclusion.

You assumed your conclusion that Jesus couldn't give His approval to the churches because it was after His death - begging the question ...why couldnt a Resurrected Jesus do so?

It's not an internal critique if you get to BYO Jesus.

 

[Lion IRC]

There's a guy in Mexico who claims to be Jesus.

No, wait, I mean, Jesus Christ. There are lots of people with the name Jesus.

So, is this guy one of the people being used to "corroborate" the existence of a god?

It's a simple yes or no question.

Depending on his reason for thinking God exists - yes.

If he is possessed by a demon that would corroborate theism.

If he has a good reason for thinking God exists and a simultaneous BAD (deluded) reason for thinking he is Jesus of Nazareth that would corroborate theism.

If he sees a burning bush and hears it speaking, and mistakenly thinks the bush is Prometheus, the god of fire, that would corroborate theism.

 

[pood]

You assumed your conclusion that Jesus couldn't give His approval to the churches because it was after His death - begging the question ...why couldnt a Resurrected Jesus do so?

It's not an internal critique if you get to BYO Jesus.

No, I didn’t assume anything. I just noted, empirically — you could do the same, if you really give it a try — that dead people never give their approval to anything, because they’re dead.

But I can play the same game. You assume your conclusion that Santa can’t deliver gifts to nice children and coal to naughty children — begging the question … why couldn’t a real Santa do that?

Do you not see how stupid this?

No, probably not.

 

[TomC]

It's not an internal critique if you get to BYO Jesus.

There is no other Jesus.

That's kinda the problem with Christianity and Christian morality. There's no objective standards for Christians or Christian morality. From the Borgia popes to Martin Luther. From Cortez to Mother Teresa to Donald Trump. From the sweet old lady down the street to Franklin Graham.
They're all Christians demonstrating what Christianity means.
All of them.

To me, it means people creating a God in their own image and enforcing their own image on the rest of us.
Tom

 

[pood]

You assume your conclusion that Superman can’t fly — begging question … why couldn’t a real Superman do that?

Blah blah blah. Can’t you come up with something better than this idiocy?

 

[pood]

In order to establish that Jesus gave his stamp of approval to a couple of churches that were established decades after his death, you first have to establish the truth of the very point that is in question — you have to show that Jesus was in fact resurrected.

Is it really possible you don’t understand what crapola you’re dishing out here?

 

[Lion IRC]

The assertion is the evidence.
All evidence is derived from the senses - even sincere, sane, bona fide, corroborated claims of scientists who say the polar ice caps are melting.

Here's the thing.
Unfortunately, God or something made humans quite stupid.We are very inclined towards mistakes, delusion, illusion, and oftentimes flat out lies.

Speak for yourself.
You might have good reason to think that. But please speak for yourself. Or should I say 'yourselves' ? (Lemme check who clicked 'like' on your post.)

I strongly disagree that humans are "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity.

An unsupported assertion is the absolute weakest kind of evidence.

You mean like asserting that we are very inclined towards mistakes, delusion, illusion, stupidity and lies?

The big thrust of the scientific method is to weed out those false assertions with high standards for evidence. Evidence that can be observed and examined by anyone who wants.

I can't examine whether Pluto is a planet.
Science said it was. Was that a false assertion?

My point about scientific evidence is that it is entirely derived from the senses and communicated to others via their senses.

The claim..."I saw Pluto and that's evidence Pluto exists" rests entirely on my willingness to believe that the person is telling the truth and isn't mistaking Pluto for Neptune.

That's the difference between scriptural claims and climatology.

If I want, I can gainsay any scientific claim by dismissing it as a motivated lie, a delusion, a sincere mistake....

I can even dismiss that same claim if it's corroborated by 10 different scientists.
...if I want to dismiss (disbelieve) the claim.

 

[lostone]

I thought Jesus only stuck around for forty days after his supposed Resurrection. So how could he make any decisions about choices made by his followers decades later? Acts 1:3?

 

[Lion IRC]

You assumed your conclusion that Jesus couldn't give His approval to the churches because it was after His death - begging the question ...why couldnt a Resurrected Jesus do so?

It's not an internal critique if you get to BYO Jesus.

No, I didn’t assume anything. I just noted, empirically — you could do the same, if you really give it a try — that dead people never give their approval to anything, because they’re dead.

You just assumed your conclusion AGAIN.
Here's the question you begged me to ask.

Can a Resurrected Jesus give His approval?

But I can play the same game. You assume your conclusion that Santa can’t deliver gifts to nice children and coal to naughty children — begging the question … why couldn’t a real Santa do that?

Now, you're getting it.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's not an internal critique if you get to BYO Jesus.

There is no other Jesus.

So the real Jesus being referred to isn't dead and therefore CAN give His approval to churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia.

 

[pood]

I can't examine whether Pluto is a planet.

Actually, scientists have reclassified it as a “dwarf planet,” but that’s neither here nor there. But, yes, you can examine whether Pluto exists. We even did a fly-by of it a few years ago. Did you somehow miss that? Among other intriguing features, it is has mountains made of ice and a big old heart shape on it.

