Is God real post your thoughts!

[Sly_Wizard]

Well done. Much kudos. =D>

 

 

 

Now prove he's the Son of God. You have 48 hours. Go!

 

 

 

Don't need to.

 

 

 

Proving whether or not Jesus existed is not in the same vein as proving whether or not he's the Son of God. One is in the realm of history, the other religious studies (Or philosophy, either or). There is no reason to believe that accepting Jesus existed means you have to accept he's also the Son of God.

 

You are correct.

 

 

 

Now try and answer the point rather than dismissing any need to.

 

 

 

This is an entirely separate argument but, *shrugs*, as you will. What kind of "proof" will you accept?

[Zierro]

Dunno' what you were waiting for an apology for.

 

 

 

Accusing me of skipping your responses when you haven't even posted them yet. Why else?

 

 

 

Oh no. Zierro isn't going to "side" with me. That would hurt, except for the little fact that I don't care.

 

 

 

I'm saying that you haven't "refuted" anything, or else we could just say we "refuted" Christianity as a whole.

 

 

 

Hold on a second. Lemme' show you the exact quote which started this whole "Jesus didn't exist thing".

 

 

 

*Will copy and paste it in a moment*

 

 

 

Are you scared to attempt to prove that Jesus is his son or something? Don't worry. I would be too. :lol:

 

 

 

Found it!

 

 

 

Isn't it kind of funny how the main point is actually "faith"? Big oops on your part, eh?

[Sly_Wizard]

Accusing me of skipping your responses when you haven't even posted them yet. Why else?

 

 

 

Except for the fact that my responses WERE posted before you responded.

 

 

 

*Points to the time stamps*

 

 

 

I'm saying that you haven't "refuted" anything, or else we could just say we "refuted" Christianity as a whole.

 

 

 

Refuting the idea that Jesus didn't exist is not the same as refuting Christianity. The first is rather easy to do, and has been done a hundred of times over (Only the incredibly disingenuous try to argue otherwise); the second, well... Good luck refuting any religion.

 

 

 

Are you scared to attempt to prove that Jesus is is son or something? Don't worry. I would be too. :lol:

 

 

 

No, I'm just smart enough to avoid a pointless debate in which you'll promptly reject any theological argument and rely on something like "There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus performing miracles". 'Cuz that's exactly what'll happen.

 

 

 

But, *shrugs*, like I told Ginger, I'll play along for a bit. What sort of "proof" would you accept?

 

 

 

Isn't it kind of funny how the main point is actually "faith"? Big oops on your part, eh?

 

 

 

No, because "faith" has nothing to do with Jesus actually existing. Just read the Wikipedia link :)

 

 

 

Edit: Taken from the Wikipedia link.

 

 

 

These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility.

 

 

 

Though the reconstructions vary, they generally include these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher[1] who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Judaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

 

 

 

Hooray for Jesus existing! :

[Ginger_Warrior]

[hide=]

Well done. Much kudos. =D>

 

 

 

Now prove he's the Son of God. You have 48 hours. Go!

 

 

 

Don't need to.

 

 

 

Proving whether or not Jesus existed is not in the same vein as proving whether or not he's the Son of God. One is in the realm of history, the other religious studies (Or philosophy, either or). There is no reason to believe that accepting Jesus existed means you have to accept he's also the Son of God.

 

You are correct.

 

 

 

Now try and answer the point rather than dismissing any need to.

[/hide]

 

 

 

This is an entirely separate argument but, *shrugs*, as you will. What kind of "proof" will you accept?

 

Yes, unfortunately proving something exists doesn't mean proving it's divine. I'm sorry if you were confused on that matter. You've still some way to go in proving Jesus was the Son of God.

 

 

 

Well, tangible and objective proof would be nice, if any's available, please.

 

 

 

Thanks in advance. :

[Zierro]

Except for the fact that my responses WERE posted before you responded.

 

 

 

*Points to the time stamps*

 

 

 

The "edit status" only appears after someone posted after your post. For example, I edited this post, but the "edit status" isn't under my post cause no one posted yet... and the time stamp still remains the same.

