Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[pocaracas]

Hi Gary!

Yes I’ve listened to the documentary on this through the wormhole. It admits possibility in theory but not based on historic fact but theory based on modern thinking through the advancement of technology of existing facts.

The point of the thing is that we, inside the simulation, wouldn’t be able to tell that we were inside a simulation… no fact would be available.

The theory of dark energy is a theory in which more is unknown than known in which eventually theorists came up with three sorts of theories none factual. We know OF dark energy because we know it affects the universe’s expansion. Other than that, it is a complete “mystery” and over 70% of the universe.

How can we discern the “mystery” is natural or supernatural? By theory based on what? Here we are talking a factual reality a man died on the Cross and was placed in a tomb and then something happened. As no body can be accounted for.

Indeed, the effects of dark matter and energy are measured… like the effects of black holes…
About that man who died on a cross… whatever happened after may be the stuff of a legend… the alleged witnesses added a bit later so as to make it sound more believable to the gentiles.
I think it’s important to keep track of to whom was directed each particular text in the NT.

Like with the Gospel of Matthias I know of no other way but the Church. If we agree with the Church the Gospel of Matthias existed why would we doubt them on the Gospel of John for example?

Who is doubting that the gospel of John doesn’t exist? Or didn’t exist after a particular date?
That the gospel exists is established… that its contents are as trustworthy as believers claim… well… that’s another story, huh?

No, not here with the chain of historical events as its certain Christ lived and died and was buried and the followers were recording through this time as with the gospel writers or Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Polycarp, the Didache and all would been dated back to the time in question speaking for these existing communities of Eucharist believers in Christ. For example Ignatius was the third bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of the the apostle John who is estimated to be born in 35-AD, thus my point above with the gospel of John.

The followers of Mohamed were also “recording” everything their leader did and said… they then put it all down in a book - the Qur’an.
I keep asking: why should I take the writings of your church people over the writings of Mo’s mosque people?

Generally speaking I think we have to say it is. Point is we can’t arrive at how this came about but through religion. What recorded evidence exists otherwise? None that I know of. Perhaps

Not surprising, considering that recorded history starts at around 2500BC.
Evolutionary timescales are a bit longer…
The great thing is that we find “moral behaviors” present in other social species, such as chimps, wolves, meerkats, etc… Certainly, they don’t go off on murdering sprees, do they?

Yes its problematic in discernment of good and bad. But Christs words don’t seem to be problematic as stated. Perhaps he is the judge of justice and good or bad?

Why should he be the judge?
The rule already existed in human minds before he spoke it…

Well, if we admit Matthias I think we can see how other works are admitted, the real question is who can we believe in regards to these factual documents and what they say? If these people are who they say they are which I have no reason to disbelieve I would say the Church. imho

And, like those people, there are many other people who make different claims for their own deities, with writings to back them up and all… Why should I not believe them?

Neither is Stephan Hawking so should we scratch him TOO?

Stephen does show us how to arrive at his results, starting with first principles that we all can agree upon, regardless of our belief.

Well both exist I think we have to weigh both in history as I’m indicating above its no secret feeding these people to lions and killing them for entertainment is a fact. Its also true this would have gained some degree of marginalization as we see from a secular view and thus the opposing view, so all has to be considered in perspective.

Yes.,… ok… and romans also called christians “atheists” LOL! The irony!!

Or visa-versa with for example the pagans and secular sources. Anyway I appreciate your thinking thanks

Peace

Exactly… vice-versa… why one over any other?
Isn’t it best to withhold judgement until something that doesn’t require faith crops up?

cheers!

 

[pocaracas]

Why?

Why do we include the “fringe minority” at certain times, yet exclude the “fringe minority” at certain times (like, when you want to dismiss them?)

It certainly seems rather arbitrary to me when you decide to include fringey things and when you decide to exclude them.

What? you… you’re picking on what? the inclusion of all religions since mankind has started making them up, as important for the evolution of humanity to where it is today?
Why? It has no bearing on the point being made…

No, poca.