Now contrast this with your Santa in the Sky. Has anyone ever done a flyby of Santa in the Sky to take photos of it and run a battery of other scientific tests on it as they did with Pluto? No.

Science said it was. Was that a false assertion?

No. Science has evidence.

My point about scientific evidence is that it is entirely derived from the senses and communicated to others via their senses.

Yeah, so?

The claim..."I saw Pluto and that's evidence Pluto exists" rests entirely on my willingness to believe that the person is telling the truth and isn't mistaking Pluto for Neptune.

That's the difference between scriptural claims and climatology.

If I want, I can gainsay any scientific claim by dismissing it as a motivated lie, a delusion, a sincere mistake....

Sure, you can do that if you want. The difference is that scientific claims that are well supported have a mountain of evidence for them. That’s why they’re well supported. The claim that God exists has nada evidence for it. Somebody saying “God exists“ is not evidence. If I say “Pluto exists,” that is not a mere assertion, because there is a mountain of evidence to support the claim.

I can even dismiss that same claim if it's corroborated by 10 different scientists.
...if I want to dismiss (disbelieve) the claim.

Yeah, if you want to, you’re free to remain willfully ignorant. Which is what you are.

 

[TomC]

Speak for yourself.
You might have good reason to think that. But please speak for yourself. Or should I say 'yourselves' ? (Lemme check who clicked 'like' on your post.)

I strongly disagree that humans are "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity.

You strongly disagree? Seriously?

Have you ever read world history?
Christians launched the crusades. The genocide of the Americas. The Holocaust.

It was usually Christians who worshipped and believed in the Jesus that they were taught to believe in.

But Christians did!

Huge crimes against humanity based on church teachings and scriptures.

You mean like asserting that we are very inclined towards mistakes, delusion, illusion, stupidity and lies?

Yeppers.
Are you claiming that the ugly behavior that humans are good at are not the result of our God Given Nature?

I am.
I'm saying, flat out, human immoral behavior is the result of how we came to exist as humans.

If you prefer to believe differently, feel free to explain why humans are the way we are.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Speak for yourself.
You might have good reason to think that. But please speak for yourself. Or should I say 'yourselves' ? (Lemme check who clicked 'like' on your post.)

I was disappointed to discover that I already had, because you inspired me to go back to check, and to do so, if I had not already.

I strongly disagree that humans are "very inclined" towards mistakes, delusions, lies, self-harm, ignorance, stupidity.

Then your observational skills are evidently as woefully inadequate as your reasoning skills.

Perhaps turn on the news, or pick up a history book?

 

[pood]

You assumed your conclusion that Jesus couldn't give His approval to the churches because it was after His death - begging the question ...why couldnt a Resurrected Jesus do so?

It's not an internal critique if you get to BYO Jesus.

No, I didn’t assume anything. I just noted, empirically — you could do the same, if you really give it a try — that dead people never give their approval to anything, because they’re dead.

You just assumed your conclusion AGAIN.
Here's the question you begged me to ask.

Can a Resurrected Jesus give His approval?

What are you actually talking about? You do you even know what begging the question means? Apparently not, based on the question above.

But I can play the same game. You assume your conclusion that Santa can’t deliver gifts to nice children and coal to naughty children — begging the question … why couldn’t a real Santa do that?

Now, you're getting it.

Getting what? You think Santa exists, too??

 

[pood]

Sigh. Begging the question is a fallacy of circularity, where one assumes in the premise of an argument what one must prove in the conclusion.

Telling me that Jesus gave his stamp of approval to a couple of churches decades after he died, because he was resurrected, assumes what one must first prove — that Jesus was, in fact, resurrected.

 

[Lion IRC]

Actually, scientists have reclassified it as a “dwarf planet,” but that’s neither here nor there.

Yes, people can be mistaken in what they think they saw.

But, yes, you can examine whether Pluto exists.

I can't see Pluto. Maybe your eyesight is better than mine.

We even did a fly-by of it a few years ago. Did you somehow miss that?

I don't remember humans ever flying past Pluto. Were you on that spacecraft?

If you were, I'm happy to take your word for it.

If you read about it somewhere, that's gonna fall into the category of hearsay evidence.

But dont worry. I'm happy to accept as evidence you telling me that someone told you that they saw what they thought was a planet called Pluto.

Or maybe youre telling me that someone showed you a picture that they claim was taken by somebody else who claims it's a planet called Pluto.

BTW - there have been, and are, billions more human beings who say they have direct experience/evidence of God than there are people who have seen alleged pictures of Pluto. (Did you somehow miss that?)

 

[Lion IRC]

Sigh. Begging the question is a fallacy of circularity, where one assumes in the premise of an argument what one must prove in the conclusion.

Telling me that Jesus gave his stamp of approval to a couple of churches decades after he died, because he was resurrected, assumes what one must first prove — that Jesus was, in fact, resurrected.

Telling me that Jesus couldnt have given His stamp of approval to a couple of churches decades after He died, because He had died, is circular. It assumes the conclusion that He wasnt Resurrected.

 

[bilby]

The difference is that scientific claims that are well supported have a mountain of evidence for them. That’s why they’re well supported. The claim that God exists has nada evidence for it. Somebody saying “God exists“ is not evidence. If I say “Pluto exists,” that is not a mere assertion, because there is a mountain of evidence to support the claim.

