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
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
How do you think language evolved? Why do you think there are so many different languages in the world?
As humanity evolved, the way we communicated over time became more complex and we could create more sounds and syllables to verbalise what we wanted to say. This became language, and the reason there are so many different languages was because people in each region chose different sounds to verbalise what they wanted to say. Again, a slow process over many generations.
Language is a complicated subject and i really would prefer not to go there. suffice it to say the primary function of languages isnt communication.
But i asked about judgement, morals, values. where are your genetic "building blocks" or social "atoms" or "force laws" which show how values are made or evolve?
How is something like language different to morals? It's something which necessarily evolved in our species over time. It's not like suddenly one human was born with a "judgement atom" and said to another human "Hey, don't do that. That's bad". , It evolved not as a genetic thing, but moreso as something which is passed on through generations. Something we're taught, something we learn from others and eventually have to judge for ourselves. As we learnt to think more, not purely on instinct, we learnt to judge situations.
If you're asking me to give you chemical equations or a diagram comparing the brain of an early human with a modern human showing where morality is located. I can't do that. I work in the construction industry. I'm far from an expert. However, just because I don't know, doesn't mean the answer is God.
It's the same thing with the Big Bang argument and "What came before the Big Bang? It must be God". Just because we don't know the answer (and I'm not saying people don't know the answers to this, I'm just saying I'm a random dude on the Internet who isn't an expert in any of this; as are you as far as I'm concerned), but just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean the answer is God.0 -
Just an FYI: Ive just added a few bits to my reply 3713 after further brain scratching. That is all.0
-
How is something like language different to morals?
It is different and neither of them are like DNA.
"evolution" of a society and "evolution" of a species are different uses of the same word.It's something which necessarily evolved in our species over time. It's not like suddenly one human was born with a "judgement atom" and said to another human "Hey, don't do that. That's bad". ,
Language doesnt "evolve" using the mechanism species do.It evolved not as a genetic thing, but more so as something which is passed on through generations.
So it is NOT LIKE genetics. You just admitted that.Something we're taught, something we learn from others and eventually have to judge for ourselves. As we learnt to think more, not purely on instinct, we learnt to judge situations.
Your theory is quite waffly. What do we learn? where did the judgement and values of our ancestors originate? what stores them?If you're asking me to give you chemical equations or a diagram comparing the brain of an early human with a modern human showing where morality is located. I can't do that. I work in the construction industry. I'm far from an expert. However, just because I don't know, doesn't mean the answer is God.
But it does suggest a gestalt entity like the mind exists.It's the same thing with the Big Bang argument and "What came before the Big Bang? It must be God". Just because we don't know the answer (and I'm not saying people don't know the answers to this, I'm just saying I'm a random dude on the Internet who isn't an expert in any of this; as are you as far as I'm concerned), but just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean the answer is God.
Fair enough. Im trying to get you to think about it.
The Big bang thing isnt sensible because since space and time begin there the idea of "before" is meaningless.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
So it is NOT LIKE genetics. You just admitted that.
Could you point out where I said it was like genetics? I'm pretty sure I said "It evolved like everything else evolves: slowly over a long period of time". I don't believe I claimed it was exactly like genetics.
Again, we aren't born with morality in the same way that we aren't born with language. It's what we learn from parents and society. If I had a child now and gave it up for adoption and a Chinese couple adopted it, that child would be speaking Chinese and would have morals based on the parents who adopted it rather than the morals of the biological parents.0 -
philologos wrote: »You're practising the art of making assumptions before you examine the evidence. What I am suggesting is looking at how humans operate in ethical dilemmas, and then assess what that tells us about reality.
Humans for the most part, don't say when they are wronged that their morality could be wrong and that the wrongdoers morality could be right. Rather they argue that they have been objectively wronged. Humans for the most part have an innate sense of morality, it isn't something that's generally conjured up in the mind. Humans also have the uncanny ability to use dishonesty to conceal, hide, or distort the truth in order to do what is wrong. Ultimately, there's still the awareness even during wrongdoing that it is indeed wrongdoing.
The same applies at an international level countries don't claim that when one country is being attacked by another without basis and with indiscriminate human rights violations that their "subjective morality" could be wrong. The universal nature of human rights, the very idea that they are inalienable is based on the concept that human rights aren't ours to give, and ours to take away. Ergo, whose are they?
