Low Probability that god raised someone from the dead

[Shaker]

I've often wondered about the irrational beliefs, ippy.  Of course, I have a very different, probably broader understanding of the term than you will have.

How wonderful you are. I can't believe that your bathroom mirror doesn't have love-bites on it.

[ippy]

Love this forum it's so fascinating, intriguing and almost unbelievable, the amount of people that still go for these  irrational beliefs; J P's post 195 sums it up in a nutshell, emphasis on the nut.

I've often wondered about the irrational beliefs, ippy.  Of course, I have a very different, probably broader understanding of the term than you will have.

Shure you will Hope.

ippy

[ippy]

I've often wondered about the irrational beliefs, ippy.  Of course, I have a very different, probably broader understanding of the term than you will have.

How wonderful you are. I can't believe that your bathroom mirror doesn't have love-bites on it.

Perhaps his given name is Noel, I suspect it is.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Precisely, nothing to do with any deity or 'saving' humanity!

The form of execution may have been human, but - within a context whereby animal sacrifice was the norm - the idea of some form of sacrifice on a once for all basis makes sense.  That it was God who chose to be that sacrifice makes even more sense when one remembers that he had made humanity to be in relationship with him, but that that relationship had been damaged, makes even more sense.

As a parent, I am sure that you understand the idea that - when the relationship between parent and child is damaged - 'sacrifice' has to be made on both sides in order for it to be re-established.

What sane person/entity would sacrifice their own child? If a sacrifice was needed the parent would/should sacrifice themselves! The deity supposedly created human nature so if it went pear shaped it only had itself to blame!

Since the father is in the son and the son in the father I would guess that it is both self sacrifice and saying goodbye to one's child as he voluntarily goes to sacrifice himself for the greater good.

There is NO verifiable evidence to support Jesus being anything but mere human like the rest of us, certainly not a deity.

Sorry I thought for a moment you had entered into a theological debate there but, obviously the going got a bit tough.
You are prepared to talk about points that you think you might score a point of then go to your default when you find you can't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Precisely, nothing to do with any deity or 'saving' humanity!

The form of execution may have been human, but - within a context whereby animal sacrifice was the norm - the idea of some form of sacrifice on a once for all basis makes sense.  That it was God who chose to be that sacrifice makes even more sense when one remembers that he had made humanity to be in relationship with him, but that that relationship had been damaged, makes even more sense.

As a parent, I am sure that you understand the idea that - when the relationship between parent and child is damaged - 'sacrifice' has to be made on both sides in order for it to be re-established.

What sane person/entity would sacrifice their own child? If a sacrifice was needed the parent would/should sacrifice themselves! The deity supposedly created human nature so if it went pear shaped it only had itself to blame!

Since the father is in the son and the son in the father I would guess that it is both self sacrifice and saying goodbye to one's child as he voluntarily goes to sacrifice himself for the greater good.

There is NO verifiable evidence to support Jesus being anything but mere human like the rest of us, certainly not a deity.

God is unfalsifiable but I think most detect it even unbelievers like you. The evidence for that is your unreasonable and illogical hatred of Christ.

[Shaker]

God is unfalsifiable but I think most detect it even unbelievers like you.

Evidence?

The evidence for that is your unreasonable and illogical hatred of Christ.

No, that's evidence of the hatred and detestation of stupidity and irrationality and sloppy thinking.

Still, as I am wont to say: try again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God is unfalsifiable but I think most detect it even unbelievers like you.

Evidence?

The evidence for that is your unreasonable and illogical hatred of Christ.

No, that's evidence of the hatred and detestation of stupidity and irrationality and sloppy thinking.

Still, as I am wont to say: try again.

Shaker, you have no argument that doesn't boil down to philosophical naturalism.....so no evidence base there then. You cannot be taken seriously because of your support for apatheism, theological ignorance and indeed anything that ''stick's one on the christians''....and of course your support for Floo whom you are pitching to us now as someone informed......I guess that's a roundabout way of informing you just how wrong you are........