 

 

 

Refuting the idea that Jesus didn't exist is not the same as refuting Christianity. The first is rather easy to do, and has been done a hundred of times over (Only the incredibly disingenuous try to argue otherwise); the second, well... Good luck refuting any religion.

 

 

 

Two can play at this game though. Christianity has been "refuted" many many many times in this thread already.

 

 

 

But, *shrugs*, like I told Ginger, I'll play along for a bit. What sort of "proof" would you accept?

 

 

 

Give me the best you got. ;) This is exciting.

[Sly_Wizard]

Yes, unfortunately proving something exists doesn't mean proving it's divine. I'm sorry if you were confused on that matter.

 

 

 

It's kinda' funny how you guys like to switch up your arguments mid-way through, but don't let me stop you.

 

 

 

You've still some way to go in proving Jesus was the Son of God.

 

 

 

Well, tangible and objective proof would be nice, if any's available, please.

 

 

 

Not terribly. I'd just point you to the Gospels, but you'd say they're not objective or contemporary (Or something along those lines). And since those are the best references to Jesus we have, as secular references are few and far between, we come to a standstill as you won't accept the only proof which can be given as true. But I'm sure you already knew that, otherwise you wouldn't have asked in the first place.

 

 

 

And, funnily enough, I totally called the argument you'd make, like, three posts ago :lol:.

[Sly_Wizard]

The "edit status" only appears after someone posted after your post. For example, I edited this post, but the "edit status" isn't under my post cause no one posted yet... and the time stamp still remains the same.

 

 

 

That's what was meant? My edits were in before you posted, so why should I owe you an apology?

 

 

 

Two can play at this game though. Christianity has been "refuted" many many many times in this thread already.

 

 

 

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. You ignored what I typed out and then proceeded to respond with the same message I responded to the first time? Okay. Let's try this again. It's easy to refute the idea that Jesus didn't exist because there are many, many references to him throughout Classical era literature. For example, iirc, there was even a scroll found mentioning the dialogue between Jesus and some Roman governor. I want to say Pontius Pilate, but I don't think that's him. Anywho, if Jesus didn't exist, then these manuscripts would have to have been forged, but the very nature of them makes this highly improbable. Therefore, to say Jesus didn't exist makes little sense as it would leave many, unanswered holes in too many things. Conversely, refuting a religion involves presupposing certain religious axioms and proving them to be false, which is far harder and more time consuming for anyone on this thread to engage in.

 

 

 

Give me the best you got. ;) This is exciting.

 

 

 

Or, you could answer the question.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Give me the best you got. ;) This is exciting.

 

 

 

Or, you could answer the question.

 

Why would we prove your side of the argument? That's one [developmentally delayed]ed impression of arguing you have there.

[Quoi_Tu]

The answers seem obvious: Yes and No. Until we reach a higher level of understanding and intelligence, that will not change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buuzzzz kkiillll

[Sly_Wizard]

Give me the best you got. ;) This is exciting.

 

 

 

Or, you could answer the question.

 

Why would we prove your side of the argument? That's one [developmentally delayed] impression of arguing you have there.

 

 

 

I didn't ask him to prove anything. I asked "What kind of proof would you accept".

[Zierro]

That's what was meant? My edits were in before you posted, so why should I owe you an apology?

 

 

 

Yes, they were in before I submitted but not before I quoted you. I have a few tabs open up right now so that's why it took so long to submit.

 

 

 

Conversely, refuting a religion involves presupposing certain religious axioms and proving them to be false, which is far harder and more time consuming for anyone on this thread to engage in.

 

 

 

Wow, you must have skipped a lot of posts.

 

 

 

Or, you could answer the question.

 

 

 

Or you could, instead of trying to avoid it.

 

 

 

I didn't ask him to prove anything. I asked "What kind of proof would you accept".

 

 

 

And I asked you to give me the best you got. Are you implying that your own proof is bogus? Hey, maybe we'll agree on something here!

[Sly_Wizard]

Yes, they were in before I submitted but not before I quoted you. I have a few tabs open up right now so that's why it took so long to submit.

 

 

 

Point being, I don't owe you an apology because I made all my edits before you posted. For all we know you could have seen my edits and ignored them.