"Subjective morality" as a concept to me is just not real. Whenever I hear atheists arguing for it on this forum, something sinks within me. It's the most unconvincing argument that one can pose for atheism.
You cannot be serious? Your argument for the existence of objective morality is that humans (some of them at least) think there is an objective morality.
Do you also use that argument for whether the sun goes around the Earth or not?
How humans think about reality tells us nothing about reality other than what humans are like.philologos wrote: »Does it?
Ultimately, I think God formed the conscience, but I think people across the world irrespective of creed follow by muchly similar ethical standards in day to day existence.
That you think God formed your conscience, and that God's Word is the objective standard of morality, is precisely the point.philologos wrote: »I agree it would. For the atheist, morality is subjective because there's not a hope that there is any objective standard external to us. That's a gonner as a solution to the problem.
For the Christian the refreshing thing is, it isn't based on what is in my mind. Ultimately if God exists, He Himself can speak, and indeed has through His word. If God hadn't spoke, I'd be much in the same position as you are concerning this. Since God as Christians see it has spoken, we have access to the objective truth of reality and aim to live on that basis.
God didn't speak. Some people claimed he did. You assess their claims and subjectively decide that you it makes sense to you based on what they claimed he said.
So imagine morality is entirely subjective, thus you possess a subjective notion of right or wrong. You come across a religion, out of the many out there, that is in line with your subjective notions and because it lines up with your ideas you think Ah this makes sense and decide to follow it.
Or put it another way. Everyone has a favouriate colour, and yours happens to be red. Now out there are there groups of people, one group for each colour, saying that their colour is the best colour.
You look around and find the Red is Best group and think to yourself that yes that makes sense. Red is the best colour isn't it. Sure some people claim purple is, but they are just confusing purple with red. And don't get me started about the people who think it is green, perverts.
So you end up thinking that your subjective notion of what is the best colour is the objective truth just because a few other people think the same thing.
Now you turn around to me and say Well what is the best colour must be objective because that is what all these people think. The Purples think is is objective, they just happen to think it is objectively purples, so they are wrong cause it is red in reality. Same with the greens, they are wrong but at least they think it is objective. Same with the yellows.philologos wrote: »I don't see what my decision to follow Jesus which I concede is subjective has to do with arguing against objective morality which I'm claiming that all men base their ethical behaviour in some way or another on.
All men have ethical standards that are shaped by genetics, evolution, up brining, culture, brain chemistry etc. No one has exactly the same ethical standards, any more than any two people have exactly the same taste in music or film.
The fact that (some) people think that their personal subjective notions of reality are in fact objective speaks nothing to whether there actually is an objective standard, and in fact you would have to be a god to even know correctly what this objective moral standard is even if you assumed it existed.
People are prone to speaking objectively about subjective thinks (that was the BEST movie ever. Grafton Street is the WORST shopping district. Chocolate ice cream is the BEST flavour of ice cream). We do this even when we know that what we are expressing is an entirely subjective opinion. It is an instinct, we cannot help it. It is simple how humans work though, it speaks nothing to the reality of whether there is an objective standard of movie, shopping street, ice cream or morality.
Saying all humans think like this say nothing except about how humans think.0 -
I'm sorry, but no.
That's a belief. Christians think Jesus rose from the dead, there is absolutely nothing other than the Bible, written some hundred years after his death as 'proof' of this.
i missed that bit!
what writings do you hgave from socrates or Alexander - none
And anyth_ing attributed to them is written il bet over 300 not 100 years after them.
But i dont see you claiming you can trust the history.
why do you apply a different standard of evidence to jesus?0 -
i missed that bit!
what writings do you hgave from socrates or Alexander - none
And anyth_ing attributed to them is written il bet over 300 not 100 years after them.
But i dont see you claiming you can trust the history.
why do you apply a different standard of evidence to jesus?
Because they aren't said to have performed supernatural miracles including rising from the dead after 3 days, bringing others back from the dead, walking on water etc. There's no reason to believe that Socrates or Alexander the Great didn't exist. The fact that Jesus is claimed to have done all these things which are generally considered to be impossible brings his story into question.
