Proof of Jesus Christ

Doctor Doom · February 13, 2015, 09:25:02 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:18:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PM
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AM
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AM
He obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.

This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
>assuming god exists

There's your problem.

Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.

It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.
Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?

I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.

Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.

As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.

Illogical based on what? What are you basing this conclusion on? I fail to see how a Higher Power setting Earth up for us is any less logical than a massive release of energy somehow, against all odds, making a perfect planet for millions of different forms of life to prosper on.

Dustin · February 13, 2015, 09:36:57 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Word Wizard · February 13, 2015, 09:53:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 09:25:02 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:18:05 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PM
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AM
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AM
He obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.

This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
>assuming god exists

There's your problem.

Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.

It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.
Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?

I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.

Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.

As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.

Illogical based on what? What are you basing this conclusion on? I fail to see how a Higher Power setting Earth up for us is any less logical than a massive release of energy somehow, against all odds, making a perfect planet for millions of different forms of life to prosper on.

There is evidence of a big bang, which we can make accurate predictions with, while there is not of a divine being. Our planet isn't perfect. Most of it is inhospitable for humans without technology. The poles and Antarctica, deserts, salty oceans, etc. 99% of all known life has gone extinct on this so called "perfect" planet. It was a matter of probability. There's trillions of stars with their own solar systems in trillions of galaxies. It's not impossible for at least one planet to harbor some life.

Doctor Doom · February 13, 2015, 10:13:45 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:53:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 09:25:02 PM
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:18:05 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PM
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AM
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AM
He obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.

This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
>assuming god exists

There's your problem.

Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.

It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.
Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?

I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.

Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.

As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.

Illogical based on what? What are you basing this conclusion on? I fail to see how a Higher Power setting Earth up for us is any less logical than a massive release of energy somehow, against all odds, making a perfect planet for millions of different forms of life to prosper on.
There is evidence of a big bang, which we can make accurate predictions with, while there is not of a divine being.

Which does nothing to actively disprove the concept of a creator deity. Perhaps the Big Bang was set off by a specific being, for instance. Or maybe it just happened for reasons we can only speculate. Neither of us know, and we'll probably never know.

Quote

Our planet isn't perfect. Most of it is inhospitable for humans without technology. The poles and Antarctica, deserts, salty oceans, etc. 99% of all known life has gone extinct on this so called "perfect" planet.

Okay, perhaps not perfect. But it's at least enough to support millions of forms of life, still against all odds.

Quote

It was a matter of probability. There's trillions of stars with their own solar systems in trillions of galaxies. It's not impossible for at least one planet to harbor some life.

But still highly improbable that even one planet in the universe would have the right atmosphere, the right distance from a star, the right biospherical conditions for so many forms of life to thrive on. Compare an atomic bomb blowing up a bunch of scrap and forming a house.

There's no evidence that the creation of the one planet we're aware of that contains life was deliberately conceived by a divine (or not-so-divine) being, but dismissing the idea entirely is exactly as ignorant as clinging to it.

Word Wizard · February 13, 2015, 10:39:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 10:13:45 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:53:57 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 09:25:02 PM
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 09:18:05 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PM
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PM
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AM
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AM
He obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.

This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
>assuming god exists

There's your problem.

Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.

It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.
Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?

I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.

Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.

As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.

Illogical based on what? What are you basing this conclusion on? I fail to see how a Higher Power setting Earth up for us is any less logical than a massive release of energy somehow, against all odds, making a perfect planet for millions of different forms of life to prosper on.
There is evidence of a big bang, which we can make accurate predictions with, while there is not of a divine being.

Which does nothing to actively disprove the concept of a creator deity. Perhaps the Big Bang was set off by a specific being, for instance. Or maybe it just happened for reasons we can only speculate. Neither of us know, and we'll probably never know.

It doesn't have to disprove it, it's never been proven. Christians haven't disproven Greek mythology or Islam either. The same logic can be applied to anything. The flying spaghetti monster hasn't been disproven either. There's no knowledge to gain from believing it. Claiming god started the big bang is just reverse engineering after the fact. Again, can be applied to anything.

Quote

Our planet isn't perfect. Most of it is inhospitable for humans without technology. The poles and Antarctica, deserts, salty oceans, etc. 99% of all known life has gone extinct on this so called "perfect" planet.

Quote

Okay, perhaps not perfect. But it's at least enough to support millions of forms of life, still against all odds.

