Do you believe in God?

[Skuh]

I too have heard of this teapot.

 

[Skuh]

These are outside religious sources. They make no mention of his divinity. Jesus' crucifixion being ordered by Pontius Pilate appears in Josephus' works, Tacitus' (of which virtually modern historians see as genuine), there are also letters by Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan informing him of Pilate's order to have Jesus executed (Pilate himself has sources in Philo of Alexandria, and also the Pilate Stone). Tacitus also showed no sympathy towards Christians. Mara-Bar Serapion wrote in a letter to his son about the murder of the Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras and the execution of "the wise king" of the Jews. There are no Christian themes in the letters and many scholars see little doubt that "The king of the Jews" is a reference to Jesus.

There are also various other sources which talk about the treatment of Jews and Christians during the 1st century, like Suetonius, who, again thouht little of Christians, he calls there leader Cherstus, and again most historians believe this to be Christ.

Pliny the younger was born after Jesus supposed death - Dismissed
Tacitus born after Jesus supposed death - Dismissed
Mara-Bar - Born after Jesus supposed death - Dismissed

Well that was easy. Any others that you care to throw out that are irrelevant too?

From the time of Jesus, if he really did perform miracles and such and was crucified, then proper historical references would have occured, Where are they? What you have provided is people writing down stories they were told by their parents/peers about something that never happened before they were born.

Not to mention the people you have cited here, we know what they look like. What did Jesus look like?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No you haven't proven anything, you've made a claim and declared it to be right without a single source to corroborate it.

No you haven't proven anything, you've made a claim and declared it to be right without a single source to corroborate it.

No you haven't proven anything, you've made a claim and declared it to be right without a single source to corroborate it.

So now, Historical facts are not evidential proof?

Odd then that every text on probability discusses zero probability as a value and its function, as such your not using standard definitions at all.

Sure I am.
I'm just applying them in reality.

Let me ask you this:
How can numerically positive odds (probability) exist for unknown existence or events, if the probability of them is zero?

Oh and at least one clearly discusses its misuse to try and prove the supernatural, creationism in this case but I think a valid argument could be made that you are going to try and use a version of it to prove god exists (rather ironic that you are now attacking Creationists and neither of you are even right).

We haven't gotten that far, yet.
No misuse, just reality.

Oh and still none of this makes probability a standard of evidence and you have still failed to provide a source that states it can be used as one.

I don't know why you keep harping on this.
I never claimed that, you did.

Are you familiar with thermodynamics at all?

We are discussing probability and possibility of existence, known and unknown events, not the "laws of thermodynamics".
As a matter of fact, yes I am. I work with it everyday, in reality, not theory.

At this point, it has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever, unless you want to consider Scaff's seat getting hotter, relevant.

 

[PeterJB]

You misunderstood that. I was diverting from the topic, I wasn't accusing you of doing so.

Nonetheless, you could list 50 million Roman sources, and it still won't satisfy "all the Jewish, Roman, and Greek (non-religious) sources" you claimed to have at hand.

Embarrassment?! Really? So that's the criterion now? By that logic, you must also acknowledge the existence of Ra, Zeus, Osiris, and Pan. After-all, "why would people of the time invent a story that would be embarrassing to them and weaken their argument against opponents?"

Yeah but the difference is that those Gods were worshipped by virtually everybody in their respective societies. They had hardly any challengers, so speaking of them would not be embarrassing to the adherent. Whereas Jesus lived in Judea, which was then a part of the Roman Empire. During his lifetime his followers saw him as a revolutionary thinker (And as the Messiah), whereas the Jews saw him as a fraud and an imposter, and the authorities in charge at the time, i.e. the Romans, saw him as a nuisance and a nutter. The polytheistic religions of Egypt, Greece and the Roman Empire all but vanished after the rise of Christianity in Europe.

It was embarrassing and dangerous to preach about Jesus in the early years of Christian history. It's obvious from the writings of Roman historians of the time that they hated Christians and their message. The missionaries were persecuted for their preaching, they refused to renounce their beliefs, and were killed for it, why would they allow themselves to be killed if they made it all up? If Jesus never existed, it's hard to see how his memory would have carried on so far to the point where he has become arguably the most famous person in history.