We're not applying a different standard of evidence to Jesus. With the supernatural elements tied to the story of Jesus, Jesus' story cannot be measured to the same standard.0 -
Advertisement
-
So, which bit of the Bible are you claiming was written after 130 AD?
Apologies PDN, I missed your comment.
The estimated time that the New Testament was written between 70AD and 150AD, so I put it down as an average of 100 years. A fair compromise really.
But the fact still stands, it was not written in his lifetime, and certainly not by his own hand.i missed that bit!
what writings do you hgave from socrates or Alexander - none
And anyth_ing attributed to them is written il bet over 300 not 100 years after them.
But i dont see you claiming you can trust the history.
why do you apply a different standard of evidence to jesus?
Do you mean beside the writings of Xenophon, Plato (both of whom were his actual students) and many more first hand writings? How about his public trial that was on record for some time?
There's also the simple fact that nobody has been proclaiming their supernatural powers.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the man Jesus did not exist. History shows us that it is likely the man did exist, and was probably proclaimed as a Prophet (as were many others at the time).
However, there is absolutely no documented proof of his supernatural powers, no more so than any other figure of myth.0 -
Could you point out where I said it was like genetics? I'm pretty sure I said "It evolved like everything else evolves: slowly over a long period of time". I don't believe I claimed it was exactly like genetics.
Notice the word "like" in "It evolved like everything else evolves"
So species evolving slowly over a long period of time are nothing to do with genetics?
clearly you equated social "evolution" and biological evolution.
If you are prepared to admit that society cant be equated with genetics now then fine.
In which case society does not "evolve" LIKE genetics does it?
Stephen Pinker Noam Chomsky and others would beg to differ and that instinct and capacity for language is hardwired though shaped by environment.Again, we aren't born with morality in the same way that we aren't born with language. It's what we learn from parents and society.
Taking "do as your parents teach" can lead to dangerous territory. what iof your parents are Nazis? what if they believe "there is no god" should be a central tenet of society?
Every society that tried it in the past murdered people by the newtime.
Which leads us back to some things being always wrong. But how can they be if people chose to change things and dont accept some universal wrongs?If I had a child now and gave it up for adoption and a Chinese couple adopted it, that child would be speaking Chinese and would have morals based on the parents who adopted it rather than the morals of the biological parents.
Not necessarily. If you had a time machine and had a cave man's child they could grow up as one of your family. *But eventually you would go back so far that they would not be human and could not grow up as a human even if they could bear children with humans. ie they would be biologically human but something would be missing.
the points are
1 Society while made of people isnt operating under the same scientific rules as biologuy
the word "evolution" is misused when used like this.
2 Individually Humans are more than their biology
The idea of "mind " or "spirit" or "soul" or gestalt entities are part of this0 -
Wait a minute, some things are aways wrong, agreed. Universal wrongs? no such things.ISAW;
Which leads us back to some things being always wrong. But how can they be if people chose to change things and dont accept some universal wrongs?
First off right and wrong in the sense were talking about only applies to Humans, or do you call the guards every time you see cats mating?
Somethings are aways wrong for humans, yes but because they are things detrimental to humans, not because theirs some transcendental law that makes it so.
Go back far enough and their will be humans for whom rape was good, murder was beneficial and right and wrong were decided by brute force. Morality develops and changes sometimes glacially slowly, sometimes faster than in a generation.
Denying change and at the same time trying to claim that the rules were different for the Israelites in the OT is not consistent. Not even the 'it was aways wrong but God alowd it because they couldn't understand' rubbish will make that circle square.0 -
Notice the word "like" in "It evolved like everything else evolves"
So species evolving slowly over a long period of time are nothing to do with genetics?
clearly you equated social "evolution" and biological evolution.
If you are prepared to admit that society cant be equated with genetics now then fine.
In which case society does not "evolve" LIKE genetics does it?
Could you please stop with this strawman? It's getting old.
Once again, "like".. as in "similar to".
Evolve:
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.
v.intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.
It evolved like everything else evolves; slowly over a long period of time.
Not genetically, but socially. What we understand morality to be, began long ago in a much smaller form and slowly changed and continued changing over time to become what we know it to be today.
Genetics: Changed and developed over time
Society: Changed and developed over time.
LIKE.