It's not against all odds, there's hundreds of trillions of stars with several planets existing for billions of years.

Quote

It was a matter of probability. There's trillions of stars with their own solar systems in trillions of galaxies. It's not impossible for at least one planet to harbor some life.

Quote

But still highly improbable that even one planet in the universe would have the right atmosphere, the right distance from a star, the right biospherical conditions for so many forms of life to thrive on. Compare an atomic bomb blowing up a bunch of scrap and forming a house.

But not impossible. NASA has observed several planets that are in the goldie locks zone and have similar atmospheres as ours. The analogy of the atom bomb is similar to the watch maker and just as fallacious. You're comparing a non-natural process to a natural one. The big bang is far more complex than a nuke explosion.

Quote

There's no evidence that the creation of the one planet we're aware of that contains life was deliberately conceived by a divine (or not-so-divine) being, but dismissing the idea entirely is exactly as ignorant as clinging to it.

Quote

There's no evidence

That's my point. Without substantial evidence, it's pointless to base your life on it.

Doctor Doom · February 13, 2015, 11:38:06 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 10:39:55 PM

It doesn't have to disprove it, it's never been proven.

'I can't disprove it, so they have to prove it!'

It's not even something that can be proven, disproven, or analyzed - it's a matter of personal belief, not science. Speaking of which, how does the concept of a being (or Being) deliberately causing the Big Bang contradict the scientific theory of it? (The methods utilized in the belief, however, can be disproven, such as most of the historical happenings in the Bible.)

Maybe God exists, and He caused the Big Bang. Or maybe He doesn't, and He didn't. Maybe there are several gods, who did. Maybe it was aliens (but would there really be any significant difference?). Maybe it was all an accident, a cosmic coincidence. Just because none of the former have been proven doesn't automatically make the latter the 'correct' conclusion - that's a toddler's way of assuming anything they can't see doesn't exist.

That's the basis of my personal belief: Any religion could be correct, or maybe none of them are and it's all a coincidence, but nobody knows for sure. 'I'm atheist because I haven't seen any reason to believe in God' is all well and good, but it's no 'better' than saying 'I'm Christian because I haven't seen any reason to not believe in God'.

Besides, believing that the Big Bang happened because somebody in a position of authority told you about it and gave their reasons for their theory is rather similar to how most Christians gain their beliefs.

Quote

Christians haven't disproven Greek mythology or Islam either.

That's true, they haven't.

Quote

There's no knowledge to gain from believing it.

There doesn't have to be. It's not a matter of science, it's a matter of personal belief.

Quote

It's not against all odds, there's hundreds of trillions of stars with several planets existing for billions of years.

And how many of them can support life? How many of them that can do? The odds of even one planet out of countless supporting not just one species but millions when every other stellar object we've examined haven't, even if they could, are mind-bogglingly slim. Do you have any idea how many factors need to be exactly right for life to exist on a planet? The number of things that could go wrong are near infinite, and yet here we are. It could be a cosmic convenience on our part, or maybe this one single planet was deliberately set up with life in mind. None of us know, but a disturbing number of us pretend to.

Quote

But not impossible. NASA has observed several planets that are in the goldie locks zone and have similar atmospheres as ours. The analogy of the atom bomb is similar to the watch maker and just as fallacious. You're comparing a non-natural process to a natural one. The big bang is far more complex than a nuke explosion.

A release of energy and matter that expands presumably eternally, and along the way creates only one planet (that we know of) that has life on it while all others (that we know of) do not. The probability of this one planet having all the right conditions for life are slim to infinitesimal.

Quote

Quote
There's no evidence
That's my point. Without substantial evidence, it's pointless to base your life on it.

I should amend that to there being no evidence that we know of. Rather key words here, eh? And we probably will never know of any evidence either, which still does not guarantee there is none at all, just that we're ignorant of any that may exist.

Flee · February 14, 2015, 05:01:07 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 14, 2015, 05:12:16 AM

Jesus obviously existed.

He just wasn't, by any measure, divine.

challengerX · February 14, 2015, 05:12:46 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

challengerX · February 14, 2015, 05:14:04 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 14, 2015, 05:15:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AM

but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.

Did you really just say that?

Not only is it at odds with any conception of rationality and empiricism, it goes against the fairly standard theology of people like Thomas Aquinas too.

More Than Mortal · February 14, 2015, 05:17:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PM

people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.

That's true, though. If you aren't an agnostic theist, you're an atheist no matter to what extent.

