Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Evolution 1, Creationism 0.

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ned78 wrote: »
    I see your problem now. Evidence eh? I think what detectives and researchers call Evidence, and what you say is Evidence are two completely different things.

    Eye witness testimony?


  • Options
    #93
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Eye witness testimony?

    There are eye-witness for aliens and bigfoot. And those aren't recorded in a 2000 year old, translated book.


  • Options
    #94
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Eye witness testimony?

    Don't be silly, you can find Eye witness reports for anything. That does not necessary prove anything. Especially after 2000 years of "Chinese whispers".


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Rt56n-vC4


    Q.E.D :)

    EDIT: Beaten by Genghiz Cohen, but I've got a video :)


  • Options
    #95
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    1) The Disciples' genuine believed that Jesus was the Son of God. 2) His tomb was empty. 3) The rise of early Christianity in a world totally and utterly apposed to it, who used torture and death to dissuade anyone from converting to it. If anyone can explain these three simple facts with ONE natural explanation then I can be done with Christianity

    I can do this: People are gullible idiots.

    Can I add your name to my little black book of people who's faith I have destroyed?


  • Options
    #96
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Eye witness testimony?

    I know the bible claims that 500 saw the resurrection but we don't have the testimony of those people, just the claim. And as someone said:

    "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If there was enough evidence to make a logical deduction that Jesus rose from the dead, it would be taught in history class, not religion class


    Ah the innocence :pac:


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Is there anything else in your life which you hold to this standard of evidence? And if a claim with extremely little supporting evidence must be absolutely disproven before you will reject it, do you really think that's logical?


    No, but I have a natural inclination towards a belief in God and Jesus as His ultimate revelation so in order to believe in Him I must be convinced that He rose from the dead as reported. I have read enough on the subject to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true, so in order for me to abandon that then yes I need it to be totally disproven and I need more than "but what about evolution?" to seal the deal.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Those are not facts. They are claims made in a 2000 year old book


    Surely the fact that they are 2000 year old claims doesn't make them wrong does it? For me to believe that they are wrong then it must be shown to me why they are wrong. I need more than the bias of an unbeliever sorry.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    As for the rise of Christianity, how do you explain the rise of all the other religions?


    None of the leaders of any of the major religions ever made the kinds of claims about themselves that Jesus made. They were great and respected leaders of men who's ideologies were followed and in some cases forced upon others. The early rise of Christianity was due to people genuinely believing in Jesus as the son of God and actually expecting Him to come back in their lifetime, a belief they forsook everything for and for which they paid the ultimate price of suffering hideous deaths. If they were deluded then their persecutions could have been easily avoided by simply producing the body of their dead leader.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And how do you explain how the followers of all the other religions genuinely believing in their leader?


    Genuinely believing that they were God incarnate? What other major religion believes that about their leader? Or more importantly, what other leader of a major religion believed that about himself?

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Thousands of religions have risen with totally devoted followers throughout history, that is quite a common occurrence but I've yet to see a resurrection. Before I explain how it could have happened then you must explain how it happened all those other times


    What other times? Jesus is the only one who before He died thought that He was God and that He would rise from the dead after His death. And He is the only one who after dying is claimed to have risen by His followers who would die for that testimony. No other Historical figure ever claimed about themselves the things Jesus claimed about Himself and no other leader of any religion ever had their followers claim that He had risen from the dead and then die for that testimony.


  • Options
    #98
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Zillah wrote: »
    Can I add your name to my little black book of people who's faith I have destroyed?

    You'll have to destroy it first so maybe hold off on that one for a little while yet.


  • Options
    #99
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I know the bible claims that 500 saw the resurrection but we don't have the testimony of those people, just the claim.
    That was Paul in one or other of his letters. Paul, btw, never met Jesus -- he said that they only met in a vision -- a distinctly rather shaky stool to stand on, given that what Paul write about is quite different from Jesus' one.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
    That was David Hume -- whose statue in Edinburgh, I'm happy to say, is right across the street from the main cathedral.


  • Options
    #100
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Surely the fact that they are 2000 year old claims doesn't make them wrong does it? For me to believe that they are wrong then it must be shown to me why they are wrong. I need more than the bias of an unbeliever sorry.

    You have it exactly wrong there, for it to be right it must be proven right.
    Why don't you go read the Koran with the same attitude?

    The bias of an unbeliever is well founded, the bias of a believer however is not.