Sorry to sound so harsh, but I can't make it any clearer.Stephen Pinker Noam Chomsky and others would beg to differ and that instinct and capacity for language is hardwired though shaped by environment.
Capacity for language, but not language itself. Just as the level by which you can feel empathy for others can be hardwired and then shaped by your environment, which becomes your morals.Taking "do as your parents teach" can lead to dangerous territory. what iof your parents are Nazis? what if they believe "there is no god" should be a central tenet of society?
Every society that tried it in the past murdered people by the newtime.
Not responding to this because it's the same old sh*te you constantly roll out when backed into a corner.Which leads us back to some things being always wrong. But how can they be if people chose to change things and dont accept some universal wrongs?
Because we have free will to decide for ourselves what is wrong or not. We know that there are some things (child abuse, murder, rape etc) which will always be wrong. And no matter how many people might try to convince you that it's okay to kill someone, you still have your own personal morals to say no.Not necessarily. If you had a time machine and had a cave man's child they could grow up as one of your family. *But eventually you would go back so far that they would not be human and could not grow up as a human even if they could bear children with humans. ie they would be biologically human but something would be missing.
Something like thousands of years of genetic evolution would be missing, yeah.the points are
1 Society while made of people isnt operating under the same scientific rules as biologuy
the word "evolution" is misused when used like this.
2 Individually Humans are more than their biology
The idea of "mind " or "spirit" or "soul" or gestalt entities are part of this
1 Never said it was. But society and morality have evolved (changed gradually over time)
2 But that's only because of our own perception. I could look at 100 dogs and think "Dogs". A dog could look at 100 dogs and see them each as an individual spirit or whatever.0 -
Apologies PDN, I missed your comment.
The estimated time that the New Testament was written between 70AD and 150AD, so I put it down as an average of 100 years. A fair compromise really.
No, not a fair compromise at all. Virtually all scholars are agreed that the Four Gospels were written within 50 years of Christ's death (with some dating them much earlier). Other New Testament books (such as Galatians and 1 Corinthians) were written within 25 years of Christ's death.
The 100 year estimate applies only to one or two books (such as 2 Peter) and represents the extreme late end of a range of estimates from that start at 70AD.0 -
No, not a fair compromise at all. Virtually all scholars are agreed that the Four Gospels were written within 50 years of Christ's death (with some dating them much earlier). Other New Testament books (such as Galatians and 1 Corinthians) were written within 25 years of Christ's death.
The 100 year estimate applies only to one or two books (such as 2 Peter) and represents the extreme late end of a range of estimates from that start at 70AD.
The real issue in not if it was 50 years or 100 years , but the fact that there are no contemporaenous accounts at all- none. And this for a series of events that went on over a number of years. And not just any events but quite extraordinary ones. Surely any one of those miracles would have been the talk of the age never mind a whole series. And that is before we even get to the resurrection .Not even accounts disputing those events which is the least one could expect.
Does that not trouble anyone ?0 -
Sonics2k: Where are you getting the 150AD figure from?0
-
The real issue in not if it was 50 years or 100 years , but the fact that there are no contemporaenous accounts at all- none.
LOL. so they should have written the history before it happened rather than after?
And where are the contemporaneous accounts of Socrates or Alexander the Great?
I dont see you saying they didnt exist though?And this for a series of events that went on over a number of years. And not just any events but quite extraordinary ones. Surely any one of those miracles would have been the talk of the age never mind a whole series. And that is before we even get to the resurrection .Not even accounts disputing those events which is the least one could expect.
And the ones for Alexander and Socrates are???0 -
You don't know what contemporary means, do you?LOL. so they should have written the history before it happened rather than after?
And where are the contemporaneous accounts of Socrates or Alexander the Great?
I dont see you saying they didnt exist though?
Go google it and come back.
I've already provided you with ones for Socrates, eg Plato.And the ones for Alexander and Socrates are???
As for Alexander, well the man did rule most of the 'known' world for sometime, and the Persians certainly have a lot to say about him.
Might I suggest you go and pick up a history book, before continuing this conversation.0 -
Where does a 13 amp fuse store the information that allows it to judge when its limit has been exceeded?
Or not exceeded?
