"What we've got here is failure to communicate..."

[Shaker]

Khat, if a national ruler wants to deal with another national ruler, does s/he always travel to meet them face2face?  No, national rulers have ambassadors who act on their behalf.  This is exactly what the Great Commission in Matthew 28 is all about.  Jesus appoints ambassadors to act on his behalf, an appointment that wasn't for a generation only, but for all time.  He, in the nature of the Holy Spirit, is therefore present and at work in the world today.

But there are actual rulers who can be seen and known in the first place. Your scenario falls apart on two counts; firstly, nothing in it requires anything other than flesh and blood human beings with a particular set of beliefs (Occam's Razor), and secondly, the assumption of a god making its message known via human beings is unfalsifiable because of the first point. There is no means of distinguishing between scenario 1 (God + human beings) and scenario 2 (no God, just human beings with beliefs). It can't be tested; there is no methodology (surprise surprise!) to ascertain its truth or falsity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Khat, if a national ruler wants to deal with another national ruler, does s/he always travel to meet them face2face?  No, national rulers have ambassadors who act on their behalf.  This is exactly what the Great Commission in Matthew 28 is all about.  Jesus appoints ambassadors to act on his behalf, an appointment that wasn't for a generation only, but for all time.

Do you not think that if national rulers weren't bound by the laws of physics they'd pop up simultaneously all over the shop to make their case? 

He, in the nature of the Holy Spirit, is therefore present and at work in the world today.

Hope fallacy No. 7: non sequitur. That various people may have evangelised over the generations does not make a "Holy Spirit" exist, or Jesus "present".

[Hope]

But there are actual rulers who can be seen and known in the first place. Your scenario falls apart on two counts; firstly, nothing in it requires anything other than flesh and blood human beings with a particular set of beliefs (Occam's Razor), and secondly, the assumption of a god making its message known via human beings is unfalsifiable because of the first point. There is no means of distinguishing between scenario 1 (God + human beings) and scenario 2 (no God, just human beings with beliefs). It can't be tested; there is no methodology (surprise surprise!) to ascertain its truth or falsity.

And your scenario falls down because there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God, who set the ball rolling.  I appreciate that you want not to believe in said person because it plays havoc with your reliance on science but until you prove categorically, other than merely questioning the idea, that Jesus wasn't God and all that that involves, that documentary evidence stands as a testament to the lack of the Occam's Razor argument, and hence the rest of your argument.

[Sassy]

Pretty much anybody who isn't an idiot. You only have to look at the number of different Christian denominations to realise that.

The Christian is message is:-

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

It is never a denomination and never has been any person does not have to be an idiot/intelligent to understand that.
So tell me why you don't understand it, and why the person to whom my original post was written to did not understand it.
Then you know and everyone else that God is always right and you are always proved wrong.

[Hope]

Hope,

Do you not think that if national rulers weren't bound by the laws of physics they'd pop up simultaneously all over the shop to make their case? 

Why would they?

Hope fallacy No. 7: non sequitur. That various people may have evangelised over the generations does not make a "Holy Spirit" exist, or Jesus "present".

I'd agree, hence its not a fallacy; sadly, the situation can be that people think that they have understood the Gospels and gone out to preach when they haven't.  The New Testament is full of references to such people, and we see cults and other groups doing the same today.  However, its not the people who make the Holy Spirit 'exist' or Jesus 'present'.  Those situations pre-exist the people.

[Shaker]

And your scenario falls down because there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God, who set the ball rolling.

No there isn't.

I appreciate that you want not to believe in said person because it plays havoc with your reliance on science but until you prove categorically, other than merely questioning the idea, that Jesus wasn't God and all that that involves, that documentary evidence stands as a testament to the lack of the Occam's Razor argument, and hence the rest of your argument.

Been a while since the negative proof fallacy you adore so much had an airing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem with a 'supreme mega being' concept is that such a being would be impersonal, and distant (a bit like the Muslim's Allah or the Hindu's Brahma).  For the Jew and the Christian, God is personal and present.  That's where the analogy falls down, Shakes.

Excellent point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No there isn't.Been a while since the negative proof fallacy you adore so much had an airing.

But saying that Jesus wasn't god is a cast iron assertion.
Just like saying ''Churchill wasn't Attlee''.
On what grounds do we say that.
Secondly Jesus wasn't God asks the question ''what was he?''

[Shaker]

Excellent point.

If you think it's excellent, perhaps you'll be the one to step up and explain why such a being would necessarily be distant and impersonal, as stated by Hope.