It's basic philosophy really, the two ideas make claims to different concerns.

More Than Mortal · February 14, 2015, 05:20:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 10:13:45 PM

Which does nothing to actively disprove the concept of a creator deity.

Oh, so you're basing your argument on a straw-man?

Unless by "disprove" you mean "demonstrate the extreme improbability of", it's a straw-man. While you can absolutely disprove certain conceptions of a creator deity, no (sane) atheist has ever claimed to be able to empirically show the lack of some tenuous creator deity.

More Than Mortal · February 14, 2015, 05:22:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:38:06 PM

There doesn't have to be. It's not a matter of science, it's a matter of personal belief.

If you're basing your various values and beliefs on un-empirical and irrational considerations, you literally do not deserve to be taken serious in any discussion ever.

In fact, I think doing something like that would qualify for a genuine delusion or psychosis of some kind.

Doctor Doom · February 14, 2015, 06:15:49 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 14, 2015, 05:22:55 AM

Alright, alright, I'm not too proud to admit you just kicked my ass, and looking back a few hours later a lot of what I said was bullshit. Too opinionated, too poorly-worded, and too far from the original issue. Lemme clear it up a bit.

Getting back to the crux of my post, what I wanted to see was why they reached the conclusion that he wasn't divine. There's no evidence to support it, true, but there's nothing against it - after all, nobody from two thousand years ago is still alive to settle whether or not he could, in fact, walk on water and heal the sick and do all his other divine shenanigans. That's what I base my personal belief on - all possibilities are equally possible, from the concept of God to the Big Bang to aliens to who-knows-what-else, until sufficient evidence is given to prove one over all the rest. Hence, religious neutrality. Complete impartiality. I suppose that stems from my existential terror as to what happens after death.

But back on topic, that's fine that they think like that, it's just that it's still, y'know, a conclusion based on personal way of thinking. It's still a belief (or lack of belief). And then I see people asserting that, 'no, he was definitely not divine in any way' (or to the opposite effect, to be entirely fair) and my face immediately goes:

Wha-huh?! Why do they think that? What logical process did they use to reach that conclusion? I mean, is it probable that he was just a regular guy? Yeah, in all likelihood. A lack of evidence is definitely a good reason to personally believe he was merely a man, but it's rather jarring when I see someone say with absolute conviction that he wasn't divine in any way, when in my belief it's entirely possible (though admittedly improbable) that he was.

And yes, it is just me being pedantic over wording and trying to force my belief on others. I know I shouldn't expect everyone to foreword their posts with 'in my opinion', but literally nothing irritates me more than a definite conclusion to such an intangible issue.

More Than Mortal · February 14, 2015, 06:26:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 14, 2015, 06:15:49 AM

That's what I base my personal belief on - all possibilities are equally possible

I'm not sure how you could justify that. It just seems mathematically null.

Like, it's one order of improbability that Jesus will come back in 50 years. It's a whole other order of improbability that he'll come back in 50 years to Massachusetts.

If you think all possibilities are equally possible, you have no way of justifying your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. And yet, there is no epistemic middle-ground. The negation of X is that "the sun will not rise tomorrow", which would obviously induce certain behaviours from yourself. You can't be in a state of 'neutrality' with regards to this question, since the negation of belief one way induces the opposite proposition.

"I lack a belief that the sun will rise" is qualitatively equal to "I believe the sun will not rise", and vice versa.

cuneif · February 14, 2015, 09:35:32 AM

pictures of jusus or he didn't exist.

The Waifu Master · February 14, 2015, 09:40:00 AM

GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE FLOOD WITH THIS BULLSHIT

Flee · February 14, 2015, 09:50:54 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Doctor Doom · February 14, 2015, 04:42:33 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 14, 2015, 06:26:14 AM

Like, it's one order of improbability that Jesus will come back in 50 years. It's a whole other order of improbability that he'll come back in 50 years to Massachusetts.

Hence why I said equally possible and not equally probable. Is it possible he'll come back in 50 years? Yes, nobody can deny (or prove) anything so uncertain, given there's no evidence to work with. Is it possible he'll come back to Massachusetts specifically? Yes. One is clearly more probable than the other, but one is not more possible than the other.

Quote

If you think all possibilities are equally possible, you have no way of justifying your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

The possibility that it will not rise is equally possible to the possibility that it will. However, probability indicates that it's almost guaranteed that it will, barring some stellar accident or something.