13 Amp fuses behave according to Ohms Law. are you seriously claiming human beings are just following laws of physics and are only a representation of their programming?
who wrote the programme by the way? Or did it just came about by accident?0 -
Advertisement
-
No, not a fair compromise at all. Virtually all scholars are agreed that the Four Gospels were written within 50 years of Christ's death (with some dating them much earlier). Other New Testament books (such as Galatians and 1 Corinthians) were written within 25 years of Christ's death.
The 100 year estimate applies only to one or two books (such as 2 Peter) and represents the extreme late end of a range of estimates from that start at 70AD.
They are still not first hand accounts of his actions, my point still stands.
Yes, many scholars do agree that the books may have been written before 70AD, however they do not mention several major events that would of been noted, which is why there is some discussion as to the validity of the claims.
I'm not claiming to be expert on the matter, but it is still questioned as to when they were written exactly. So I stand by my timescale of around 100 years, giving more than enough leeway to both sides of the table.0 -
The real issue in not if it was 50 years or 100 years , but the fact that there are no contemporaenous accounts at all- none. And this for a series of events that went on over a number of years. And not just any events but quite extraordinary ones. Surely any one of those miracles would have been the talk of the age never mind a whole series. And that is before we even get to the resurrection .Not even accounts disputing those events which is the least one could expect.
Does that not trouble anyone ?
Not at all. Your expectation (as expressed in the line I've bold-faced) is not realistic or historically justified. You would be hard pressed to find books referring to contemporary events of any kind in the 1st Century. Many references we have to other historical events in that period were written many years after the event. For example, historians quite happily accept the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius as good evidence for the murder of Julius Caesar, even though they both wrote over a century after the event.
Books anywhere in the first century were rare and expensive. A man with twenty books in his home was considered the possesser of an extensive library.
All of Jesus' miracles took place in Palestine, which was a rather out of the way spot on the map, certainly no literary hotseat. And many of them occurred in Galilee rather than Jerusalem.
Therefore it would extremely surprising if anyone in the First Century other than Christians wrote a first-hand account about the acts of Jesus - and it would be a fluke of lottery-winning proportions if such a book had actually survived to modern times.
Nevertheless, against all the odds, we do have Josephus (a first Century Jew) who in his Antiquities made reference to Jesus. He refers to the martyrdom of James, stating that he was "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" and also to the beheading of John the Baptist.
Scholars have long debated another work by Josephus - the Testimonium Flavianum - and some parts of it are thought to be later additions. However, there is broad scholarly consensus that the reference to Jesus as a worker of startling miracles is genuine. This would represent a level of near contemporary evidence which, given the time and place in which Jesus ministered, is far greater than historians would have any right to expect.0 -
You don't know what contemporary means, do you?
Go google it and come back.
you have problems with reading
"contemporaneous" was the word used by Marian in
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77880428#post77880428I've already provided you with ones for Socrates, eg Plato.
Where?
what did Plato write when socrates was alive which is evidence for socrates?
how do you know Plato didnt invent Socrates?
We have been over it before
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76165969&postcount=1439
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76173084&postcount=1465
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76178230&postcount=1470As for Alexander, well the man did rule most of the 'known' world for sometime, and the Persians certainly have a lot to say about him.
Might I suggest you go and pick up a history book, before continuing this conversation.
Might i suggest that would be akin to saying "he is mentioned in the bible"?
Now given you claim he ruled the entire world surely you can produce some writings about him from when he was alive written when he was alive?
No? Im not surprised.0 -
No you can't damn well suggest that's akin to being mentioned in the Bible.
You're just arguing for the sake of it now. We have historical record, fact, reactions and influences of both these men from first hand sources, including the sites of old battles that Alexander took part.
We also have the Persian records of battles against Alexander!
We have the full records of both men's existence. But once again I feel the need to say this.
No-one has claimed they had supernatural powers since their death, or invented stories of 'god' like abilities, such as resurrection of the dead, changing water to wine and so on.0 -
No you can't damn well suggest that's akin to being mentioned in the Bible.
You're just arguing for the sake of it now. We have historical record, fact, reactions and influences of both these men from first hand sources, including the sites of old battles that Alexander took part.
Really?
what contemporaneous historical records or facts have you?
You seem to think there are lots and lots.
Can you supply any references?
which battle sites have you actually studied?
