Did Jesus Actually Exist?

@Leadfoot,

By all means, detail the flaws in BBT a and QM. It's easy to make the claim. How about backing it up? Like you claimed to have evidence for your god hypothesis but fell flat when asked to present it. Can you do better than big talk? Empty rhetoric? Produce something better than what the scientists publish. Then we'll have something to talk about.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Better questions than this include:

- Was Jesus' intent to create a religion apart from Judaism? Or did disciples and church leaders do that on their own after his death?

- How can Jesus have been the Jewish Messiah when he didn't fulfill ANY of the Messianic prophecies? No construction of the 3rd Temple; no recall of the world's Jews to live in Israel; no world peace; etc.

- if Jesus was the Messiah, how can he be a descendent of David on his father's side? According to Christianity he had no biological father.

- if Jesus was the Messiah, then he wasn't God, nor a relative of God as everything about the Messiah says he'll be mortal man, not divinity. And if he was God, or a relative of God, then he wasn't the Messiah.

- how many people did Jesus murder? MOst are gonna say none, but that's actually wrong. They've been hiding hhis body count in books. If your idea of religious faith is watching tv church, or the Bible on your bookshelf, this is the expected absence of actual theological understanding. So if you wanna know truth and not just the Carebear version, google and read 'Infancy Gospels'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob08.htm

The boy Jesus murdered at least3 people including 2 children. Slew a fourth but ressurected him to prove it was an accident (it was.)

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
By all means, detail the flaws in BBT a and QM. It's easy to make the claim. How about backing it up? Like you claimed to have evidence for your god hypothesis but fell flat when asked to present it. Can you do better than big talk? Empty rhetoric? Produce something better than what the scientists publish. Then we'll have something to talk about.

Now I'm losing faith in your intellectual honesty. Was this complete inversion of what I said intentional or just not paying attention?

I have always said that I think the Big Bang theory is correct. I have never said I thought it had any flaws. I did say that it contained a logical fallacy (from the scientific perspective) which is completely compatible with the possibility that a God exists . That makes the BBT about as flawless as it gets in my book.

So unless you can stop with the personal insults and falsely stating what I've said, there is little point in talking with you. It's just boring.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

the Big Bang and many other scientifically arrived at theories are logical fallacies. And don't even mention stuff like quantum physics. It's practically dripping with them.

If you wish to avoid all logical fallacies you had better stick to sports. Science will not help you there.

*cough* Intellectual honesty...*cough*

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It's also boring to wrangle with someone who starts off saying they have evidence, presents word salads that get ripped apart, then denies ever saying that they had evidence, then saying that they have evidence, but presenting none, then saying BBT and QM are dripping with logical fallacies, then denying that they ever questioned BBT or QM, but then claiming that they still both have logical fallacies, then has the temerity to question others' intellectual honesty.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Since it's on different pages

Quote:

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Thank you.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Neither of you guys are following me.

In my view, the logical fallacy in the BBT is NOT A FLAW IN IT. The logical fallicy is in fact evidence for the possibility that God exists.

I make every attempt to look at arguments from both sides. You guys seem incapable of that.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Neither of you guys are following me.

In my view, the logical fallacy in the BBT is NOT A FLAW IN IT. The logical fallicy is in fact evidence for the possibility that God exists.

I make every attempt to look at arguments from both sides. You guys seem incapable of that.

You seem incapable of basic logic. The very definition of a fallacy is that it is a flaw. You claim to work in a field of science? All the sciences I know of guard heavily against logical fallacies, yet you seem to depend on them. If you came to A2K expecting to find soft targets, perhaps that was your first mistaken assumption.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I'm using 'logical fallicy' in the sense of 'contradiction'. I'm pretty sure they are synonyms.

And you still are not able to step outside the box you are in.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I'm using 'logical fallicy' in the sense of 'contradiction'. I'm pretty sure they are synonyms.

And you still are not able to step outside the box you are in.

Google "logical fallacy," Mr. "Scientist."

1 Reply

@FBM,

Oohh.. You are the undisputed champion! Of snark.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Neither of you guys are following me.

In my view, the logical fallacy in the BBT is NOT A FLAW IN IT. The logical fallicy is in fact evidence for the possibility that God exists.

I make every attempt to look at arguments from both sides. You guys seem incapable of that.

Introducing the term 'logical fallacy' is a gargantuan error, IMO. For, what you seem to be saying is the Big Bang took place in spite of the 'contradictory' arguments proffered against it - Am I correct? And this conclusion allows for introduction of a creator, in your opinion. Question

Similar arguments have been advanced in discussions of the complex eye, the cetacean blowhole, the structure of the cell, and countless other improbabilities. Theists rely on them as proofs for God. Counter assertions generally rely on some application of the law of parsimony. Whether these are in fact 'scientific' is another issue.

If the above arguments were the entire summation of the matter, I would have to say it is yet unsettled. And, though I tend towards belief in God, without knowledge of God's personality, my belief would be academic.

1 Reply

@neologist,

You may be right, I may have misapplied the term 'logical fallicy' and tried to clarify with 'contradiction'.

Slips like this happen all the time (on both sides) and some people jump on them and try to invalidate everything the other has ever said. Very shallow argument.

I never argue my points as 'proof of God' merely circumstantial evidence. Lots of science is moved forward based on evidence that is far from proof.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Oohh.. You are the undisputed champion! Of snark.

I reserve snark for those who have proven themselves to be intellectually dishonest. Up your game, please.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

I reserve snark for those who have proven themselves to be intellectually dishonest. Up your game, please.

I'd say no, up yours, but that would be rude.
I love ya FBM.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:

I reserve snark for those who have proven themselves to be intellectually dishonest. Up your game, please.

I'd say no, up yours, but that would be rude.
I love ya FBM.

Of course you do. What's not to love? Wink

Now if only you loved evidence-based reasoning and intellectual honesty, as well.

0 Replies

@HesDeltanCaptain,

Quote:

Was Jesus' intent to create a religion apart from Judaism? Or did disciples and church leaders do that on their own after his death?

The latter. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing though.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

@HesDeltanCaptain,
Quote:
Was Jesus' intent to create a religion apart from Judaism? Or did disciples and church leaders do that on their own after his death?

The latter. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing though.

I'm not sure that he or his disciples intended to or did start one. Jesus just told them to go around telling people what he said. They did that but for the most part were too busy to start a religion. The religion that eventually got going didn't resemble what Jesus said.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

They did that but for the most part were too busy to start a religion. The religion that eventually got going didn't resemble what Jesus said.

Well, it really was actually Paul, who established Christian churches throughout the Roman Empire, including Europe, and beyond - even into Africa. By the late 1st century and early 2nd century Christianity was established as an "independent" religion.

1 Reply

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know