 

 

 

Wow, you must have skipped a lot of posts.

 

 

 

No, I've read most of them here and the majority of them not only make little sense but are also based in largely incorrect assumptions. Proofs, by themselves, aren't easy. For example, even though this is a little off-topic, the proof of 2 + 2 = 4 is fairly complex and involves calculus ---> http://au.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia.

 

 

 

Add in more axioms, and the harder and longer the proof becomes. Now, let's take religious axioms which could have hundreds of axioms. Proving them false would be mind-numbingly long and boring. It would take you, literally, months (Probably even years) just to disprove one religion, provided you made no mistakes.

 

 

 

Or you could, instead of trying to avoid it.

 

 

 

I'm not avoiding anything, since I asked you a question first and you still haven't answered it.

 

 

 

And I asked you to give me the best you got. Are you implying that your own proof is bogus? Hey, maybe we'll agree on something here!

 

 

 

...Because, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

 

 

:wall:

[Zierro]

Point being, I don't owe you an apology because I made all my edits before you posted. For all we know you could have seen my edits and ignored them.

 

 

 

If you quote someone their edits don't magically appear unless you go back and refresh. You were an [wagon] and made and assumption that I skipped your posts. I guess I shouldn't expect so much from you though. :)

 

 

 

...Because, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

 

 

Wouldn't surprise me based on all your other posts. ;)

 

 

 

I'm not avoiding anything, since I asked you a question first and you still haven't answered it.

 

 

 

I said give you the best you got. That's not an answer?

 

 

 

No, I've read most of them here and the majority of them not only make little sense but are also based in largely incorrect assumptions. Proofs, by themselves, aren't easy. For example, even though this is a little off-topic, the proof of 2 + 2 = 4 is fairly complex and involves calculus ---> http://au.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia.

 

 

 

Add in more axioms, and the harder and longer the proof becomes. Now, let's take religious axioms which could have hundreds of axioms. Proving them false would be mind-numbingly long and boring. It would take you, literally, months (Probably even years) just to disprove one religion, provided you made no mistakes.

 

 

 

So the word "proof" is more strict when it comes to refuting religion than it is when refuting hearsay? Say what?!

[Sly_Wizard]

If you quote someone their edits don't magically appear unless you go back and refresh. You were an [wagon] and made and assumption that I skipped your posts. I guess I shouldn't expect so much from you though. :)

 

 

 

Let's see... Considering my post was done before you posted, the logical conclusion would be that you skipped the things I wrote out. Hell, you didn't even attempt to quote my second response (Which would have been there if you had indeed started to quote me before I made the other three responses).

 

 

 

And lol @ name callings.

 

 

 

*brays*

 

 

 

Wouldn't surprise me based on all your other posts. ;)

 

 

 

Uh-huh.

 

 

 

I said give you the best you got. That's not an answer?

 

 

 

"Give me whatever you want" is not an adequate response to the question "What do you want?"

 

 

 

So the word "proof" is more strict when it comes to refuting religion than it is when refuting hearsay? Say what?!

 

 

 

*Sigh*

 

 

 

You know, I think you're purposely being obtuse. But, only 'cuz I'm getting slightly tired of arguing, "Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying".

 

 

 

Anywho, I'm going to play Runescape. You can deem this running away if you wish lol (As you will, anyway).

[Zierro]

Let's see... Considering my post was done before you posted, the logical conclusion would be that you skipped the things I wrote out. Hell, you didn't even attempt to quote my second response (Which would have been there if you had indeed started to quote me before I made the other three responses).

 

 

 

Why would I admit that there were two responses there when I only responded to one? Wouldn't it make things look better for me if I lied and said I only saw one?

 

 

 

Honestly, I can't believe you're arguing about something as stupid as this. Oh wait... I forgot who I'm talking to. :lol:

 

 

 

"Give me whatever you want" is not am adequate response to the question "What do you want?"

 

 

 

I didn't say that. I said give me the best you can possibly give me..

 

 

 

Anywho, I'm going to play Runescape. You can deem this running away if you wish lol (As you will, anyway).