You can eliminate, using reason alone, that multiple gods are a possibility.

When we use the classical definition of God–that is, the God of the Philosophers–you can see how having multiple gods are an impossibility.

If there are multiple gods, then that means, by definition, each god is lacking something. That is, he is not the other god.

And that means, if he is lacking something, he cannot be God.

For God is the Summum Bonum. He who no greater can be thought, as St. Anselm so pithily wrote.

Or, another way to say it: If God is infinite, then there simply cannot be 2 infinite beings.

That’s a logical contradiction.

So we can blithely and quite daintily chop off all religions that assert polytheism as we pursue our dialogue about what religion to follow, if God exists.

You know that it is possible to have two infinite sets that are independent, right?
For example (and there may be many more examples) In maths, you can have the infinite set of non-negative integer numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5… etc…
And you can also have the infinite set of all non-negative integer numbers, plus one-half., 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc…

These two sets are admittedly infinite, and clearly non-overlapping - numbers from one are not present in the other set.

One can even go further and think of yet another infinite set which does not overlap any of these two: all non-negative numbers, plus one-third: 0.(3), 1.(3), 2.(3), 3.(3), etc…
Actually, I can even present an infinity of infinite sets all non-overlapping, by simply adding 1/n to the non-negative integers, where n can be any value in the original infinite set of integer numbers (zero not allowed, and 1 leads to the self set).

For this alone, your reasoning is faulty… It’s possible to have more than one infinite something.
Perhaps it’s just your way of explaining the reasoning… try again, maybe?

##################

Well… I don’t think you’ve actually examined the evidence, poca.

I’m on this forum… I keep asking for it… you guys present me with stuff that doesn’t seem up to muster… I explain why I don’t think it’s up to muster… I hope someone will understand me and present something better.

Very Catholic, what you just asserted.

it’s good to have some common ground!

I don’t know what this means.

It means that I wish to avoid any psychological trappings, such as the ones you said were “Very Catholic”.

While I love deviating from the OP, as I often feel the natural tributaries often have more interesting discussions…(and the deviations mimic discussions IRL anyway, which is always a good thing)…I will have to demur here and say, “I just don’t feel like going there right now.” I have about 0.007% interest in the subject of the unforgivable sin…so, sorry. You can google. Jimmy Akin has a good treatise on it.

I take it that, now, I have permission to use Fr. Google?
The result is:
-blasphemy of the holy spirit… and a refusal to repent from it.

Basically, insulting the holy spirit? Something any non-believer in that same religion will do by simply being born in the wrong corner of the world.
Color me unsurprised by how man-made that rule sounds…

Source?
And does this source include Buddhists? Because it shouldn’t. Not for the context of this discussion anyway.

And please remember this source needs to include ALL of human society, from 200,000 years ago to present.

Ah, so now you want the source? I gave it as a link on that post from yesterday… or was it the day before?
And, no, it concerns today’s population. And it also does not take into account Buddhists:
“”
A 2010 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 9.6% of the world’s population, and atheists about 2.0%, with a very large majority based in Asia. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.[209] The average annual change for atheism from 2000 to 2010 was −0.17%.[209] A broad figure estimates the number of atheists and agnostics on Earth at 1.1 billion.
“”

###############

You are exactly right, poca. The bolded part is what we were arguing.

And if there’s even One Miracle…just One…that means…

God exists.

So, again, think of possibilities and probabilities…

which is more probable: that no miracle has ever occurred, because you haven’t seen one. You. Insignificant little you in the 13 billion year history of the universe…(no insult intended. I’m insignificant, too, in the context of this discussion)

Or…

there is been at least one miracle occurring over 13 billion years and you just don’t know about it.

More probable? That all reported miracles are products of mankind’s imagination, or lack of explanatory capabilities.

 

[pocaracas]

Then, it certainly sounds like you believe in magic.

Just sayin’.

Someone lied, and you just magically believe it could have happened, despite…

not a single shred of evidence to support this.

