There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[jonJ]

We all intuitively know it because we have all been given a spirit of God-consciousness. It's also in Romans 1.20 that says by observing nature we know God exists.

Not me. I've had a good look, I've even rummaged down the back of the sofa, and there's no spirit of God-consciousness there. You must be talking about some other 'we'.

 

[jonJ]

Integers are abstract numbers not producing cause and effect relationships like when a drop a ball of a ball impacts the ground, that sort of cause and effect.

So it's not infinite regress that's a problem for you: it's the temporal sequence of cause and effect. But as others have pointed out already:

1) If every event needs a cause, then God's making the universe needs a cause, and you now have to explain what caused that.
2) If God's making the universe doesn't need a cause, then every event doesn't need a cause, and the coming into being of the universe doesn't need one either.

Trying to claim that every event needs a temporally prior cause, then smuggling God's actions in by the back door as uncaused events, is special pleading with a vengeance.

 

[Ford]

Would you mind giving me 32 rep points of power for this conscientious clarification on my part? I could really use it in a sea of atheists gang banging me. Your action would show a certain friendlessness and no hard feelings.

Hang on a second. Did you seriously just ask for rep points because you made a half ass "clarification?" Wow.


You show up here proselytizing with lame, long refuted arguments, get your self-righteous behind handed to you, then have the nerve to ask for credit for giving a little leeway while at the same time whining about how you're being treated?


Give me a fucking break.


p.s. there's no gang banging going on here. gang banging is when you're hanging out with other members of your gang, or alternately, participating in an orgy. I think the term you're looking for is "ganging up." Atheists are "ganging up" on you. Not gang banging.

 

[jonJ]

Coming up, your requests, and a special flashback from Aquinas and the First Cause Experience. But first, a word from our sponsors..."

Unfortunately, when it comes to tax breaks for religion, we are the sponsors.

 

[untermensche]

this fictional character called Jesus

Your head is not on straight because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with more sources for Him than any ten figures in antiquity combined within 150 years of His death. Historians simply don't go your route so you're on your own. We can talk if you get your head back on straight above evidence.

You got it wrong.

A person with that name may have existed, but there is no mention of the many fictions in the new testament except in the new testament, written decades after this fictional character allegedly lived. If he was so special why did people wait so long to write it down? Or perhaps it just took that long for the legend to grow amongst these primitive people?

 

[revivin]

A person with that name may have existed, but there is no mention of the many fictions in the new testament except in the new testament, written decades after this fictional character allegedly lived. If he was so special why did people wait so long to write it down? Or perhaps it just took that long for the legend to grow amongst these primitive people?

You couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions. May have? Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with 45 sources within 150 years of His death, 17 of which are from non-Christian sources. No historian takes your approach, you're on your own. Mindless belligerency is your approach. When historians look for documenting history for Jesus all the criteria are met holding to the highest of standards.

Why assume people waited a long time to write it down? Take for example Luke who wrote Acts. He never made any mention of Paul's death. Paul died 65 AD in the Neronian persecutions. But Luke said Acts was part two of his former work of Luke. So that places Acts around 50 AD and Luke around 40 AD. But Luke took in part from Mark so that places Mark around 35 AD just 2 years after the cross. Is that too late for you? Peter was friend with Mark so that places Peter's two epistles right after the cross also.

There is no person in antiquity that has sources closer than does Jesus. Plato, Aristotle and Julius Caesar earliest sources are dated over a 1000 years after they died. For Jesus it is just a couple years.

Since the gospel goes all the way back to the cross, and Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with James and John, they confirmed their eyewitness testimony to one another.

 

[jonJ]

Plato, Aristotle and Julius Caesar earliest sources are dated over a 1000 years after they died.

Massive fail. Julius Caesar actually wrote books of his own. Most of them still survive. They made statues of him at the time he was alive. They recorded his name and his deeds in inscriptions on buildings which are still around. They issued coins with his face and name on, many of which are still extant. There's a rather nice summary here, comparing the contemporary evidence for Caesar with that for Christ:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

Whoever taught you history has been lying to you. I would do something about that, if I were you.

 

[revivin]

Julius Caesar actually wrote books of his own.