 

 

 

I thought you said you quit cause Jagex was stupid about Summoning? :lol:

 

 

 

It's so funny how you run away right before it seems like you're about to answer "Is Jesus the son of God?"

 

 

 

Perfect timing.

[Quoi_Tu]

No, I've read most of them here and the majority of them not only make little sense but are also based in largely incorrect assumptions. Proofs, by themselves, aren't easy. For example, even though this is a little off-topic, the proof of 2 + 2 = 4 is fairly complex and involves calculus ---> http://au.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia.

 

 

 

Add in more axioms, and the harder and longer the proof becomes. Now, let's take religious axioms which could have hundreds of axioms. Proving them false would be mind-numbingly long and boring. It would take you, literally, months (Probably even years) just to disprove one religion, provided you made no mistakes.

 

 

 

Assuming religion is based on faith, what proof using reason could counter that which is outside the realm of reason? People have faith in God, but they have no evidence of God. They have no method of proving God's existence.

[Sly_Wizard]

*Is done with his slayer task*

 

 

 

Why would I admit that there were two responses there when I only responded to one? Wouldn't it make things look better for me if I lied and said I only saw one?

 

 

 

Ummm... I think you missed the point. Your entire argument is that you only saw two responses when you began replying. I said, even if that were true, then why did you ignore my second response which elaborated on my first response, which you proceeded to take out of context.

 

 

 

Honestly, I can't believe you're arguing about something as stupid as this. Oh wait... I forgot who I'm talking to. :lol:

 

 

 

...You're the one who started arguing it 'cuz you felt you were owed an apology?

 

 

 

I didn't say that. I said give me the best you can possibly give me.

 

 

 

Conceptually, that's no different. I asked you for something specific. At least Ginger was kind enough to comply. You're just content to be obtuse and not give me anything specific.

 

 

 

I thought you said you quit cause Jagex was stupid about Summoning? :lol:

 

 

 

That and the lack of PK'ing (BH was, and still is, lame). Jagex sorta' kinda' fixed both, so now I'm playing again.

 

 

 

It's so funny how you run away right before it seems like you're about to answer "Is Jesus the son of God?"

 

 

 

Perfect timing.

 

 

 

You're gonna' be hard pressed to find where I've ever "run away", especially since I'm usually the last person to respond (Except for those times when I'm just repeating myself over and over again and I don't feel like going on ad nauseum).

 

 

 

Anywho, I'm still-- Yes, STILL-- Waiting to see what kind of proof you want for Jesus being the Son of God. Really, this question isn't all that hard to answer. It involves saying, "I would like to see X, Y and Z". But, apparently, you're content to skirt around giving any specifics, instead trying to play a game of "Gimme' what you got and I'll tell you what I think of it", which is pointless for the reason stated, I think, on the last page.

 

 

 

Assuming religion is based on faith, what proof using reason could counter that which is outside the realm of reason? People have faith in God, but they have no evidence of God. They have no method of proving God's existence.

 

 

 

Good luck proving religion is outside of the realm of reason, since that's a complete falsehood.

[Zierro]

*Is done with his slayer task*

 

 

 

*Is done waiting*

 

 

 

Ummm... I think you missed the point. Your entire argument is that you only saw two responses when you began replying. I said, even if that were true, then why did you ignore my second response which elaborated on my first response, which you proceeded to take out of context.

 

 

 

I like the part how you skipped saying you were the one who made the mistake which was my point. Instead, you try to avoid it by bringing something else up.

 

 

 

...You're the one who started arguing it 'cuz you felt you were owed an apology?

 

 

 

I wasn't the one saying, "Good job skipping 4 out of 5 of my responses!"

 

 

 

Conceptually, that's no different. I asked you for something specific. At least Ginger was kind enough to comply. You're just content to be obtuse and not give me anything specific.

 

 

 

Yes it is. I'm asking you for the best proof you have available - the proof that makes you yourself believe that God is his father. Is it really that hard to understand?

 

 

 

You're gonna' be hard pressed to find where I've ever "run away", especially since I'm usually the last person to respond (Except for those times when I'm just repeating myself over and over again and I don't feel like going on ad nauseum).