You have no witnesses that this person lied
No written testimony by the liar that he lied.
No texts of the lie.

#magic

-.-’
Yep… because we’re talking about a single person who lies and cunningly deceives everyone around him into believing his tale.
These other people then wrote a bunch of stuff about this story, even claiming in there that they themselves were a part of the tale!
-.-’

(in case it’s not obvious, the above is irony)
We’re talking about a group of people spreading a story… with this spread, the group of people who know the story increases.
Some details are added here and there, then the story circulates and some of these details coalesce, making the story much more appealing, much more fantastical, much more super-natural.
Considering that this kind of stories were told practically every day (remember, no TV at the time!) it’s easy to understand how they could have picked up those extra details in a relatively short time.

The bit about the virgin birth is probably one such later addition, based on transporting the behavior of the planets and constellations into the tale. At year 1 AD, as seen from Jerusalem, the Sun would rise towards between the legs of Virgo (the virgin), and a series of known planets were also in that line, Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter.
This storytelling art from the stars was something that happened quite often at the time, just look at all Greek mythology!

So, again, I present you with a mechanism to arrive at the present state of affairs, providing only human nature.
Who lied? Under this mechanism, most likely, lots of people contributed with small harmless “lies” that compounded to one big one… no one aware that it was a lie… some believing that the tale conveyed real events.

This is also a mechanism which could have converted the Teacher of righteousness into Jesus… no actual Jesus required… heck, not even the Teacher was required… only the tale.

Not to mention that this mechanism can account for all the heretical beliefs that also sprouted at the time. Here are your “texts of the lie”.

 

[pocaracas]

We could discuss for days and days and days till before the thread closes.

So much misinformation that needs to be corrected here, poca!

So much good stuff that needs to be conveyed!

I am here… I read.
I may not be convinced by some things… but I’m not unreasonable… I think!

Yes. The God of the Philosophers. Once you grant that this God exists, we can continue to discuss how we know that Christianity is true and Islam, Bahai, Pastafarianism
is false.

Ok… I’ll try to bash you with what a muslim once told me… (just need to search for it, first) so be prepared.

 

[PRmerger]

I am here… I read.
I may not be convinced by some things… but I’m not unreasonable… I think!

No, you’re not unreasonable. :tiphat:

And yet…there is a very peculiar illogic that seeps from your position. Some inconsistency. Some double standards that are curious indeed!

It makes one wonder what it would mean for you to Believe.

I wonder…

Ok… I’ll try to bash you with what a muslim once told me… (just need to search for it, first) so be prepared.

 

[PRmerger]

What? you… you’re picking on what? the inclusion of all religions since mankind has started making them up, as important for the evolution of humanity to where it is today?
Why? It has no bearing on the point being made…

I’d like to exclude fringe minorities as we pursue the search for what religion is true.

You wanted to, just a few pages back.

So we’re good with excluding fringe minority religions, yes?

You know that it is possible to have two infinite sets that are independent, right?

Think about what you’re saying, poca.

If you have a set, poca, then it can’t be infinite. It can only be infinite within its confines.

“Set” means boundaries, yes?

 

[Gorgias]

You know that it is possible to have two infinite sets that are independent, right?

Of course, but that’s not what’s being asserted. What’s being asserted is that there cannot be two all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful ‘gods’ – one would necessarily be greater than the other, or dependent in some way on the other, and therefore, would not meet the definition of ‘god’ – not that the definition hinges on the number of items in a set.

The example that would be relevant is this: can a set have two numbers M[sub]1[/sub] and M[sub]2[/sub], with M[sub]1[/sub] <> M[sub]2[/sub] , such that M[sub]1[/sub] > all members in the set and M[sub]2[/sub] > all members in the set?

Of course not. Since the two are not equal, then they must be related by a ‘greater-than’ operation. That’s what’s being claimed here. (Nice try, though… )

I’m on this forum… I keep asking for it… you guys present me with stuff that doesn’t seem up to muster… I explain why I don’t think it’s up to muster…

To be more fair: we present the standard arguments; you present the canned responses. It’s less a discussion than a dog-and-pony show.