You are misunderstanding. The earliest surviving text of Julius is over 1000 years later so we can't be sure it is from him at all. Very undependable. You trust something over a 1000 years later written, but not something a few years after the cross. Historians highly value sources closest to their events. Each time you compare ancient texts, the source for Jesus win out every time.

This is common knowledge by scholars and historians.

 

[untermensche]

A person with that name may have existed, but there is no mention of the many fictions in the new testament except in the new testament, written decades after this fictional character allegedly lived. If he was so special why did people wait so long to write it down? Or perhaps it just took that long for the legend to grow amongst these primitive people?

You couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions. May have? Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with 45 sources within 150 years of His death, 17 of which are from non-Christian sources. No historian takes your approach, you're on your own. Mindless belligerency is your approach. When historians look for documenting history for Jesus all the criteria are met holding to the highest of standards.

Why assume people waited a long time to write it down? Take for example Luke who wrote Acts. He never made any mention of Paul's death. Paul died 65 AD in the Neronian persecutions. But Luke said Acts was part two of his former work of Luke. So that places Acts around 50 AD and Luke around 40 AD. But Luke took in part from Mark so that places Mark around 35 AD just 2 years after the cross. Is that too late for you? Peter was friend with Mark so that places Peter's two epistles right after the cross also.

There is no person in antiquity that has sources closer than does Jesus. Plato, Aristotle and Julius Caesar earliest sources are dated over a 1000 years after they died. For Jesus it is just a couple years.

Since the gospel goes all the way back to the cross, and Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with James and John, they confirmed their eyewitness testimony to one another.

All we know is some person named Jesus or some translation of Jesus lived at that time.

It is possibly he whom the legends grew around.

But the fictional stories in the new testament about people born of virgins and demons inhabiting pigs have no corroboration anywhere.

And you say 45 sources. Have you read them or are you just taking somebodies word?

 

[Keith&Co.]

who proposed the infinite regress. That's not something all atheists propose.

Some atheists have proposed this so

So, if SOME atheists have proposed this, but SOME have not, then your proof of God which depends on defeating the argument of SOME atheists does not defeat the argument of ALL atheists. So you have no proof of your god.

I answer them and explain why it is impossible.

But you haven't really shown that it's impossible.
And you haven't explained anything.
You've asserted, and you've made an odd statement about a consequence of the proposition, but you certainly haven't shown that it's impossible.

Before there was a single atheist though God showed why it was not possible in every person's God-conscious spirit.

Sez you.
Why should i believe you?

He uses this as a proof in Rom. 1.20 why it is impossible.

Here's a hint. Don't quote The Books at people who don't believe it was inspired by god for the reason that gods don't exist.

Would you mind giving me 32 rep points of power for this conscientious clarification on my part?

But you've clarified bupkes.
Why should i care if 'i' have occurred before, why would that prove or disprove a deity?

I could really use it in a sea of atheists gang banging me. Your action would show a certain friendlessness and no hard feelings.

You want me to pos-rep you for not actually answering a question?
I might pos-rep the chutzpah inherent in such a request.

 

[revivin]

Fact: Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity more than any 10 figures combined. If He didn't exist, neither did Aristotle, Julius Caesar, Plato, Tiberius. Doublestandards show something is wrong with you.

We know legend theory is impossible because the Apostles preached the eyewitness testimony from the beginning in which the first churches were setup. Paul converted 2 years after the cross, spent 15 days with Peter, and spent time with James and John also eyewitnesses.

Almost all scholars who do accredited or peer review journal work on the resurrection agree the Apostles truly believe they saw Jesus alive from the dead. I accept that too because the evidence is overwhelming.

Where scholars argue lots after that is with no really agreed upon naturalistic explanation. Nothing really ever sticks as a naturalistic explanation to account for their eyewitness testimony in various group settings because group hallucinations are impossible and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions. May have? Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with 45 sources within 150 years of His death, 17 of which are from non-Christian sources. No historian takes your approach, you're on your own. Mindless belligerency is your approach. When historians look for documenting history for Jesus all the criteria are met holding to the highest of standards.

Dude, we're still waiting for an eyewitness account. Got any?

