Belief in Christ is evidence based

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

Up to the usual theologue trickery eh, the good ole fallacy!

argumentum ad populum

Getting a bit tired after a few millenia (YAWN!).

Sinny, up to your old atheist trickery are you!

Argumentum ad populum eh??- I would agree that just because a majority of people believe something doesn't make it true, classic case in point is there was a time when the uneducated believed the world was flat.

However in the case for Jesus's resurrection, you have general consensus -
not from uneducated opinions, but from learned scholars of history (including atheists and agnostics etc) based on analysis of physical historic evidence.

Consensus statements are commonly used in science (for example medicine, upon review of data on how to treat a disease for example), - and the FDA doesn't cry "Argumentum ad populum" here do they.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

" . Maybe you'll surprise us all by actually backing up the bullshit you try to peddle here.

If I did the work and showed non partison support (atheist, agnostic, non Christian) regarding the pieces leading to the resurrection miracle as you've asked, would it sway your opinion - that at least that the resurrection is historically evidence based?

If not, why even bother?

[Kinich Ahau]

My vote is: don't bother.

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

If I did the work and showed non partison support (atheist, agnostic, non Christian) regarding the pieces leading to the resurrection miracle as you've asked, would it sway your opinion - that at least that the resurrection is historically evidence based?

If not, why even bother?

Translation: I don't have any evidence, so I'll just come up with a bullshit excuse.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

If I did the work and showed non partison support (atheist, agnostic, non Christian) regarding the pieces leading to the resurrection miracle as you've asked, would it sway your opinion - that at least that the resurrection is historically evidence based?

If not, why even bother?

It would sway my opinion on whether there is a consensus from atheists regarding those five points. This is not an area that I'm ignorant of, but I'm still open to have my mind changed if you have evidence.

Sinfidel wrote

Translation: I don't have any evidence, so I'll just come up with a bullshit excuse.

Looks like it.

[Andrew66]

I think this is evidence that God exists!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpOHn0p_EWI

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

I think this is evidence that God exists!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpOHn0p_EWI

TOO LATE!

Biblical prophecy claims the world will end on Sept. 23, Christian numerologists claim

http://www.fox26houston.com/news/bib...ologists-claim

Bye everyone!

[Sinfidel]

[Kinich Ahau]

I know I'm still here, have the christians gone yet?

[dogpet]

Doubt we'd notice a thousand gross specimens missing.

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

As a Jesus expert, we are hoping you can answer the question every Biologist has, how exactly does a non-material being (God) impregnate a woman?

I'm sure a highly evolved entity from the cosmos would have mastered basic transporter technology to enable simple impregnation.

[dogpet]

The pertinent question for Andrew, is, could his god* have a god? & if not why not?

This imagined supreme being must shirley have a supreme imagination!

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

The pertinent question for Andrew, is, could his god* have a god? & if not why not?

This imagined supreme being must shirley have a supreme imagination!

Sure, a god could have a god who has a god.....
The question is not that however, the question is there an ultimate "God".

No doubt, most agree (even Davin) that their could very well be beings "superior" to humans (aka gods) within our existence.

But the interesting question is whether a god could possibly evolve to such a level that such god becomes indestructible against all others powers, including other intelligent beings, or natural disasters etc.

Given infinite capacity for evolution (stemming from an infinitely old and possibly infinitely large cosmos) - it seems to me that eventually a being could very well have reached such an ultimate condition.

Of course, I do concede to the one single point that Davin raised before (and this is the only point by the way - Don't listen to Davin's lies that I've conceded many points), that maybe a being could never reach an indestructible state no matter how long an evolutionary process (i.e. "a square peg can never fit in a round hole" - or Davin said something like that).

Nevertheless, I don't see why not, and there is no evidence to say it couldn't happen.. at least my assertion is not without grounds.

Thanks for your post.

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

Sure, a god could have a god who has a god.....
The question is not that however, the question is there an ultimate "God".

The question is, could your ultimate evolved god* believe in a god that is greater than itself? Or would it know it was the ultimate?

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

The question is, could your ultimate evolved god* believe in a god that is greater than itself? Or would it know it was the ultimate?

My model doesn't actually predict an answer.

The ultimate "god" - by my models definition simply attests that if a god like being reaches a threshold level of power and durability, that it cannot die, be overthrown, or destroyed.

Whether it "knows" it is the "ultimate" being is not factored into the equation.

Usually, knowledge equates to power and durability, so such a being - once God like, would probably know its number 1... but this does not necessarily have to be the case, according to my model.