The result is:
-blasphemy of the holy spirit… and a refusal to repent from it.

Basically, insulting the holy spirit? Something any non-believer in that same religion will do by simply being born in the wrong corner of the world.

This is what makes this discussion unproductive. Your responses are blithe, pithy retorts – and they mis-state the case being made.

No, “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is not “basically insulting the Holy Spirit”. No, non-believers do not “insult” the Holy Spirit “simply by being born in the wrong corner of the world.” (In fact, Catholic theology holds that all may be saved, even those without explicit knowledge of Christ.) So, your argument – while it seems reasonable at first glance – fails to reflect what the Church teaches.

What is “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, then? Some would say that it’s refusing to accept the forgiveness offered by God.

Color me unsurprised by how man-made that rule sounds…

Only because you’ve caricatured it.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m on this forum… I keep asking for it… you guys present me with stuff that doesn’t seem up to muster… I explain why I don’t think it’s up to muster…

And yet…you haven’t refuted a single one, except to say with a very nebulous, “That argument fails”.

Something any non-believer in that same religion will do by simply being born in the wrong corner of the world.

Uh…no. That’s not a correct articulation of Catholicism and the unforgivable sin.

Suffice it to say: no non-believer can commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because…wait for it…wait for it…

he doesn’t know about the Holy Spirit.

Color me unsurprised by how man-made that rule sounds…

How about you give us an example of a rule that doesn’t sound man made?







And how did you come up with the idea of this rule?

Ah, so now you want the source? I gave it as a link on that post from yesterday… or was it the day before?
And, no, it concerns today’s population.

Well, we’re talking about 200,000 years of human society, so you’ll need to provide data from that, too.

Not just a fringe minority.

Otherwise, it’s a bit ego-centric, don’t you think, to think only modern society counts in this discussion.

More probable? That all reported miracles are products of mankind’s imagination, or lack of explanatory capabilities.

What about unreported miracles?

All it takes is…

one.

And you’ve been disproven.

 

[PRmerger]

Then, it certainly sounds like you believe in magic.

Just sayin’.

Someone lied, and you just magically believe it could have happened, despite…

not a single shred of evidence to support this.

You have no witnesses that this person lied
No written testimony by the liar that he lied.
No texts of the lie.

#magic

-.-’
Yep… because we’re talking about a single person who lies and cunningly deceives everyone around him into believing his tale.

Yep?

Yep?

“Yep because…”??

The “yep” is astonishing coming from an atheist.

You have just acknowledged here that you believe in something without a shred of evidence.

#astonished

#doublestandard

Understood that you were trying to be ironic.

But the fact remains. You accept things without a shred of evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

So, again, I present you with a mechanism to arrive at the present state of affairs, providing only human nature.

This is amusingly repetitive.

It’s begging the question.

Again.

#circular

 

[PRmerger]

Of course, but that’s not what’s being asserted. What’s being asserted is that there cannot be two all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful ‘gods’ – one would necessarily be greater than the other, or dependent in some way on the other, and therefore, would not meet the definition of ‘god’ – not that the definition hinges on the number of items in a set.

The example that would be relevant is this: can a set have two numbers M[sub]1[/sub] and M[sub]2[/sub], with M[sub]1[/sub] <> M[sub]2[/sub] , such that M[sub]1[/sub] > all members in the set and M[sub]2[/sub] > all members in the set?

Of course not. Since the two are not equal, then they must be related by a ‘greater-than’ operation. That’s what’s being claimed here. (Nice try, though… )

:clapping:

To be more fair: we present the standard arguments; you present the canned responses. It’s less a discussion than a dog-and-pony show.

Indeed.

I see no evidence whatsoever that the arguments have been read, studied, digested.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Morning pocaracas.

The point of the thing is that we, inside the simulation, wouldn’t be able to tell that we were inside a simulation… no fact would be available.