The critical thing is that the evidence is universally available. No trust in others is required; No faith is needed. If you build your own sufficiently powerful telescope (so you know there are no tricks being pulled by those scammers in Big Astronomy), and look at the place where Pluto is alleged to be, you will see that Pluto is indeed there. And anyone who does this will see Pluto, no matter how much, or how little, they believe that it exists.

The whole edifice of science is built on repeatability. Anyone can test any claim in science (not least because science requires the publication of methods - detailed instructions on how to go about making the claimed observations for yourself); And anyone who tests a claim, and can show it to be false, becomes a hero of science.

The more well established a claim, the more the accolades for proving it wrong (or even just showing it not to be universally right). Einstein is celebrated because he knocked Newton off a perch he had occupied for three centuries.

Neither Einstein nor Newton expected to be able to get away with bald claims or hearsay; They made predictions that were testable, and challenged the world to test them. It took some very detailed and precise measurements of the movements of Mercury around the Sun (made by Eddington) to show that Einstein was right, and Newton was not. But while Eddington was the first to complete the test set by Einstein, he was far from the last, and anyone who doubts (or indeed anyone who doesn't) can repeat the same tests, and see for themselves.

If you trust in Einstein's work, you are backing the right horse; But you are doing the antithesis of science. Einstein isn't right because he's a genius; He's a genius because he is right, and because we can all check for ourselves that he is right.

The scientific approach to Einstein is Eddington's approach - "That cannot possibly be right, let me check. OK, I checked, and it actually is right. And I had some friends check my work, and then I had some mortal enemies re-check it. And it's still right, because none of them failed to obtain the same result as I did".

 

[pood]

Actually, scientists have reclassified it as a “dwarf planet,” but that’s neither here nor there.

Yes, people can be mistaken in what they think they saw.

No, they were not mistaken in what they saw, with respect to Pluto. They simply changed their classification system, deciding that Pluto was too small to be a full-fledged planet.

But, yes, you can examine whether Pluto exists.

I can't see Pluto. Maybe your eyesight is better than mine.

You can see it through a telescope. You can see wonderful images of it from the flyby we conducted a few years ago. The existence of Pluto as well as Uranus and Neptune, unknown to the ancients, was correctly deduced through mathematics and science. I thought you said you “deferred” to science?

We even did a fly-by of it a few years ago. Did you somehow miss that?

I don't remember humans ever flying past Pluto. Were you on that spacecraft?

Holy .. was I what? No, humans did not fly past Pluto. A remote spacecraft crammed with cameras and sensors and other technology to do a battery of tests on Pluto flew past it. NASA was able to get the craft there by utilizing Newton’s laws of motion. I thought you said you “deferred” to science?

If you were, I'm happy to take your word for it.

Nobody was on the spacecraft. Are you seriously this uninformed, or is this another slippery game you are playing?

If you read about it somewhere, that's gonna fall into the category of hearsay evidence.

No, there is direct evidence of Pluto. That’s not hearsay.

But dont worry. I'm happy to accept as evidence you telling me that someone told you that they saw what they thought was a planet called Pluto.

So to salvage Santa in the Sky, you’re denying all of the evidence of the reality around us, is that it? If we can’t empirically demonstrate God, then we can’t empirically demonstrate ANYTHING, nuk-nuk-nuk. So pathetic.

Or maybe youre telling me that someone showed you a picture that they claim was taken by somebody else who claims it's a planet called Pluto.

There is a ton of evidence for Pluto dating to the 1930s, when it was first discovered. You should read a book other than the bible sometime.

BTW - there have been, and are, billions more human beings who say they have direct experience/evidence of God than there are people who have seen alleged pictures of Pluto. (Did you somehow miss that?)

Billions? Uh, no. Anyway, what those people say is of no consequence absent corroborating independent evidence, of which there is none for God and a ton for Pluto.

 

[bilby]

Actually, scientists have reclassified it as a “dwarf planet,” but that’s neither here nor there.

Yes, people can be mistaken in what they think they saw.

But, yes, you can examine whether Pluto exists.

I can't see Pluto. Maybe your eyesight is better than mine.

We even did a fly-by of it a few years ago. Did you somehow miss that?

I don't remember humans ever flying past Pluto. Were you on that spacecraft?

If you were, I'm happy to take your word for it.

If you read about it somewhere, that's gonna fall into the category of hearsay evidence.

But dont worry. I'm happy to accept as evidence you telling me that someone told you that they saw what they thought was a planet called Pluto.

Or maybe youre telling me that someone showed you a picture that they claim was taken by somebody else who claims it's a planet called Pluto.

BTW - there have been, and are, billions more human beings who say they have direct experience/evidence of God than there are people who have seen alleged pictures of Pluto. (Did you somehow miss that?)

Laziness is no defence. You could build a suitable telescope and observe Pluto for yourself. Everyone who ever has, has seen Pluto, exactly where it is claimed to be.

If you don't want to do the work, you abdicate the right to claim that those who have done the work are wrong or mistaken.