[jeremyp]

Shaker, you have no argument that doesn't boil down to philosophical naturalism.....

You are Vlad and I claim my £20!

so no evidence base there then. You cannot be taken seriously because of your support for apatheism, theological ignorance and indeed anything that ''stick's one on the christians''....and of course your support for Floo whom you are pitching to us now as someone informed......I guess that's a roundabout way of informing you just how wrong you are........

You  yourself have claimed that God is unfalsifiable which, if true, means Floo's assertion that there is no verifiable evidence for God must also be true.

So what you say is a roundabout way of telling us that you haven't got a clue.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shaker, you have no argument that doesn't boil down to philosophical naturalism.....

You are Vlad and I claim my £20!

so no evidence base there then. You cannot be taken seriously because of your support for apatheism, theological ignorance and indeed anything that ''stick's one on the christians''....and of course your support for Floo whom you are pitching to us now as someone informed......I guess that's a roundabout way of informing you just how wrong you are........

You  yourself have claimed that God is unfalsifiable which, if true, means Floo's assertion that there is no verifiable evidence for God must also be true.

So what you say is a roundabout way of telling us that you haven't got a clue.

Yes but for goodness sake Jeremy look at what else is true about Floo's Modus Operandii.
She is up for discussing theology when it looks as though she has God bang to rights as Panto villain number one. Whenever anybody begins to get the better of her in theological discussion she reverts to the ''It's all crap anyway'' position.

Nobody denies there is no methodological naturalistically verifiable evidence for God. Floo wants to be in both the ''Hate God'' camp and the ''dismiss God'' camp.

[Shaker]

She is up for discussing theology when it looks as though she has God bang to rights as Panto villain number one. Whenever anybody begins to get the better of her in theological discussion

That's not possible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

She is up for discussing theology when it looks as though she has God bang to rights as Panto villain number one. Whenever anybody begins to get the better of her in theological discussion

That's not possible.

Don't tell me............ ''It's all crap anyway''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

She is up for discussing theology when it looks as though she has God bang to rights as Panto villain number one. Whenever anybody begins to get the better of her in theological discussion

That's not possible.

'ere Shaker what's the difference between you and God?
Some people try to portray God as a panto villain and you try to portray yourself as one.

[Shaker]

She is up for discussing theology when it looks as though she has God bang to rights as Panto villain number one. Whenever anybody begins to get the better of her in theological discussion

That's not possible.

Don't tell me............ ''It's all crap anyway''.

That's about the size of it, old fruit

[Hope]

That's not possible.

Sorry to disappoint you, Shaker but I've seen more people get the better of Floo in theological debate than I've seen her get the better of.  That isn't only on this site, but on every other site I've interacted with her on.  The most common way this happens is when she says that God ought to take the punshment which is, of course, what the crucifixion of Jesus is all about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

She is up for discussing theology when it looks as though she has God bang to rights as Panto villain number one. Whenever anybody begins to get the better of her in theological discussion

That's not possible.

Don't tell me............ ''It's all crap anyway''.

That's about the size of it, old fruit

No. That's the size of your argument....Namely a four word assertion.......So far it looks like an article of faith; See if you can ''polish it up a bit''.

[Shaker]

Sorry to disappoint you, Shaker but I've seen more people get the better of Floo in theological debate than I've seen her get the better of.

Who, where and when?

For the purposes of those rare gleams of clarity for the goddist mind, when I say "who, where and when", I actually mean "who, where and when."

[Shaker]

So far it looks like an article of faith

So what's your problem with it then? That's you and your lot's whole thing, isn't it?

[jeremyp]

Shaker, you have no argument that doesn't boil down to philosophical naturalism.....

You are Vlad and I claim my £20!

so no evidence base there then. You cannot be taken seriously because of your support for apatheism, theological ignorance and indeed anything that ''stick's one on the christians''....and of course your support for Floo whom you are pitching to us now as someone informed......I guess that's a roundabout way of informing you just how wrong you are........