  • Options
    #101
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    pts wrote: »
    Don't be silly, you can find Eye witness reports for anything. That does not necessary prove anything. Especially after 2000 years of "Chinese whispers".


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Rt56n-vC4


    Q.E.D :)

    EDIT: Beaten by Genghiz Cohen, but I've got a video :)

    Hmmm?? I wonder how many of them would be willing to suffer a horrible death instead of reneging on their testimony even if they did see a cute little leprechaun. If they would, then I would be more inclined to believe that they at least believed what they saw was true. That wouldn't prove that leprechauns exist of course but it rules out them lying about what they believed they saw. So if that was the case for the disciples of Jesus then how do you explain the empty tomb? Did gullible fools steal the body? If so, then they weren’t gullible fools, they were liars and frauds but then liars and frauds would not suffer a hideous death for the truth never mind a lie that they knew was a lie. So if it wasn’t them, then who stole it? Not the Romans, they couldn't care less. Not the Jewish Leaders because they would have produced it in a second to disprove the preaching of the resurrection. So we are back to square one. The resurrection story still explains all the facts the best.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    No, but I have a natural inclination towards a belief in God and Jesus as His ultimate revelation so in order to believe in Him I must be convinced that He rose from the dead as reported. I have read enough on the subject to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true, so in order for me to abandon that then yes I need it to be totally disproven

    Handy that you've chosen criteria that can never be met until someone invents a time machine. As I already said, if there was enough evidence to convince someone beyond a reasonable doubt it would be taught in history class. Saying "Ah the innocence" doesn't stop that being true.

    I would say it's more like your first statement "I have a natural inclination towards a belief in God and Jesus". Basically you want to believe so you don't need as much evidence as you otherwise would. Not logical
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Surely the fact that they are 2000 year old claims doesn't make them wrong does it? For me to believe that they are wrong then it must be shown to me why they are wrong. I need more than the bias of an unbeliever sorry.
    no, the fact that they are 2000 year old unsubstantiated claims that have gone through dozens of translations and are making a claim that does not fit with the natural world means the default position should be that they are wrong.

    The strength of the evidence required is proportional to the unlikeness of the claim. If a book was found claiming there was a man called Jesus who had some disciples, I'd be inclined to accept it because that fits with the known universe but if they want to claim that he walked on water and raised from the dead they're going to have to prove it. Before you can use history as evidence for Jesus you must first prove that supernatural events are possible
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    None of the leaders of any of the major religions ever made the kinds of claims about themselves that Jesus made. They were great and respected leaders of men who's ideologies were followed and in some cases forced upon others. The early rise of Christianity was due to people genuinely believing in Jesus as the son of God and actually expecting Him to come back in their lifetime, a belief they forsook everything for and for which they paid the ultimate price of suffering hideous deaths. If they were deluded then their persecutions could have been easily avoided by simply producing the body of their dead leader.
    Genuinely believing that they were God incarnate? What other [/font][/COLOR]major religion believes that about their leader? Or more importantly, what other leader of a major religion believed that about himself?



    What other times? Jesus is the only one who before He died thought that He was God and that He would rise from the dead after His death. And He is the only one who after dying is claimed to have risen by His followers who would die for that testimony. No other Historical figure ever claimed about themselves the things Jesus claimed about Himself and no other leader of any religion ever had their followers claim that He had risen from the dead and then die for that testimony.
    I never said they made exactly the same claims but claims of equal magnitude and of equal improbability have been made and people have believed them just as strongly as people believed in jesus, hence all the other world religions. So how do you explain that?

    And if the evidence for Jesus is so compelling, how do you explain the fact that all the Jews of the day did not convert? If the evidence wasn't compelling enough for the people living in that time, why should I accept it after 2000 years of dilution?


  • Options
    #103
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Quick Note Soul Winner.
    I'm not on the stock skin, so for the porpuses of this thread could you skip the color tags please?
    It's a pain in the arse having to highlight all your text.


  • Options
    #104
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Hmmm?? I wonder how many of them would be willing to suffer a horrible death instead of reneging on their testimony even if they did see a cute little leprechaun.
    the 9/11 bombers were willing to suffer a horrible death and they never witnessed a resurrection.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    So if that was the case for the disciples of Jesus then how do you explain the empty tomb? Did gullible fools steal the body? If so, then they weren’t gullible fools, they were liars and frauds but then liars and frauds would not suffer a hideous death for the truth never mind a lie that they knew was a lie.