Yes, I think we agree life-reality may not be as you think it is.

Indeed, the effects of dark matter and energy are measured

Yes, we agree again, but we can’t eliminate mystery, its the unknown that inspires and drives us to seek the answers. Its not a matter of seeking the answers we desire but the truth, we could say there’s a logical explainable theory yet to be confirmed rooted in unexplained mystery yet to be solved?

About that man who died on a cross.

Sometimes legends are based on factual reality too. I’ll tell you though, be they transmitted the truth they wouldn’t have had to add anything, but they would have taken time to discern the sequence of supernatural mystery that transpired. Think of it this way what if we seen the 1st day of the universe unfold, we would be left to explain what we witnessed and probably the truth would continue to be elaborated on?

I think it’s important to keep track of to whom was directed each particular text in the NT.

I’m not sure what you saying but I think its important!

Who is doubting that the gospel of John doesn’t exist? Or didn’t exist after a particular date?

No-one but I think its important to realize the Church plays an imperative role as from this community comes this book, so when we ask what is John saying we have to trust what they are saying. Just like what they are saying with the Gospel of Matthias is trusted. What are we saying with Matthias but. well the church said this existed so it must have. Well the Church said an Angel moved a Rock at the tomb too. Again we have a 1st day of creation mystery, no doubt some were astonished that anyone could verbalize such a concept. But then they couldn’t deny the factual truth to their witness.

That the gospel exists is established… that its contents are as trustworthy as believers claim… well… that’s another story, huh?

Yeah same as with Hawking and others. I can think of no other with the authority to speak on the Church but themselves though, so, its a specific matter of discernment of their theory-history which for sure has continuity. And definitely in a comparative evaluation to other theories of supernatural-religion. I mean we want to solve mystery so we need to know of what path to follow and proceed.

The followers of Mohamed were also “recording” everything

Right, thats what I’m saying above its no doubt comparative and for sure looking at the entire ideal, in some case’s there’s bottomless unfounded myth which could quickly be eliminated others not so quick and time consuming. But what are we looking at in the end but factual supernatural based on a continuity of confirmation historically. But at the same time a comparative study doesn’t mean relevance in say, ah this is a bottomless pit so they all are myths, if you already presupposed supernatural can’t exist which imho seems illogical and narrow mined, then its easy to conclude the heck with all that. And then set out to rationalize your own thinking such as mo is out here slaughtering in Gods name and the Christians did this etc. However, at a closer look for example below, a good deal of this has been researched. So admitting a ocean of quicksand to bog down research doesn’t mean the truth doesn’t still exist. It means we took on more research to reduce error. Kinda gets back to Bradski above with Joe Smith. In which case I see no supernatural to even be investigated just suggestion it exists. Everyone says they have supernatural revelation but there must be consistency and something to literally examine. Doesn’t the OT-NT provide the consistency of Gods prophets and the Church today has the artifacts with consistency of divine revelation. Who else has that?

gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html

Not surprising, considering that recorded history starts at around 2500BC.
Evolutionary timescales are a bit longer.

In fact in comparison they appear more moral to me. Which to me only indicates a flaw in mans secular thinking of good and bad not Catholics-Christ. There’s is higher bar than the rest we have to admit?

Why should he be the judge?

Because of above the teaching of Church thus Christ resolves the dilemma when correctly understood, Love Your Neighbor, there’s no reason not to give peace a chance following their paradigm as outlined. The problem is “miracles” and the fact it takes omission and submission to what people can’t wrap their mind around. Obviously some are omitted by witness themselves. So the interaction is the issue.

And, like those people, there are many other people who make different claims for their own deities

Well, I think we are looking at that now.

Stephen does show us how to arrive at his results, starting with first principles that we all can agree upon, regardless of our belief.

God doesn’t?

And thats the question inquiring minds want to know, omitting supernatural answers it for them but doesn’t really investigate the issue apparently presented. In fact it denies it?