I did ask him but he seems not to have seen the question.

[Shaker]

But saying that Jesus wasn't god is a cast iron assertion.

And not one I've made. I was simply pointing out that Hope's assertion of documentary evidence of a person who was both human and god is flatly false; no such documentary evidence exists. To be accurate he could and should have said that there is documentary evidence to the effect that someone believed they were a god and was believed to be so by others. By introducing the concept of belief Hope's factually untrue statement is thus turned into a factually true one.

Just like saying ''Churchill wasn't Attlee''.

Hopeless analogy (pun intended). The law of identity states that a thing such as a Churchill can't be a not-Churchill thing such as Attlee at the same time because in the technical lingo to be a Churchill or an Attlee is an essential and not a particular. Particulars operate differently to essentials - there's no contradiction between the essential of being a Churchill and the particular of being a cigar smoker, for example. (A particular because Churchill was a cigar smoker but might not have been). To be male is an essential; to be a guitar player is a particular - for me to be male and female at the same time would be contradictory, but it's not a contradiction for me to be a man and a guitarist.

According to some Christian beliefs however (depends who you ask - you get a different version each time) Jesus could be both human and God simultaneously.

Secondly Jesus wasn't God asks the question ''what was he?''

Referring to Geza Vermes, yesterday Rhiannon put it very well - an apocalyptic Jewish preacher who appeared to believe that the end of the world was nigh and who had what he believed to be a mission.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you think it's excellent, perhaps you'll be the one to step up and explain why such a being would necessarily be distant and impersonal, as stated by Hope.

I did ask him but he seems not to have seen the question.

Because a mega being is usually villainous and uncaring in the comics.......which is another disparaging reason you guys use the term.

[Shaker]

Because a mega being is usually villainous and uncaring in the comics.......which is another disparaging reason you guys use the term.

This is simply a dodge. Nobody has raised the subject of comics but Hope and you. Can you explain why a supreme mega being must necessarily be distant and impersonal, as per Hope's assertion, or can you not?

[Khatru]

The problem with a 'supreme mega being' concept is that such a being would be impersonal, and distant (a bit like the Muslim's Allah or the Hindu's Brahma).  For the Jew and the Christian, God is personal and present.  That's where the analogy falls down, Shakes.

I guess that's because have saddled him/her/it with all-too-human frailties of anger, love, hate, jealousy, remorse, etc which are displayed when the being interacts with his/her/its own creation.

If there really is one (or more) cosmic mega beings, they are likely to be way beyond those emotions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is simply a dodge. Nobody has raised the subject of comics but you. Can you explain why a supreme mega being must necessarily be distant and impersonal, as per Hope's assertion, or can you not?

I think since you introduced the phrase supreme mega being and do not like either Hope's  or my interpretation of it. Perhaps you can state what you mean by it and how the phrase adds anything to the phrase supreme being.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

And your scenario falls down because there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God, who set the ball rolling.

Hope fallacy No. 9: that a book makes a claim does not make it evidence for the truth of the claim.

I appreciate that you want not to believe in said person because it plays havoc with your reliance on science but until you prove categorically, other than merely questioning the idea, that Jesus wasn't God and all that that involves,...

Hope fallacy No. 6: the negative proof fallacy. It's the job of the proponent to demonstrate his claim, not the job of others to disprove it. You really are fond of this one aren't you.

...that documentary evidence stands as a testament to the lack of the Occam's Razor argument, and hence the rest of your argument.

Hope fallacy No. 13: the straw man. Occam's razor says that the option requiring the fewest assumptions should be the preferred one. You assume that bible accounts are "evidence", so your whole position fails Occam's razor in any case.

Looks like you've scored a fallacy hat trick! 

[Shaker]

I think since you introduced the phrase supreme mega being

I didn't - I was merely following somebody else's usage of the phrase. Yours, actually, in #40.

and do not like either Hope's  or my interpretation of it. Perhaps you can state what you mean by it and how the phrase adds anything to the phrase supreme being.

Ah, you can't answer, then. I knew we'd get there eventually - just glad I haven't wasted too much time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Why would they?

Precisely to avoid the risk of miscommunication, contradiction, omission etc that the use of emissaries entails, as indeed we see from the bewildering mish-mash of efforts from those who evanagelise for your and for other gods.   

I'd agree, hence its not a fallacy;

It's a fallacy because you expressed it using the form the fallacy takes. That's what non sequitur means: you'd need to lose the "therefore" to get you off the hook.