    My position would be that they truly believed in the message of Jesus which is understandable because it is a very good message for how to live your life but they knew that no one would care what some carpenter's son from Nazareth had to say so they made it look like he fit the messianic prophecies and either got him crucified or hoaxed it somehow. So they believed strongly enough in the message to lie to help people to believe it

    A modern day example would be how George Bush truly believed that Saddam was a threat but knew that no one would support a war so he told them that he had WMDs. He convinced people to allow him to do what he believed was right by a little white lie. The ends justify the means and all that


    Reasonable? Possible?

    edit: evidence to support this idea: One of the messianic prophecies required that the messiah be born in bethlehem. only two gospels mention how Jesus got there and the stories differ, only one mentioning the familiar story of the census and the manger. That says to me that they were trying to make it look like he fit the prophecies


  • Options
    #105
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    You have it exactly wrong there, for it to be right it must be proven right.


    Not true. If one believes it to be true then the onus is on the objector to prove it false.


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Why don't you go read the Koran with the same attitude?


    When I get to the part that Jesus wasn't the Son of God and that He was never really crucified (which even non-Christian historians accept as true) then something tells me that something is not right. And when it blatantly quotes heretical Gnostic scriptures from the second century I start to back off somewhat. That a good enough reason?

    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    The bias of an unbeliever is well founded, the bias of a believer however is not.


    A totally ridiculous and stupid statement to make. And there's me thinking you were a real clever clogs.


  • Options
    #106
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Not true. If one believes it to be true then the onus is on the objector to prove it false
    No it's not. the onus is always and forever on the person making the claim


  • Options
    #107
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Hmmm?? I wonder how many of them would be willing to suffer a horrible death instead of reneging on their testimony even if they did see a cute little leprechaun. If they would, then I would be more inclined to believe that they at least believed what they saw was true. That wouldn't prove that leprechauns exist of course but it rules out them lying about what they believed they saw. So if that was the case for the disciples of Jesus then how do you explain the empty tomb? Did gullible fools steal the body? If so, then they weren’t gullible fools, they were liars and frauds but then liars and frauds would not suffer a hideous death for the truth never mind a lie that they knew was a lie. So if it wasn’t them, then who stole it? Not the Romans, they couldn't care less. Not the Jewish Leaders because they would have produced it in a second to disprove the preaching of the resurrection. So we are back to square one. The resurrection story still explains all the facts the best.

    I was just making a point using a humorous video. I'm not claiming that it's the exact same as eye witness accounts in the Bible. I'd be very curious to your answer to my more serious point in my previous post though.
    pts wrote: »
    Why does it have to be ONE natural explanation, that doesn't make much sense.
    You could demand ONE natural explanation for thunder, rainbows and yearly harvest, for example the Norse Gods. HOWEVER just because you can explain them all with one explanation doesn't make that explanation superior to one explanation for each phenomenon.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #108
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No it's not. the onus is always and forever on the person making the claim

    *prepares to utter his favourite stock phrase* :)

    "Incredible claims call fall incredible evidence."

    Saying a man came back to life three days after dying and then ascended up to heaven is a very incredible claim, so to prove such a thing would require a lot of evidence. A very old book and a few unverified eye-witness accounts don't really stack up to match the claim.

    Saying a man did not come back to life in said circumstances is far more credible, so requires less evidence.

    The burden of proof is on those making the incredible claim, not vice-versa.


  • Options
    #109
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    A totally ridiculous and stupid statement to make. And there's me thinking you were a real clever clogs.

    Oi! :pac:

    Well if there are unbelievers then there must be a reason, and with so many other religions claiming theirs is the truth and Atheism abound, you need to take a step back.

    Take psychics for example, some people believe they work and fully convinced of it being true, like you are of Christianity.

    Others don't think so, why?

    According to Scientific Method the sceptic is in the right until he is proven wrong. So my stupid statement it pretty much the grounds for all scientific development ever. (Maybe not ever, but it sounds good, right?)


  • Options
    #110
    BombSquad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 157 ✭✭BombSquad


    Soul Winner wrote: »


    But the supernatural resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the only ONE explanation that explains some basic settled facts. 1) The Disciples' genuine believed that Jesus was the Son of God.

    It is a basic settled fact that I genuinely believed in Santa Claus for a while. Unfortunately I was incorrect in my belief... :(

    The fact that someone believes in something may be true but that does not make the "something" true.