You  yourself have claimed that God is unfalsifiable which, if true, means Floo's assertion that there is no verifiable evidence for God must also be true.

So what you say is a roundabout way of telling us that you haven't got a clue.

Yes but for goodness sake Jeremy look at what else is true about Floo's Modus Operandii.
She is up for discussing theology when it looks as though she has God bang to rights as Panto villain number one. Whenever anybody begins to get the better of her in theological discussion she reverts to the ''It's all crap anyway'' position.

Nobody denies there is no methodological naturalistically verifiable evidence for God. Floo wants to be in both the ''Hate God'' camp and the ''dismiss God'' camp.

She's using two different approaches to showing that you theists are wrong.  Approach 1 is to point out that there is no evidence for your (or any) god.  Approach 2 is to show that Christian beliefs are often at odds with their own scripture. 

There's nothing wrong with using two different approaches to argue against an idea.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So far it looks like an article of faith

So what's your problem with it then? That's you and your lot's whole thing, isn't it?

Well I'm glad you've finally admitted that Philosophical naturalism is a faith position. But under what definition can it be described as a faith. Not in a trust way since there is no actual experience of philosophical naturalism......Therefore it must be in the faith without evidence or experience category.......happy with that Shakes?

[BashfulAnthony]

She is up for discussing theology when it looks as though she has God bang to rights as Panto villain number one. Whenever anybody begins to get the better of her in theological discussion

That's not possible.

Somebody quote a post where Floo has actually debated anything theological.  I believe she merely churns out the same one-liners, and variations of, over and over.  Mind you, imo!   

[Shaker]

Well I'm glad you've finally admitted that Philosophical naturalism is a faith position.

News to me. Where and when did I do that?

Or as usual are you just making shit up that I never said because your imaginary straw-man answer is easier to concoct crap about than the real answer you actually got?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shaker, you have no argument that doesn't boil down to philosophical naturalism.....

You are Vlad and I claim my £20!

so no evidence base there then. You cannot be taken seriously because of your support for apatheism, theological ignorance and indeed anything that ''stick's one on the christians''....and of course your support for Floo whom you are pitching to us now as someone informed......I guess that's a roundabout way of informing you just how wrong you are........

You  yourself have claimed that God is unfalsifiable which, if true, means Floo's assertion that there is no verifiable evidence for God must also be true.

So what you say is a roundabout way of telling us that you haven't got a clue.

Yes but for goodness sake Jeremy look at what else is true about Floo's Modus Operandii.
She is up for discussing theology when it looks as though she has God bang to rights as Panto villain number one. Whenever anybody begins to get the better of her in theological discussion she reverts to the ''It's all crap anyway'' position.

Nobody denies there is no methodological naturalistically verifiable evidence for God. Floo wants to be in both the ''Hate God'' camp and the ''dismiss God'' camp.

She's using two different approaches to showing that you theists are wrong.  Approach 1 is to point out that there is no evidence for your (or any) god.  Approach 2 is to show that Christian beliefs are often at odds with their own scripture. 

There's nothing wrong with using two different approaches to argue against an idea.

Yes it is approach 2 where there is failure largely because Floo sees ignorance of the opponents views as a virtue while still expecting the luxury of winning arguments on their ground.
Hope has outlined the basic misapprehension. What is it with you guys that you persist in it.......IMHO actual realisation of what we try to tell you is too ghastly for you to contemplate. Such is God dodging.

[Shaker]

I look forward to this latest post of Vlad's coming out in English.

[Hope]

I look forward to this latest post of Vlad's coming out in English.

Perhaps you need to have some lessons in English then; I can help as a qualified and experienced English and English as a Foreign/Second Language teacher  )

I accept that Vlad has expressed himself somewhat clumsily, but not so badly as to stop an averagely literate English speaker from understanding.

[Shaker]

Perhaps you need to have some lessons in English then

Unlikely. In fact, more than that; unnecessary.

I can help as a qualified and experienced English and English as a Foreign/Second Language teacher  )

Poor bastards