 

 

 

*Points to Homosexuality thread whenever someone asks for *one* reason why homosexuality is wrong*

 

 

 

Anywho, I'm still-- Yes, STILL-- Waiting to see what kind of proof you want for Jesus being the Son of God. Really, this question isn't all that hard to answer. It involves saying, "I would like to see X, Y and Z". But, apparently, you're content to skirt around giving any specifics, instead trying to play a game of "Gimme' what you got and I'll tell you what I think of it", which is pointless for the reason stated, I think, on the last page.

 

 

 

I should be the one to ask specifically for what I already know doesn't exist? If you haven't noticed, the question is a trap because we both know there is no good reason to believe that he is the son of God other than blind faith. You're trying to use the fact that there is no good evidence against me! :lol:

 

 

 

Stop avoiding the question Sly.

 

 

 

Good luck proving religion is outside of the realm of reason, since that's a complete falsehood.

 

 

 

Flinging the burden of proof as usual. It's ironic how you demand everyone to prove their assertions, yet whenever asked to prove yours, you just find a way to evade it every time.

 

 

 

Good luck on proving that it is inside the realm of reasoning. :D

[Shinjula]

Just a quick interdiction to say that Maths stuff about the proof of 2+2=4 is absolute rubbish. I have here a quote from XKCD forums for the proof for 1+2 = 3, I'm not going to mess around and alter it for 2+2=4 but here it is.

 

 

 

The Peano axioms (our starting points which we take to be obviously true) are:

 

 

 

A) 1 is a number.

 

B) If n is a number, then s(n) is a number.

 

C) There is no number n such that s(n)=1.

 

D) If two numbers are different, then their successors are different.

 

E) If the number 1 has a property, and if whenever n has a property s(n) also has that property, then all numbers have that property.

 

 

 

The number s(1) is what we think of as the number 2. The number s(s(1)) is what we think of as the number 3, and so on. These axioms are enough to prove a lot of things (though not everything!) about the natural numbers. For example, let's define addition:

 

 

 

F) n+1 = s(n)

 

G) n+s(m) = s(n+m)

 

 

 

So in this formalism, it's a simple consequence that 1+1=2. We use rule F, which says that 1+1=s(1), and s(1) is the number that we identify with 2.

 

 

 

We could also prove that 1+2=3. Using rule G, we have 1+2=1+s(1)=s(1+1). But we know that 1+1=s(1), and thus 1+2=s(s(1)), which is the number that we identify with 3.

 

 

 

It really aint that difficult, and its perfectly formal, I dont know where that guy came up with the idea that it takes 25,933 steps to prove it, but thats [cabbage]

 

 

 

I dont know whether this affects your arguments, on either side, but please feel free to involve it with your discussions if you wish.

 

Please feel free to return to your various points.

[Zierro]

Good luck proving religion is outside of the realm of reason, since that's a complete falsehood.

 

 

 

I'd just like to add this:

 

 

 

-Talking snakes

 

-Zombies with magical healing powers

 

-Virgin mothers

 

-Zoo arks

 

-A few thousand-year-old universe

 

 

 

Now are you really gonna sit there and tell me that those aren't outside the realm of reason?

[The Dark Lord]

Good luck proving religion is outside of the realm of reason, since that's a complete falsehood.

 

 

 

I'd just like to add this:

 

 

 

-Talking snakes

 

-Zombies with magical healing powers

 

-Virgin mothers

 

-Zoo arks

 

-A few thousand-year-old universe

 

 

 

Now are you really gonna sit there and tell me that those aren't outside the realm of reason?

 

 

 

Nah, that's perfectly reasonable. Same with magical bananas.

[Sly_Wizard]

I like the part how you skipped saying you were the one who made the mistake which was my point. Instead, you try to avoid it by bringing something else up.

 

 

 

There was no mistake. I said that you skipped my other four responses. I'd like to see the mistake there.

 

 

 

(Funnily enough, to this point, you still haven't addressed the other four lol.)

 

 

 

I wasn't the one saying, "Good job skipping 4 out of 5 of my responses!"

 

 

 

Yes, I said that. Where did I said I didn't? I believe I said you were the one arguing because you felt as if you were owed an apology.