  • Options
    #111
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    the 9/11 bombers were willing to suffer a horrible death and they never witnessed a resurrection.

    Will I tell you why? Because they believed in what they were doing. Same with the disciples of Jesus. They were not indoctrinated with an ideology, they were eye witnesses unto Him for which they paid with their lives. They knew that what they believed was either true or not. If they knew it to be false they would not have gave their lives for a lie that they knew was a lie. The 911 attackers didn't know either way, they were just indoctrinated and simply believed in a cause enough to die for it. There is a difference.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    My position would be that they truly believed in the message of Jesus which is understandable because it is a very good message for how to live your life but they knew that no one would care what some carpenter's son from Nazareth had to say so they made it look like he fit the messianic prophecies and either got him crucified or hoaxed it somehow. So they believed strongly enough in the message to lie to help people to believe it.

    So you think that they cared so much about the truth of Jesus' teachings that they made up lies about Him so that people would believe His teachings? He was tried and convicted as a blasphemer and a criminal publicly ridiculed and put to an ignominious end. Who would want to believe in the teachings of someone to which that happened?

    Heck you are entitled to that position I suppose, but what evidence do you have for it? I mean the fact that the all fled in fear the night He was being crucified speaks volumes as to their character so why would they then change from this postion to one of absolute dedication to a lie about someone who they knew was really dead?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    A modern day example would be how George Bush truly believed that Saddam was a threat but knew that no one would support a war so he told them that he had WMDs. He convinced people to allow him to do what he believed was right by a little white lie. The ends justify the means and all that

    But what is the point in believing in someone who claimed the things Jesus claimed about Himself if the things He claimed were not true? You are dealing with a nut case or a fraud if what Jesus claimed about Himself was not true.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Reasonable? Possible?

    Oh yeah, very possible I suppose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    The resurrection story still explains all the facts the best.
    Seriously -- can you put your hand on your heart and say that it's more likely that a chap from first century Palestine died and came back to life(*) than that some unknown person(**) might have written a book that is not fully accurate?

    Like, seriously, people do write nonsense from time to time. Just because it's in black and white and bound in calfskin does not mean it is 100% true.

    Please tell me you understand that!

    (*) and flew off up into the sky to return to his previous employment as one third of the entity that created the universe.

    (**) who, in an unknown place and unknown time, wrote a book you cannot read in the original, of which we have no remaining fragments [SIZE]


  • Options
    #113
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No it's not. the onus is always and forever on the person making the claim

    I'm not making the claim though. I just believe the report. That might be stupid but the onus is on the person claiming that it is stupid to disprove that what I believe in is in fact stupid.


  • Options
    #114
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Will I tell you why? Because they believed in what they were doing. Same with the disciples of Jesus. They were not indoctrinated with an ideology, they were eye witnesses unto Him for which they paid with their lives. They knew that what they believed was either true or not. If they knew it to be false they would not have gave their lives for a lie that they knew was a lie. The 911 attackers didn't know either way, they were just indoctrinated and simply believed in a cause enough to die for it. There is a difference.
    It's entirely possible that it was just one or two people, maybe Jesus and Peter, who indoctrinated the rest until they truly believed they had seen a resurrection. Such things have happened countless times, it's called brain washing

    Soul Winner wrote: »
    So you think that they cared so much about the truth of Jesus' teachings that they made up lies about Him so that people would believe His teachings? He was tried and convicted as a blasphemer and a criminal publicly ridiculed and put to an ignominious end. Who would want to believe in the teachings of someone to which that happened?
    The word of Jesus is extremely good and moral and addressed many of the issues of the society of the day. Publicly ridiculing him and executing him only makes him a martyr, which makes people more likely to believe

    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Heck you are entitled to that position I suppose, but what evidence do you have for it? I mean the fact that the all fled in fear the night He was being crucified speaks volumes as to their character so why would they then change from this postion to one of absolute dedication to a lie about someone who they knew was really dead?
    Firstly, that they all fled in fear the night is not a fact, it's a claim. But assuming it happened, I've already explained it. They believed in the man but in order to get other people to believe they knew everyone else would require more so they made claims of divinity. The ultimate argument from authority logical fallacy

    Soul Winner wrote: »
    But what is the point in believing in someone who claimed the things Jesus claimed about Himself if the things He claimed were not true? You are dealing with a nut case or a fraud if what Jesus claimed about Himself was not true.
    We don't even know that Jesus made the claims. It's possible that other people tacked on those claims afterwards to add weight to the story or that they all decided among themselves to make those claims to support the message
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Oh yeah, very possible I suppose.
    So then we're done because I've given you ONE natural explanation, yeah? :)
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    If anyone can explain these three simple facts with ONE natural explanation then I can be done with Christianity


  • Options
    #115
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I'm not making the claim though. I just believe the report. That might be stupid but the onus is on the person claiming that it is stupid to disprove that what I believe in is in fact stupid.