So the Siloam pool has become your physical evidence now? Unless Jesus left his name carved there, and it can be proven to be his, you're merely falling upon another biblical source and dressing it up as physical evidence. Jupiter exists too, and so that is my evidence that there is a teapot orbiting the planet. My claim is equally absurd as yours. Moreover, other people have written (even during the teapot's lifetime, mind you) that the teapot exists, and so it does.

So because a piece of text appears in Bible it is now meaningless? the Gospels were written a good 300 years before the Bible was actually finalized, these events were written down because they were so remarkable and unusual. It's silly to say that all scribes of the Bible (Who all lived at different times and in in different places) were in on some plan to make up a whole bunch of stories to be put together in a book several hundred years in the future.

Is it written anywhere that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter? Both from people who support and condemn said teapot? Do the majority of professional astronomers agree that this teapots exists? No, they don't. There's a difference between simply stating there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter and discovering varying accounts of this teapot, people who died for this teapot, and everyone at NASA agreeing that said teapot exists. Do you really think the first option would be enough to keep the teapot going idea for hundreds of years?

Pliny the younger was born after Jesus supposed death - Dismissed
Tacitus born after Jesus supposed death - Dismissed
Mara-Bar - Born after Jesus supposed death - Dismissed

Well that was easy. Any others that you care to throw out that are irrelevant too?

From the time of Jesus, if he really did perform miracles and such and was crucified, then proper historical references would have occured, Where are they? What you have provided is people writing down stories they were told by their parents/peers about something that never happened before they were born.

Not to mention the people you have cited here, we know what they look like. What did Jesus look like?

I never said anything about miracles. At this point I'm arguing about the existence of Jesus the man, not Jesus the Messiah. He has a hell of a lot more references than somebody like Socrates for example, who only has two sources to his existence, Plato and Xenophon, both of whom were admirers of his, in the same position as the disciples, and there are few philosophers that doubt his existence.

 

[Exorcet]

Let me ask you this:
How can numerically positive odds (probability) exist for unknown existence or events, if the probability of them is zero?

They can't. If probability is zero, it's not positive. When probability is zero, the event is impossible.

We are discussing probability and possibility of existence, known and unknown events, not the "laws of thermodynamics".

Then what I asked applies to the discussion as thermodynamics clearly lays out a few zero probability events. When will you see Temperature not strive to reach equilibrium? Or energy spontaneously increase in a system? Never. The probability of both of those things is zero. They very clearly contradict that idea that anything is possible.

As a matter of fact, yes I am. I work with it everyday, in reality, not theory.

Then you must agree and retract your erroneous statement.

If Jesus never existed, it's hard to see how his memory would have carried on so far to the point where he has become arguably the most famous person in history.

Then what about all other myths. Hercules was pretty popular in Greece, as were all there gods who even lived in a local area (Olympus).

Is it written anywhere that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter? Both from people who support and condemn said teapot? Do the majority of professional astronomers agree that this teapots exists? No, they don't. There's a difference between simply stating there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter and discovering varying accounts of this teapot, people who died for this teapot, and everyone at NASA agreeing that said teapot exists. Do you really think the first option would be enough to keep the teapot going idea for hundreds of years?

Going back to other religions, if they're not true, which I assume is what most Christians think, then they must have started off not being written down or actually influenced by the events that they claim led to the creation of the world. They persisted for very long periods of time despite being non sense. It's just the nature of ancient people's ability to convince themselves of things that have no evidence supporting them. Basically, the lack of the scientific method.

 

[Skuh]

Yeah but the difference is that those Gods were worshipped by virtually everybody in their respective societies. They had hardly any challengers, so speaking of them would not be embarrassing to the adherent. Whereas Jesus lived in Judea, which was then a part of the Roman Empire. During his lifetime his followers saw him as a revolutionary thinker (And as the Messiah), whereas the Jews saw him as a fraud and an imposter, and the authorities in charge at the time, i.e. the Romans, saw him as a nuisance and a nutter. The polytheistic religions of Egypt, Greece and the Roman Empire all but vanished after the rise of Christianity in Europe.

It was embarrassing and dangerous to preach about Jesus in the early years of Christian history. It's obvious from the writings of Roman historians of the time that they hated Christians and their message. The missionaries were persecuted for their preaching, they refused to renounce their beliefs, and were killed for it, why would they allow themselves to be killed if they made it all up? If Jesus never existed, it's hard to see how his memory would have carried on so far to the point where he has become arguably the most famous person in history.



So because a piece of text appears in Bible it is now meaningless? the Gospels were written a good 300 years before the Bible was actually finalized, these events were written down because they were so remarkable and unusual. It's silly to say that all scribes of the Bible (Who all lived at different times and in in different places) were in on some plan to make up a whole bunch of stories to be put together in a book several hundred years in the future.

Is it written anywhere that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter? Both from people who support and condemn said teapot? Do the majority of professional astronomers agree that this teapots exists? No, they don't. There's a difference between simply stating there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter and discovering varying accounts of this teapot, people who died for this teapot, and everyone at NASA agreeing that said teapot exists. Do you really think the first option would be enough to keep the teapot going idea for hundreds of years?



I never said anything about miracles. At this point I'm arguing about the existence of Jesus the man, not Jesus the Messiah. He has a hell of a lot more references than somebody like Socrates for example, who only has two sources to his existence, Plato and Xenophon, both of whom were admirers of his, in the same position as the disciples, and there are few philosophers that doubt his existence.

So your saying Jesus existed but was an ordinary man and not the messiah. If not what you are saying here is irrelevant. What you said was you had provided the names of people who wrote about Jesus from his time. What I have proved, is you haven't.
miracles. now you are trying to deflect.

Not being able to prove Socrates existed, does not prove the existence of Jesus.
This is a false argument.

 

[PeterJB]

So your saying Jesus existed but was an ordinary man and not the messiah. If not what you are saying here is irrelevant. What you said was you had provided the names of people who wrote about Jesus from his time. What I have proved, is you haven't.
miracles. now you are trying to deflect.

Not being able to prove Socrates existed, does not prove the existence of Jesus.
This is a false argument.

By attempting to prove his existence as a person, that does not mean I am therefore disproving his divinity at the same time, I am simply not arguing either way for it. They may not have co-existed with him, but they weren't far off, Josephus would have at least co-existed with people who co-existed with Jesus.

You obviously haven't read what I wrote with any detail. I said I that I wasn't talking about miracles, but saying that it doesn't mean I'm therefore going to start discussing miracles. I used Socrates as an example of a figure of the ancient world who existence is generally accepted, even though he had fewer sources than Jesus.

Anyway, this is off-topic, seeing as how this thread is dedicated to the discussion of the existence of God, not Jesus. I'm done.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

They can't. If probability is zero, it's not positive. When probability is zero, the event is impossible.

Exactly.
So, in reality, since positive odds(probability) most certainly do exist for unknowns, their probability cannot be considered zero.

Then what I asked applies to the discussion as thermodynamics clearly lays out a few zero probability events. When will you see Temperature not strive to reach equilibrium? Or energy spontaneously increase in a system? Never. The probability of both of those things is zero. They very clearly contradict that idea that anything is possible.


Then you must agree and retract your erroneous statement.

Not necessarily.
Never, so far.
In the future results, are still a unknown.
Based on past consistency, you are right in that it is considered zero.
However, technically, while applying zero probability here is a safe bet, it is nonetheless assumptive.
As I said in my reply to you, my "anything is possible" statement was made as applicable to the focus of discussion at hand.

 

[Exorcet]

Exactly.
So, in reality, since positive odds(probability) most certainly do exist for unknowns, their probability cannot be considered zero.

No it is zero, and nothing more. The probability of unrelated events does not matter in the slightest. In reality, the probability of a zero probability event is zero.

Not necessarily.
Never, so far.
In the future results, are still a unknown.

And the probability is still zero, because breaking those laws are not permitted by physics.

As I said in my reply to you, my "anything is possible" statement was made as applicable to the focus of discussion at hand.

Then how about my bet regarding Zeus? Zero or non zero probability?

 

[Skuh]

By attempting to prove his existence as a person, that does not mean I am therefore disproving his divinity at the same time, I am simply not arguing either way for it. They may not have co-existed with him, but they weren't far off, Josephus would have at least co-existed with people who co-existed with Jesus.

You obviously haven't read what I wrote with any detail. I said I that I wasn't talking about miracles, but saying that it doesn't mean I'm therefore going to start discussing miracles. I used Socrates as an example of a figure of the ancient world who existence is generally accepted, even though he had fewer sources than Jesus.

Anyway, this is off-topic, seeing as how this thread is dedicated to the discussion of the existence of God, not Jesus. I'm done.

Then you shouldn't have started going on about Jesus, and trying to prove his existance. I never said you did say anything about miracles. You obviously haven't read what I wrote. I said that if he existed performing miracles the way he is said to have done. There would have been people from his time writing about it. You also said that people from his time wrote about him and I have proved that to be an untruth.

I especially like how you don't like deviating from god to jesus and then bring up socrates. lol, very funny.

Glad your're done.

 

[Skuh]

Exactly.
So, in reality, since positive odds(probability) most certainly do exist for unknowns, their probability cannot be considered zero.

Waffle and twaddle. Twaffle if you will.


You may as weel have type wugerhumtumwoof.

 

[Bobalob]

Is it me or have all these Christian arguments been blown away?

Why do you make outrageous claims of proof only to take 20 pages and many deviations to wriggle out of it?

I can imagine these tactics work very well when discussing this in real life and im glad they've been brought here to be disected by this collective

 

[Teflonicus]

Yeah but the difference is that those Gods were worshipped by virtually everybody in their respective societies. They had hardly any challengers, so speaking of them would not be embarrassing to the adherent. Whereas Jesus lived in Judea, which was then a part of the Roman Empire. During his lifetime his followers saw him as a revolutionary thinker (And as the Messiah), whereas the Jews saw him as a fraud and an imposter, and the authorities in charge at the time, i.e. the Romans, saw him as a nuisance and a nutter. The polytheistic religions of Egypt, Greece and the Roman Empire all but vanished after the rise of Christianity in Europe.

It was embarrassing and dangerous to preach about Jesus in the early years of Christian history. It's obvious from the writings of Roman historians of the time that they hated Christians and their message. The missionaries were persecuted for their preaching, they refused to renounce their beliefs, and were killed for it, why would they allow themselves to be killed if they made it all up? If Jesus never existed, it's hard to see how his memory would have carried on so far to the point where he has become arguably the most famous person in history.



So because a piece of text appears in Bible it is now meaningless? the Gospels were written a good 300 years before the Bible was actually finalized, these events were written down because they were so remarkable and unusual. It's silly to say that all scribes of the Bible (Who all lived at different times and in in different places) were in on some plan to make up a whole bunch of stories to be put together in a book several hundred years in the future.

Is it written anywhere that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter? Both from people who support and condemn said teapot? Do the majority of professional astronomers agree that this teapots exists? No, they don't. There's a difference between simply stating there's a teapot orbiting Jupiter and discovering varying accounts of this teapot, people who died for this teapot, and everyone at NASA agreeing that said teapot exists. Do you really think the first option would be enough to keep the teapot going idea for hundreds of years?

The crux of the issue is that you made out as though Jesus Christ's existence was an proven fact. You said, "aside from all the Jewish, Roman, and Greek (non-religious) sources". Now that I've challenged you on that, you can't provide those sources.

Therefore, the conclusion, which you can't avoid, is that you claimed much more than you could actually prove. And now you fall back upon "the vast majority" and various religious sources. But you said you didn't need those. You claimed it was a well-established fact.

Naturally, when you can't backup you prior claims, you move on to new ones: "a vast majority this," "Josephus said that". The problem there is that the "vast majority" you claim for your side are working with exactly the same sources that you have provided. None of them can call upon a contemporary source, and therefore, all you are doing, is attempting to buttress your initial argument with an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority may impress others, but I haven't asked you to provide an authority. I've asked you to provide the sources that you claimed to have.

Josephus, as a you point out, was supposed to be an opponent. He was supposed to be a critical, objective observer. More than that, he was Jewish. Interestingly, the "vast majority" you point to also believe that Josephus' writings in relation to Jesus were adulterated by Christians after the fact. The issue in relation to Josephus' writings on Jesus is how much was inserted by Christians and how much was actually his own. Above and beyond all this, the works of Josephus, completed 20 years earlier, record no mention of Jesus Christ at all.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No it is zero, and nothing more. The probability of unrelated events does not matter in the slightest. In reality, the probability of a zero probability event is zero.

In reality, there is no such thing, as a zero probability event, especially in science.
Science is a process of discovery.
The historical record clearly shows that.
It changes constantly, affecting the known and the unkown.

And the probability is still zero, because breaking those laws are not permitted by physics.?

You don't get it.
Based on results, so far, to date, to this point, at this juncture, its not permitted.
A discovery can come tommorrow, next week, next year, whenever, to show an exception.

Then how about my bet regarding Zeus? Zero or non zero probability?

Probability can be safely considered zero, given the extremely mi·nute positive fraction of probability.
However, as remote a possibility, or statistical improbability it would be considered,
technically, it is still a possibility, and you could lose betting it won't happen, but I doubt it.

BTW, just in case you have any idea of applying that example, to the existence of God,
you better make sure, you check all the available probability statistics on it first.

Is it me or have all these Christian arguments been blown away?

In reality, it's just you.

 

[Villain]

Pliny the younger was born after Jesus supposed death - Dismissed
Tacitus born after Jesus supposed death - Dismissed
Mara-Bar - Born after Jesus supposed death - Dismissed

You can dismiss and discredit the sources to your liking all you want. I won't try to prove anything (I don't believe in God anyways, so it's not important to me), but you can allow a man named Jesus to live and be crucified without beleiving any other stories about him being the son of God, etc.

 

[Skuh]

You can dismiss and discredit the sources to your liking all you want. I won't try to prove anything (I don't believe in God anyways, so it's not important to me), but you can allow a man named Jesus to live and be crucified without beleiving any other stories about him being the son of God, etc.

A - If he isn't the 'son of god' its a different Jesus and therefroe we aren't talking about him.

B - If it is the same Jesus, there is no son of god etc and this was an ordinary man, then either there is prrof of this man existing or there isn't. If there is where is it?

All I have done is illustrate that no one matching this "Jesus" ever existed. Other people have tried to prove his existence.

I have shown them to propagating untruths.

If you have any evidence to the contrary.....put up.



or............................

 

[homeforsummer]

A - If he isn't the 'son of god' its a different Jesus and therefroe we aren't talking about him.

B - If it is the same Jesus, there is no son of god etc and this was an ordinary man, then either there is prrof of this man existing or there isn't. If there is where is it?

All I have done is illustrate that no one matching this "Jesus" ever existed. Other people have tried to prove his existence.

I have shown them to propagating untruths.

You're taking a fairly hard-line stance on this particular argument, and at times it seems to be for little more reason than baiting Christians into arguments.

Even many who don't believe in God (myself included) are happy to accept that a man named Jesus of Nazareth once existed, that he was a Jewish prophet, and that he was crucified by the Romans. There are many, many gospels - beyond the four cherry-picked gospels we're most familiar with today - that corroborate his existence, so I'm not sure why that particular aspect is hard to believe.

It's generally just the exaggerated mumbo-jumbo about miracles that can't be proven, and coincidentally the four canonical gospels are the ones that most make Jesus look divine - as those best reflect the "Son of God" thing.

If you're trying to make a case that "Jesus, Son of God" didn't exist, then you're probably right as there's no solid evidence that he was divine - but that doesn't mean "Jesus, the bloke" didn't exist - when several texts all written in the first century AD seem to imply that he was there.

 

[Scaff]

So now, Historical facts are not evidential proof?

What historical facts?

Let me ask you this:
How can numerically positive odds (probability) exist for unknown existence or events, if the probability of them is zero?

Could you please post something that makes sense

I don't know why you keep harping on this.
I never claimed that, you did.

You best be able to quote me doing so then.

We are discussing probability and possibility of existence, known and unknown events, not the "laws of thermodynamics".
As a matter of fact, yes I am. I work with it everyday, in reality, not theory.

At this point, it has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever, unless you want to consider Scaff's seat getting hotter, relevant.

Once again Probability and Possibility are different things so do try and be clear which one your talking about and stop using them interchangeably.

Oh and my seats fine thanks and the laws of thermodynamics are a valid example, the conservation of energy being one.

In reality, there is no such thing, as a zero probability event, especially in science.
Science is a process of discovery.
The historical record clearly shows that.
It changes constantly, affecting the known and the unkown.

Zero probability events most certainly exist (tell us what the probability of destroying energy is), however it is perfectly possible for the elements of a probability calculation to change and therefore change the calculations outcome. Which goes back to the root of this (and your major misunderstanding of it) a probability is not evidence in itself but a product of evidence. Should the evidence change then the probability changes, which may make an event more or less probable or even raise a zero probability event above zero.

You don't get it.
Based on results, so far, to date, to this point, at this juncture, its not permitted.
A discovery can come tommorrow, next week, next year, whenever, to show an exception.

Which will have changed the elements within the probability not the calculation itself.

So glad you finally acknowledge that the elements with a probability calculation would have to change before it changes. Which quite clearly shows that new evidence has to be entered into the probability for it to change, which also invalidates probability as an evidentiary tool (as I have now been saying for days).

In short you can't use probability as a source of evidence, its simply a tool for determining how probable an event is based upon the (existing) evidence that is placed into it, making it useless for proving the existence of god.

Probability can be safely considered zero, given the extremely mi·nute positive fraction of probability.
However, as remote a possibility, or statistical improbability it would be considered,
technically, it is still a possibility, and you could lose betting it won't happen, but I doubt it.

BTW, just in case you have any idea of applying that example, to the existence of God,
you better make sure, you check all the available probability statistics on it first.

You know I had a feeling last night you were heading down this route and what happens the very next day when I wake up; your cited Borel's Law.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Borel's_Law
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

Not an actual law of any sort, but one made up by creationists to try and refute the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis, etc.

The "law" in question does not exist as a mathematical theorem, nor is there a universally decided upon "minimum probability" among the physical sciences community. Rather, Borel's Law originated in a discussion in a book written by Emil Borel for non-scientists. Borel shows examples of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It is important to stress that each of these estimates are created for specific physical problems, not as a universal law.

All of which brings this back to the origin of this which was you asking if any of use had insurance, a question you posed to then claim we used it as a form of evidence:

While in this thread, I'm always perplexed by the attitude of the Agnostic, Atheist, etc.

If any of you fellows have any type of insurance, I wish you would explain to me why you have it.

While your explanation sounds logical, there is absolutely no evidence, it will happen to you.
Yet, in light of "no evidence", you still act to protect yourself.

This is the same stringent standard of evidence that many of you apply in your stance, that there is no evidence that God exsists.
But in that case, you zealously resist any inclination to act upon it.

You have utterly failed to prove that any of us use probability as a form of evidence (a claim you attributed falsely to us) despite many attempts to do so, rather we have consistently and independently stated why its not a form of evidence. Now unless you can provide proof that any of us use probability as evidence (and that we have insurance does not do that) then I would ask that you stop spamming the thread up with this diversionary noise and provide the clear proof of God you claim you have.

 

[Villain]

B - If it is the same Jesus, there is no son of god etc and this was an ordinary man, then either there is prrof of this man existing or there isn't.

All I'm saying is that this could very well be the case, shady evidence notwithstanding.

If there is where is it?

I already told you I don't care to prove it, and I don't really care if it's true or not. That's not the point I'm trying to make.



---------

For the third time (try not to get confused again): Despite the fact you don't trust or want to trust the sources, there could very have been a man who lived the life of Jesus that is told in the Bible.

That is a realistic possibility.

That being said, if in fact this man did live, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, etc. it doesn't mean, prove, or imply that he actually performed miracles, was zombified on Easter, or saved the world from sin and will come again.

 

[Scaff]

All I'm saying is that this could very well be the case, shady evidence notwithstanding.



I already told you I don't care to prove it, and I don't really care if it's true or not. That's not the point I'm trying to make.



---------

For the third time (try not to get confused again): Despite the fact you don't trust or want to trust the sources, there could very have been a man who lived the life of Jesus that is told in the Bible.

That is a realistic possibility.

That being said, if in fact this man did live, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, etc. it doesn't mean, prove, or imply that he actually performed miracles, was zombified on Easter, or saved the world from sin and will come again.

In exactly the same way David Koresh existed but wasn't the son of god (despite his claims to the contrary).

Not that he has been alone either...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

What is the evidence there is just one god?

 

[useauget]

i believe but my spelling for god is( nature),think about this man made god:idea:

 

[Skuh]

All I'm saying is that this could very well be the case, shady evidence notwithstanding.



I already told you I don't care to prove it, and I don't really care if it's true or not. That's not the point I'm trying to make.



---------

For the third time (try not to get confused again): Despite the fact you don't trust or want to trust the sources, there could very have been a man who lived the life of Jesus that is told in the Bible.

That is a realistic possibility.

That being said, if in fact this man did live, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, etc. it doesn't mean, prove, or imply that he actually performed miracles, was zombified on Easter, or saved the world from sin and will come again.

and therefore irrelevant

and i am afraid it is you who has missed the point.

It isn't that I don't trust the sources
It isn't that I don't want to trust the sources he provided (the way you phrase this though I find interesting. It suggests you do believe the sources).

No, the point is no sources were provided.

I put it in bold so you couldn't miss it this time.

I said no sources from the time of jesus supposed lifetime existed that mentioned him and the things he is supposed to have done, and no sources were provided to counter that.

 

[useauget]

look up one of the earliest gods (horus) intersting history there.more evidence that man made god.

 

[Villain]

No, the point is no sources were provided.

He listed quite a few, they just didn't meet your standards.

In exactly the same way David Koresh existed but wasn't the son of god (despite his claims to the contrary).

Not that he has been alone either...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus

Precisely.

 

[Skuh]

He listed quite a few, they just didn't meet your standards.



Precisely.

No I asked for sources from the time, he listed none.

This is not a case of it doesn't meet my standards, it doesn't meet the criteria at all.

this is pretty basic stuff. Whats throwing you off?

 

[Exorcet]

In reality, there is no such thing, as a zero probability event, especially in science.

Science is especially full of 0% chance events. I named a couple already.

Science is a process of discovery.
The historical record clearly shows that.
It changes constantly, affecting the known and the unkown.

And only what's known has any influence on probability anyway.

You don't get it.
Based on results, so far, to date, to this point, at this juncture, its not permitted.
A discovery can come tommorrow, next week, next year, whenever, to show an exception.

Which means the probability is 0%. What happens tomorrow, next week, or next year does not matter. Probability is about the unknown. That is included by default. There are some things that are just logically 0% probable however. A couple of examples were given in this thread. Someone asked what the chances of someone picking a large number were when that someone only picked a number between 1 and 10. Then there is the probability that this discussion is not taking place. Clearly, the only answer for both of those is zero.

Probability can be safely considered zero, given the extremely mi·nute positive fraction of probability.
However, as remote a possibility, or statistical improbability it would be considered,
technically, it is still a possibility, and you could lose betting it won't happen, but I doubt it.

"Possibility" and probability don't mix. And there is no such thing as a "statistical improbability" in probability. There are only probabilities, and they range in probability from 0 to 1.

But anyway, if the probability is no zero, that means the Bible/God is not correct nor an absolute authority. It's pretty clears that Christianity thinks there is only one God, meaning all other Gods have a 0% chance of existence in Christianity.

BTW, just in case you have any idea of applying that example, to the existence of God,
you better make sure, you check all the available probability statistics on it first.

Yes, it comes to 0.

 

[Villain]

Whats throwing you off?

Uh.... nothing? Like I said, whether or not Jesus lived isn't important to me. He could live, sing, dance, be a carpenter, and be married to Mary Magdalene while cheating with her sister. Doesn't make a difference to me. I don't believe in God anyways.

It does, however, seem very important and a nit-picky subject to you.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

In short you can't use probability as a source of evidence, its simply a tool for determining how probable an event is based upon the (existing) evidence that is placed into it, making it useless for proving the existence of god.

This 1,000,000x over.

SCJ, how can you still be arguing this? I'll even repeat what Scaff just said for you. Probabilities are calculated based on existing evidence. You have seemed to acknowledge that at least. But as it stands, there is no evidence for your god, meaning he has a 0% probability of existing, and until evidence is presented it will remain as such.

This whole probability thing has been discussed to death, so can we please finally move on to where you show us your evidence of God now?.

 

[Skuh]

Uh.... nothing? Like I said, whether or not Jesus lived isn't important to me. He could live, sing, dance, be a carpenter, and be married to Mary Magdalene while cheating with her sister. Doesn't make a difference to me. I don't believe in God anyways.

It does, however, seem very important and a nit-picky subject to you.

If it isn't important to you why do you keep saying that something that happened after somebody died, is from their lifetime. The fact that they were born after Jesus supposed death means they CANNOT be from his lifetime. This is not debatable. This is Mathematics. Not religion. Whether you believe or not is irrelevant. Only the facts are relevant.

Your posts and utter denial in the face of absolute facts actually suggests this is important to you and that is why you keep responding despite being clearly wrong.

Just so you can get this straight. The earliest of the people quoted was born around 60 CE. Jesus ha d long since gone.

Is it the words or the really basic maths that are confusing you.