 

 

 

Yes it is. I'm asking you for the best proof you have available - the proof that makes you yourself believe that God is his father. Is it really that hard to understand?

 

 

 

...*Sigh*

 

 

 

You're still being obtuse. See, I asked Ginger the same question. He actually responded with something specific. You, on the other hand, still haven't given anything specific even though you've been asked... A countless number of times. Yet again, it's REALLY not this hard to answer a simple question, you know?

 

 

 

*Points to Homosexuality thread whenever someone asks for *one* reason why homosexuality is wrong*

 

 

 

*Points to the homosexuality thread in which he specifically stated it's wrong because the Bible says so, but also that he doesn't care about gay people being gay*

 

 

 

I should be the one to ask specifically for what I already know doesn't exist? If you haven't noticed, the question is a trap because we both know there is no good reason to believe that he is the son of God other than blind faith. You're trying to use the fact that there is no good evidence against me! :lol:

 

 

 

Incorrect. There is no evidence which you'll accept-- The evidence being the Gospels. To say it isn't "good" evidence is disingenuous, since the entire character of Jesus is derived from the New Testament. You can't ask someone to "prove" something regarding Jesus when I know and you know that you'll reject the source from which the evidence for Jesus mainly derives. But, see, I said this earlier and, true to form, you missed it.

 

 

 

Stop avoiding the question Sly.

 

 

 

There has to be a question for there to be question TO avoid.

 

 

 

Flinging the burden of proof as usual. It's ironic how you demand everyone to prove their assertions, yet whenever asked to prove yours, you just find a way to evade it every time.

 

 

 

Good luck on proving that it is inside the realm of reasoning. :D

 

 

 

...Okay. This convinces me that you really don't understand the things you type out. When you make the (Highly idiotic) claim that religion is outside of the range of reason, you have to prove it. But, don't worry, I won't ask you to since you won't be able to, as your understanding of what it meant by the words "reason" and "logic" is abominable.

 

 

 

Reason is the ability to engage in abstract thought. Logic is the tool which one uses to structure cohesive (Valid arguments). The following is both reasonable and logical:

 

 

 

Man is fallible.

 

The Bible is infallible.

 

Because the Bible is infallible while man is fallible, it must have been divinely inspired.

 

Since the Bible was divinely inspired, God exists.

 

 

 

Good luck proving why this is neither reasonable nor logical.

 

 

 

Just a quick interdiction to say that Maths stuff about the proof of 2+2=4 is absolute rubbish. I have here a quote from XKCD forums for the proof for 1+2 = 3, I'm not going to mess around and alter it for 2+2=4 but here it is.

 

 

 

Ummm... Not only is the above not a proof, it's important to realize that the proof of 2 + 2 = 4 is really 2+0i + 2+0i = 4+0i, which by virtue of involving complex numbers is more complicated than what you'd first expect it to be. Just so you know :P

[Shinjula]

The Bible is infallible.

 

Well this is a good one to refute, speaking as a mathematician. I'm not sure quite how to apply this, but Godel's Incompleteness theroem would probably be able to disprove this one.

 

The Incompleteness Theorem which is proved by logic along essentially states that no system can be both complete and consistent.

 

I would think this can be applied here, so i'll look into how to specifically apply it to "The Bible is infallible" statement. If nothing else, its a good mental exercise.

[The Dark Lord]

 

Man is fallible.

 

The Bible is infallible.

 

Because the Bible is infallible while man is fallible, it must have been divinely inspired.

 

Since the Bible was divinely inspired, God exists.

 

 

 

Good luck proving why this is neither reasonable nor logical.

 

 

 

 

 

Man is fallible.

 

The Bible is infallible.

 

Because the Bible is infallible while man is fallible, it must have been inspired by faeries.

 

Since the Bible was faery-inspired, Pink Unicorn exists.

 

Since Pink Unicorn exists, you must mutilate your genitals and scream "Bloody Murder!"

 

 

 

Good luck proving why this is neither reasonable nor logical.

[Shinjula]

Argument by Ridicule is no argument Serephus, but I really do think that Godels incompleteness theorem works here. Still working on it.