Peace pocaracas

 

[pocaracas]

I’d like to exclude fringe minorities as we pursue the search for what religion is true.

You wanted to, just a few pages back.

So we’re good with excluding fringe minority religions, yes?

I’m ok with that, yes.
But they must be fringe only with respect to the time at which we’re discussing.
For example, if we discuss 30000 years ago, shamanism and animism would be the main ones… nowadays, not so much, huh?

Think about what you’re saying, poca.

If you have a set, poca, then it can’t be infinite. It can only be infinite within its confines.

“Set” means boundaries, yes?

Are you saying that mathematicians use the wrong word when they refer to the “set” of non-negative integer numbers?
Or are you saying that there christian God has no boundaries of any kind that would render him much more than something infinite, as you made it seem in the other post? (and Gorgias seems to be hinting…[Gorgias, I still need to read your whole post])

 

[PRmerger]

I’m ok with that, yes.
But they must be fringe only with respect to the time at which we’re discussing.
For example, if we discuss 30000 years ago, shamanism and animism would be the main ones… nowadays, not so much, huh?

Then we can’t discount the anti-vacciners as “fringe minority” either, because 200 years ago most people were anti-vaccine. Edward Jenner was laughed at by the scientific community.

Are we agreed that we should have the same standard?

So let’s just acknowledge that we can dismiss all fringey things in the interest of a rational and fruitful discussion.

Otherwise, if you want to assert arbitrary microcosms–“let’s go back to the world of 3000 years ago”, then I’m going to assert aribitrary microcosms–“let’s go to well educated, wealthy homeschoolers where the anti-vaccine movement has a larger population.”

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying that mathematicians use the wrong word when they refer to the “set” of non-negative integer numbers?
Or are you saying that there christian God has no boundaries of any kind that would render him much more than something infinite, as you made it seem in the other post? (and Gorgias seems to be hinting…[Gorgias, I still need to read your whole post])

The latter. With the correction that it’s not the Christian God but the God of the Philosophers that has no boundaries.

 

[pocaracas]

Of course, but that’s not what’s being asserted. What’s being asserted is that there cannot be two all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful ‘gods’ – one would necessarily be greater than the other, or dependent in some way on the other, and therefore, would not meet the definition of ‘god’ – not that the definition hinges on the number of items in a set.

The example that would be relevant is this: can a set have two numbers M[sub]1[/sub] and M[sub]2[/sub], with M[sub]1[/sub] <> M[sub]2[/sub] , such that M[sub]1[/sub] > all members in the set and M[sub]2[/sub] > all members in the set?

Of course not. Since the two are not equal, then they must be related by a ‘greater-than’ operation. That’s what’s being claimed here. (Nice try, though… )

Oh… I was not aware of such qualifiers for a god.
Certainly, they need not apply to a simple creator god.

All-knowing, all-good and all-powerful… is that all?
The muslims go with most-high, most knowing, most good… Don’t you think all-good is sort of at odds with all the evil we see in the world? (not restricting evil to man caused evil, but extending it to natural disasters and diseases that heartlessly decimate millions through pain and starvation)
This seems to be how the “problem of evil arises”: iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
How to solve it, then?
The muslims chose to say “most” instead of “all”, for they can then rule out the problematic bits, thus solving the problem.

To be more fair: we present the standard arguments; you present the canned responses. It’s less a discussion than a dog-and-pony show.

Canned responses? I’ve presented possible scenarios which take into account the existence of writings concerning a Teacher, predating Jesus, and with a life much similar to that claimed to be of Jesus… if this is a canned response… then it is one that I’ve never come across… perhaps you have…
I’m sorry if my reasoning has led me to the same response that it has led many others…

This is what makes this discussion unproductive. Your responses are blithe, pithy retorts – and they mis-state the case being made.

I posed it as a question, looking for confirmation, or correction.
Your suggestion that I did so meaning any disrespect is noted… but it could have been withheld.

What is “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, then? Some would say that it’s refusing to accept the forgiveness offered by God.