How many are there? How are they dated?
and how does a suggesting of a battle iwithin 100 years of the time alexander is meant to have lived prove alexander?
EDIT: Let me give you a hand
Pick a Battle. Say Hydaspes purportedly 326BC (of course they didnt operate the BC calendar then)
Now what sources do you have from ancient times
i cant think of any from 326BC
he best i can offer is
Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica.(90-30 BC).
Quintus Curtius Rufus Historiae Alexandri Magni.(60-70 AD).
Plutarch Lives (75 AD).
Oh and Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. AD 86 - 160)
You got anything else? From 300BC?We also have the Persian records of battles against Alexander!
Really? from 320BC? where?We have the full records of both men's existence. But once again I feel the need to say this.
As we have records of Jesus in the Bible. But where are the records from the timle of Alexander and not from hundreds of years later?No-one has claimed they had supernatural powers since their death, or invented stories of 'god' like abilities, such as resurrection of the dead, changing water to wine and so on.
the gordian knot? Soldiers with wings? Depiction of alexander as Hercules or athena?
http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive25.htmThe objective of this paper is to show that Alexander the Great did in fact believe that he was more than an ordinary man: that Alexander believed that he was divine.0 -
No you can't damn well suggest that's akin to being mentioned in the Bible.
You're just arguing for the sake of it now. We have historical record, fact, reactions and influences of both these men from first hand sources, including the sites of old battles that Alexander took part.
We also have the Persian records of battles against Alexander!
We have the full records of both men's existence. But once again I feel the need to say this.
No-one has claimed they had supernatural powers since their death, or invented stories of 'god' like abilities, such as resurrection of the dead, changing water to wine and so on.
Scripture is an historical record Sonics. It's not something outside of historical record, in fact, it's a really good account - Much the same as any historical record - Jesus lived, he was crucified, we can count this as trust worthy - He rose again on the third day, and his apostles and desciples died testifying to it..
It's always been the same way - you either believe Jesus Christ or don't - it's not a difficult thing, it's actually about looking into his record, what he said and how it effected the times the people, and how it changed the course of history right up to current times he 'lives' in..
Jesus is for everybody. There is no singular person who had the same influence, and he was 'good' he was 'wisdom' - he is for everybody, he said he was God, wow - it all depends on whether one actually allows for such a person, such goodness and purity of purpose in a person who said he was in fact 'God' come for you and others.0 -
You are very fond of this argument ISAW, how about I give you a different figure for comparision- The Emperor Tiberius. After all he was contemporaneous with Jesus and also worshipped as a God .
Would you care to compare the evidence for the existance of Jesus with that of Tiberius ?
Not particularly.
I picked socrates and Alexander because they are two hugely famous people from history.
i dont see why they are something we should avoid.
Unless of course you think the argument they didnt exist is stronger than that for Jesus existing.0 -
The real issue in not if it was 50 years or 100 years , but the fact that there are no contemporaenous accounts at all- none. And this for a series of events that went on over a number of years. And not just any events but quite extraordinary ones. Surely any one of those miracles would have been the talk of the age never mind a whole series. And that is before we even get to the resurrection .Not even accounts disputing those events which is the least one could expect.
Does that not trouble anyone ?
Truly, there must be some empiricism in even the most devout believer.
It is this type of thing that leads me to think that there are two species of human with differences between the brain being comparable to the difference between a lion's brain and a zebra's brain.
Why should the lack of contempory writings of Jesus's exploits raise questions in my head and yet not raise questions in someone else's head?
I mean, I understand that Mary could not have 'admitted' publically that Joseph was not the father of Jesus as she would have been stoned to death for adultery but then how did the story come out?0 -
13 Amp fuses behave according to Ohms Law. are you seriously claiming human beings are just following laws of physics and are only a representation of their programming?
Yes.who wrote the programme by the way?
I did.Or did it just came about by accident?
Serendipity is a type of accident too.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not particularly.
I picked socrates and Alexander because they are two hugely famous people from history.
i dont see why they are something we should avoid.
Unless of course you think the argument they didnt exist is stronger than that for Jesus existing.
The difference is that if it was suggested that neither Socrates nor Alexander ever existed, I would not dismiss the evidence out of hand.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement