Searching for GOD...

[Dicky Underpants]

They are likely 'genuine' in so much as they are a statement of the beliefs of the author (likely Paul) - that doesn't mean that the claims they contain are in any way true and as Paul was not present when the purported events of Jesus' life took place then at best they are second hand assertions.

Should add that when Paul writes about events which are also referred to in Acts and the accounts differ, I'm inclined to believe Paul. What's to be made of his conversion experience will continue to be a matter of debate
One further thing - the events of Jesus' life that  Paul refers to can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. He's not really interested in anything Jesus said and did (and of course there's huge doubt over those matters anyway)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

They are likely 'genuine' in so much as they are a statement of the beliefs of the author (likely Paul) - that doesn't mean that the claims they contain are in any way true and as Paul was not present when the purported events of Jesus' life took place then at best they are second hand assertions.

Quite so – they’re “genuine” in that they’re taken from original accounts (albeit edited and translated along the way) as opposed to knocked up in someone’s spare bedroom as fakes, as with the “Hitler” diaries. That tells you nothing at all though about the veracity of the claims they make.   

Oddly some today just take the miracle claims at face value nonetheless. When Vlad isn’t putting out the fire in his pants for example he puts great faith in “witness” accounts (even though they weren’t actually written by witnesses at all) but then ignores the problems this gives him. How for example would you sort the (supposedly) true in your choice of faith from the (supposedly) not true in other peoples’ faiths? After all there are plenty of non-contemporaneous accounts of supposed miracles from other faiths, so when you set the evidence bar so low for the Christian epistles on what basis would you not accept those other accounts too?         

It gets worse – on what basis would you dismiss miracle claims from your own faith that happen not to take your fancy? The Bible apparently tells us that "God" appeared in person before witnesses no fewer than 34 times. Which of them were right about that – all of them? Some of them? None of them? Trouble is, there’s a Morton’s fork here. If you say “none of them”, why then accept different miracle accounts later in the same books? On the other hand, if you say “all of them” or “some of them” then you have an immaterial god who flits in and out of materiality when he feels like it, which is epistemically the same claim for leprechauns.

Hmmm..       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,
 When Vlad isn’t putting out the fire in his pants for example..............     

Any fire in my pants, Big Boy, is ignited by your daring virtuosity on the old turdpolisher.

[Roses]

It means that the provenance of the Epistles is, for the most part, understood and can be attributed. The Gospels are a different matter entirely.

Sorry I hadn't got what passes for a brain in gear! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And now ladies and gentlemen that doyen of non believing Minstrels everywhere Rumbling Sid Dawkins.

A ha Oi got a theist to make a claim hey falalalaldaldaree.
Oi got a theist to make a claim hey falalalaldaldaree.
 Oi got a theist to make a claim hey falalalaldaldaree.
Earlie in the mornin'

And now Ladies and Gentlemen.....The chorus

'e 'ad Dunning kruger
'e 'ad Dunning kruger
'e  'ad, e'ad e ad ead e ad Dunning Kruuuuuuuuugerrrrrr!

[torridon]

perhaps you ought to consider sitting down for a while with a nice cup of tea and a biscuit ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

And now ladies and gentlemen that doyen of non believing Minstrels everywhere Rumbling Sid Dawkins.

A ha Oi got a theist to make a claim hey falalalaldaldaree.
Oi got a theist to make a claim hey falalalaldaldaree.
 Oi got a theist to make a claim hey falalalaldaldaree.
Earlie in the mornin'

And now Ladies and Gentlemen.....The chorus

'e 'ad Dunning kruger
'e 'ad Dunning kruger
'e  'ad, e'ad e ad ead e ad Dunning Kruuuuuuuuugerrrrrr!

"NURSE! He'a fallen out of bed again!"

"Don't worry Mr Blue - he does that a lot, but always lands on his head. As it's never contained a cogent thought though, there's nothing to damage."
 

[Roses]

perhaps you ought to consider sitting down for a while with a nice cup of tea and a biscuit ?

An extra strong black coffee would be better.

[Sebastian Toe]

"NURSE! He'a fallen out of bed again!"

"Don't worry Mr Blue - he does that a lot, but always lands on his head. As it's never contained a cogent thought though, there's nothing to damage."

There's too much straw around for him to do any damage from a fall anyways!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"NURSE! He'a fallen out of bed again!"

"Don't worry Mr Blue - he does that a lot, but always lands on his head. As it's never contained a cogent thought though, there's nothing to damage."

Nurse! He's dressing up in your uniform and talking to himself again. (Although they're probably the least of his problems)

[Alan Burns]

And now ladies and gentlemen that doyen of non believing Minstrels everywhere Rumbling Sid Dawkins.

A ha Oi got a theist to make a claim hey falalalaldaldaree.
Oi got a theist to make a claim hey falalalaldaldaree.
 Oi got a theist to make a claim hey falalalaldaldaree.
Earlie in the mornin'

And now Ladies and Gentlemen.....The chorus

'e 'ad Dunning kruger
'e 'ad Dunning kruger
'e  'ad, e'ad e ad ead e ad Dunning Kruuuuuuuuugerrrrrr!

If ever you needed proof that human free will is a reality!

[Outrider]

If ever you needed proof that human free will is a reality!

You're citing Vlad's near-compulsive need to avoid properly engaging as evidence of free will?

O.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

If ever you needed proof that human free will is a reality!

How so?


How does it demonstrate that he could have posted differently given the same circumstances?

How can the fact that someone posted SOMETHING demonstrate that they could have posted differently given the same circumstances?

[Stranger]

If ever you needed proof that human free will is a reality!

More drivel. What is it about Vlad's post that proves that he could have done differently, let alone that any difference would not have been random?

You really don't have the first inkling of a clue about logic or reasoning, do you? Or if you do, you just switch them off completely when it comes to your superstitions.

[Enki]

If ever you needed proof that human free will is a reality!

It would be evidence, not proof, and in this case it isn't even evidence. What's wrong with you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If ever you needed proof that human free will is a reality!

Alan, let those of us who have it, enjoy it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're citing Vlad's near-compulsive need to avoid properly engaging as evidence of free will?

O.

You make that sound like a bad thing.
If I have no free will then it isn't my compulsive need is it.

[Sebastian Toe]

Alan, let those of us who have it, enjoy it!

Does that mean that you hold to Alan's conjecture that your free will is down to your soul making decisions?
......
A soul that does nor reside in this universe.
A soul that does not reside, currently in Heaven.
(Which I guess makes a kind of multiverse a reality?)
A soul that only experiences time when it visits this universe in order to do your thinking and then withdraws back to it's timeless realm when you are unconscious.
A soul whose method of thinking is .... it just does.
A non physical soul that whilst visiting this universe, reads our brain patterns in real time, makes decisions in real time and, wait for it, somehow, by a method yet to be determined, takes those decisions and interfaces with our physical body in order to implement said decisions.
......

...do you?

[Sebastian Toe]

You make that sound like a bad thing.
If I have no free will then it isn't my compulsive need is it.

Alan's version of free will?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does that mean that you hold to Alan's conjecture that your free will is down to your soul making decisions?
......
A soul that does nor reside in this universe.
A soul that does not reside, currently in Heaven.
(Which I guess makes a kind of multiverse a reality?)
A soul that only experiences time when it visits this universe in order to do your thinking and then withdraws back to it's timeless realm when you are unconscious.
A soul whose method of thinking is .... it just does.
A non physical soul that whilst visiting this universe, reads our brain patterns in real time, makes decisions in real time and, wait for it, somehow, by a method yet to be determined, takes those decisions and interfaces with our physical body in order to implement said decisions.
......

...do you?

I don't know, Seb. I believe there is a non material aspect to the universe and that a property which emerges from the material, might be material but with non material aspects.

I tend to think there is something in the biblical division into body, mind, and spirit.

[Alan Burns]

More drivel. What is it about Vlad's post that proves that he could have done differently, let alone that any difference would not have been random?

You really don't have the first inkling of a clue about logic or reasoning, do you? Or if you do, you just switch them off completely when it comes to your superstitions.

The question you constantly fail to deal with is the ultimate cause.
Was Vlad the ultimate cause, or was it just the inevitable "cause and effect" forces of nature just passing through the blob of reconstituted star debris you call Vlad?

[torridon]

The question you constantly fail to deal with is the ultimate cause.
Was Vlad the ultimate cause, or was it just the inevitable "cause and effect" forces of nature just passing through the blob of reconstituted star debris you call Vlad?

and this despite you denying to have claimed that we are free from cause and effect.  Here you are, only three days ago in reply 40965

"Please !
I have never claimed that our thoughts are free from cause and effect".

You seem to have a very short memory.

Anyway, if Vlad is free from cause and effect and instead is his own cause, that would mean his thoughts and choices are random.

Oh, hang on, maybe you've got a point.

[Stranger]

The question you constantly fail to deal with is the ultimate cause.
Was Vlad the ultimate cause, or was it just the inevitable "cause and effect" forces of nature just passing through the blob of reconstituted star debris you call Vlad?

You totally ignored my question in favour of a rather silly false dilemma that has been addressed countless times already. All rather proving my point that either you don't have the first inkling of a clue about logic or reasoning or you just switch them off when the subject comes close to your precious superstitions.

[Alan Burns]

and this despite you denying to have claimed that we are free from cause and effect.  Here you are, only three days ago in reply 40965

"Please !
I have never claimed that our thoughts are free from cause and effect".

You seem to have a very short memory.

Anyway, if Vlad is free from cause and effect and instead is his own cause, that would mean his thoughts and choices are random.

Oh, hang on, maybe you've got a point.

It is quite simple.
We are not free from cause and effect because WE are the cause.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is quite simple.

Oh good. What's this quite simple logical argument you claimed to have but have never been able to produce then?

We are not free from cause and effect because WE are the cause.

Oh, so no argument at all then – just an assertion that would necessarily be chaotic if it was true.

Funny that.