Since the gospel goes all the way back to the cross, and Paul even said

Paul SAID?
How do you think about establishing that he didn't make it up?

he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with James and John, they confirmed their eyewitness testimony to one another.

Oh, good. Well, if he says they confirmed their accounts, it's not possible that he made the shit up.
Still waiting for an eyewitness account to be ponied up, revivin.

Or is 'eyewitness account' another term you're kinda shaky on the meaning of?

 

[revivin]

we're still waiting for an eyewitness account

Read the 27 books of the NT. It's all there. Real people, real lives, by the real Apostles and the real Jesus who created you. Remember, group hallucinations are impossible and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie. Paul was exceedingly genuine in 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 where he testified to these things, the time he spent with Peter for 15 days, and with John and James. It takes you all the way back to the cross.

 

[Keith&Co.]

we're still waiting for an eyewitness account

Read the 27 books of the NT.

I have.
Which ones were written by people who actually saw Jesus? And can you show this to be true?

It's all there. Real people, real lives, by the real Apostles and the real Jesus who created you.

All 27 books? Including the ones by Paul who was not an eyewitness to Jesus? Including Luke?
Man, you have GOT to learn to speak actual English.

Show me that you have historically established any of the Books as dating to Jesus' time on Earth, by someone who actually saw him.

 

[Ford]

Fact: Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity more than any 10 figures combined.

Apparently you've never heard of Egypt.

I mean, we've got actual physical remains of Pharoahs who lived and died long before Jesus was alleged to have walked on the Earth.

 

[untermensche]

Almost all scholars who do accredited or peer review journal work on the resurrection agree the Apostles truly believe they saw Jesus alive from the dead. I accept that too because the evidence is overwhelming.

Please provide a list of the peer reviewed journal work so it can be examined.

This sounds preposterous.

Scientists can't tell today if somebody actually believes something. I would love to see the standard that shows proof of what people who may or may not have existed thousands of years ago believed.

 

[revivin]

I have.

Then you would know all you need are the 3 chapters of the entire Bible to prove Jesus is God and of all the chapters in the Bible historians and scholars say these 3 chapters are most assuredly Paul's writing and sincere testimony not made up. 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Almost all scholars who do accredited or peer review journal work on the resurrection agree the Apostles truly believe they saw Jesus alive from the dead. I accept that too because the evidence is overwhelming.

I have personally met people who truly believe they've successfully performed a rain dance.
I have personally met people who truly believe they've met ghosts. The Fae. Aliens driving UFOs.

I know there are people who phone in to report crimes they've seen on television shows, who truly believe that they've witnessed a crime.

Human beliefs are like assholes, everyone's got at least one.
But it's not a given that anyone thinks yours is worth hearing about.

This is not compelling evidence. If it were, then you would be a member of every religion on the planet, because they all have accounts of the gods or demigods or spirits who have come before.

- - - Updated - - -

I have.

Then you would know all you need are the 3 chapters of the entire Bible to prove Jesus is God and of all the chapters in the Bible historians and scholars say these 3 chapters are most assuredly Paul's writing and sincere testimony not made up. 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2.

How would a historian tell if Paul was sincere or not?
Seriously, what's the rubric for reading a historical account and telling if the author did or did not believe what he wrote?

I think you're making this shit up. But feel free to provide any sort of peer reviewed evidence that it's not all bullshit.

 

[revivin]

I would love to see the standard that shows proof of what people who may or may not have existed thousands of years ago believed.

The most documented people in antiquity most certainly existed. Please see the 27 books of the NT for the proof Jesus is God.

- - - Updated - - -

I have personally met people who truly believe they've successfully performed a rain dance.
I have personally met people who truly believe they've met ghosts.

You've never met a group of people who said they saw someone together who was alive from the dead.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would love to see the standard that shows proof of what people who may or may not have existed thousands of years ago believed.

The most documented people in antiquity most certainly existed.

Then i'd say Spock certainly existed. Look at all the books on Trek. The tech manuals, ship recognition manuals, Klingon translations...

The fact that it's written down is not the same as being documented.

And still, you have to show that actual professional historians believe this standard to be true.