Interesting… how would someone do that?

 

[pocaracas]

And yet…you haven’t refuted a single one, except to say with a very nebulous, “That argument fails”.

Such is the nature of these discussions…
That’s why I said that, in the end, we’ll agree to disagree…
(I know the future! )

Uh…no. That’s not a correct articulation of Catholicism and the unforgivable sin.

yeah, yeah, yeah… Gorgias already said it!

How about you give us an example of a rule that doesn’t sound man made?

Two bodies are mutually attracted in a direct proportion to their masses and an inverse proportion to the square of the distance between their centers.

And how did you come up with the idea of this rule?

Physics showed that it was so.
Experimentation with masses.

Well, we’re talking about 200,000 years of human society, so you’ll need to provide data from that, too.

Not just a fringe minority.

Otherwise, it’s a bit ego-centric, don’t you think, to think only modern society counts in this discussion.

I think we should discuss according to the time period under discussion.
If we discuss about nowadays, certainly non-believers count for about 10% of the world’s population, and that’s not a negligible amount.
If we discuss about 1,000 years ago, christianity was abundant in Europe, a bit in the Middle East but not so much elsewhere…atheists may have been scarce… but it is recorded that, upon reaching Brazil, in 1,500, the natives were found to be without the concept of god… it’s not unreasonable to think that large parts of the American populations were without god, 1,000 years ago… Then we have the chinese, huh?
If we discuss 10,000 years ago, christianity didn’t even exist… not even a fringe belief… The grand majority would have been polytheist, or animist.
If we discuss 100,000 years ago, probably no religion existed at all.

For the past 100,000 years, most of the time, religion was animism or shamanism… it seems that, according to you, these would be the most relevant… huh?
Certainly, they’d be the first religious practices… the purest forms… the ones closer to the origin, the ones who may have actually gotten in touch with the gods… how else can you explain that people with no concept of god suddenly acquired it?..Oh, says the atheist, they could have made it up!

What about unreported miracles?

All it takes is…

one.

And you’ve been disproven.

Unreported? are you that desperate?

 

[pocaracas]

Understood that you were trying to be ironic.

But the fact remains. You accept things without a shred of evidence.

Evidence is more than written texts.
Present day “Human nature” is evidence of the same “human nature” from 2000 years ago. People haven’t changed that much! Can we agree on this?

 

[Gorgias]

Oh… I was not aware of such qualifiers for a god.
Certainly, they need not apply to a simple creator god.

All-knowing, all-good and all-powerful… is that all?

See what I mean? Pithy, blithe… and non-responsive.

NB: I see that you have no response to my correction of your mathematical analogue. I’ll take that as an “oh, yeah… I get it, now”…

Your suggestion that I did so meaning any disrespect is noted… but it could have been withheld.

Why? It seems to be the tenor of your response here, over and again. Just calling a spade a spade…

Interesting… how would someone do that?

By refusing to accept God’s gift of forgiveness and grace, when one knows that it’s real and necessary.

 

[Gorgias]

PRmerger:

Uh…no. That’s not a correct articulation of Catholicism and the unforgivable sin.

yeah, yeah, yeah… Gorgias already said it!

Hey… we’re not trying to insult you, but rather, just point out when you’ve misconstrued the argument!

Two bodies are mutually attracted in a direct proportion to their masses and an inverse proportion to the square of the distance between their centers.

Nope: this is a man-made rule, in response to the observation of empirical data. It’s a man-made expression of something observed in the natural universe.

Try again, maybe?

Physics showed that it was so.
Experimentation with masses.

You realize that we’re well into ‘apples and oranges’ now, right? After all, you can do experimentation all day till the cows come home, and you’ll never be able to do ‘experimentation’ with God, since He’s not physical nor part of this universe. If you require a rule (about God) that has a referent in empirical observation, then you’ve already poisoned the well – as a purely spiritual being, God cannot be empirically measured, and therefore, your ‘standard’ is no reasonable request at all.