    Claim: A man was resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago.
    Evidence: A Book.
    Counter-Argument: Such an event has never occurred before and never occurred again to this day.


  • Options
    #116
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    pts wrote: »
    I was just making a point using a humorous video. I'm not claiming that it's the exact same as eye witness accounts in the Bible.

    Ok
    pts wrote: »
    I'd be very curious to your answer to my more serious point in my previous post though.
    Why does it have to be ONE natural explanation, that doesn't make much sense.
    You could demand ONE natural explanation for thunder, rainbows and yearly harvest, for example the Norse Gods. HOWEVER just because you can explain them all with one explanation doesn't make that explanation superior to one explanation for each phenomenon.

    Well if it is a fact that the disciples genuinely believed that they saw Christ alive and vital after His death, and that they genuinely believed that he was the Son of God and that the tomb was empty through no deception on their part then what else better explains these things than that He actually rose from the dead? That ONE explanation explains all the facts in one fell swoop. not so for any of the natural explanations. That is why I need just ONE natural explanations that explains all the facts so I can be done goign on about Christianity.


  • Options
    #117
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I'm not making the claim though. I just believe the report.
    You are supporting the incredible claim despite it's lack of evidence. In fact you have been incredibly claiming taht it is true for a few pages now.
    That might be stupid but the onus is on the person claiming that it is stupid to disprove that what I believe in is in fact stupid.

    870108035_f9f42052a8.jpg
    "The circle is complete"


  • Options
    #118
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    Seriously -- can you put your hand on your heart and say that it's more likely that a chap from first century Palestine died and came back to life(*) than that some unknown person(**) might have written a book that is not fully accurate?

    Like, seriously, people do write nonsense from time to time. Just because it's in black and white and bound in calfskin does not mean it is 100% true.

    Please tell me you understand that!

    (*) and flew off up into the sky to return to his previous employment as one third of the entity that created the universe.

    (**) who, in an unknown place and unknown time, wrote a book you cannot read in the original, of which we have no remaining fragments [SIZE]

    I understand what you are saying. But the New Testament is not just one book, it is a collection writings handed down from generation to generation with a deviation of about 1% -5% in 2000 years of history. That is pretty remarkable. Of the ancient writings nothing compares to the NT. There are more translations and copies of manuscripts dating back to within the first 40 years of the stories the account. The letters of Paul are the oldest and they go back even further. No other ancient text even comes close to that kind of attestation. There is not time enough for legendary embellishment (which you do get in the Gnostics text of the second century) to form before the originals have been copied and circulated to all the various churches. The belief that Jesus was the Son of God goes back to the oldest manuscripts so whatever the cause for that belief it wasn't due to later legendary embellishment.


  • Options
    #119
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Well if it is a fact that the disciples genuinely believed that they saw Christ alive and vital after His death, and that they genuinely believed that he was the Son of God and that the tomb was empty through no deception on their part then what else better explains these things than that He actually rose from the dead? That ONE explanation explains all the facts in one fell swoop. not so for any of the natural explanations. That is why I need just ONE natural explanations that explains all the facts so I can be done goign on about Christianity.

    I keep pimping this video, but I think it makes several important points:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

    It covers some important concepts in a clearer way than I can. I'd love to hear your opinion on this video.


  • Options
    #120
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Claim: A man was resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago.
    Evidence: A Book.
    Counter-Argument: Such an event has never occurred before and never occurred again to this day.

    And on one could go :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Galvasean wrote: »
    You are supporting the incredible claim despite it's lack of evidence. In fact you have been incredibly claiming taht it is true for a few pages now.



    870108035_f9f42052a8.jpg
    "The circle is complete"


    I believe its true for sure, but I never claimed it was true did I? I only asked for a better explanation of the said facts.


Advertisement