...sadly, the situation can be that people think that they have understood the Gospels and gone out to preach when they haven't.  The New Testament is full of references to such people, and we see cults and other groups doing the same today.

Hope fallacy No. 17: the "no true Scotsman". You're knocking 'em out of the park this morning!

However, its not the people who make the Holy Spirit 'exist' or Jesus 'present'.  Those situations pre-exist the people.

Hope fallacy No. 3: argument by assertion. What makes you think that "those situations" exist at all?

[Gordon]

And your scenario falls down because there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God, who set the ball rolling.

Please explain how you know (as in having knowledge) that this 'documentary evidence' you refer to doesn't include mistakes or lies.

Unless you can do this then your 'documentary evidence' is indistinguishable from fiction.

[Shaker]

Hope fallacy No. 6: the negative proof fallacy. It's the job of the proponent to demonstrate his claim, not the job of others to disprove it. You really are fond of this one aren't you.

Hope and NPF
Sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According to some Christian beliefs however (depends who you ask - you get a different version each time) Jesus could be both human and God simultaneously.Referring to Geza Vermes, yesterday Rhiannon put it very well - an apocalyptic Jewish preacher who appeared to believe that the end of the world was nigh and who had what he believed to be a mission.

So none of that Jesus Myth nonsense for you then...Good man.

I didn't know you were familiar enough with Vermes to be going around referring to him as a geezer.

[Hope]

No there isn't.

There is documentary evidence, Shakes; I appreciate that you don't accept that evidence, but it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Been a while since the negative proof fallacy you adore so much had an airing.

Not really, there have been several people here who have used it in recent hours, even when I've not been on the board.  Remember that whilst someone has to prove evidence they provide for an assertion, that holds true for whatever the assertion.  Arguing that 'science has disproved faith', or that "there is documentary evidence to the effect that someone believed they were a god and was believed to be so by others" without providing the evidence for such arguments means that these folk are equally guilty of the negative proof fallacy.

[Shaker]

There is documentary evidence, Shakes; I appreciate that you don't accept that evidence, but it doesn't mean it isn't there.

It doesn't exist. Remember that your assertion in #52 was:

... there is documentary evidence of a person who was both human and God

No such evidence exists. To be correct what you should have said was what I put in #59: that there is documentary evidence of a person who believed himself to be a god and was believed to be so by others. As I put it in #59 the addition of the concept of belief makes this is a completely unexceptional statement and is factually true. Your assertion wasn't. This is documentary evidence of the same kind as Cronus eating his six children (which I notice you are studiously ignoring). There is absolutely no documentary evidence of any kind whatever, anywhere, supporting the existence of any gods; there is a very great deal of documentary evidence relating to human beliefs about various gods, but 'exists' and 'is believed to exist' are not synonymous. There is a difference between those two statements inherent in the concept of belief that you appear not to understand, wilfully or otherwise, and until the penny drops I suspect that you'll continue to make the same error.

Not really, there have been several people here who have used it in recent hours, even when I've not been on the board.

Point them out.

Remember that whilst someone has to prove evidence they provide for an assertion

Except when you do it, it seems.

that holds true for whatever the assertion.  Arguing that 'science has disproved faith',

Which is not a claim I've made, so a straw man fallacy again on your part.

or that "there is documentary evidence to the effect that someone believed they were a god and was believed to be so by others" without providing the evidence for such arguments means that these folk are equally guilty of the negative proof fallacy.

I'd have thought that one was too obvious to need to be stated, but evidently I forgot who I'm dealing with. The New Testament, of course.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

There is documentary evidence, Shakes; I appreciate that you don't accept that evidence, but it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Hope fallacy No. 7 redux: reification. That something is written in a book does not make it evidence for the claims the book makes. Other tests are needed for that.

Not really, there have been several people here who have used it in recent hours, even when I've not been on the board.

Yes really, and Hope fallacy No. 13: the tu quoque. That others may have committed a logical fallacy doesn't get you off the hook of using it too.

Remember that whilst someone has to prove evidence they provide for an assertion, that holds true for whatever the assertion.  Arguing that 'science has disproved faith',...

Hope fallacy No. 23: the straw man. No-one does argue that.

...or that "there is documentary evidence to the effect that someone believed they were a god and was believed to be so by others" without providing the evidence for such arguments means that these folk are equally guilty of the negative proof fallacy.

Hope fallacy No. 9: assertion. If someone says in a book, "I really believe X" there's no particular reason not to believe him. When though the thing he believes is a miracle story/leprechauns/whatever then the onus is on him (or the person who argues that he was correct in his belief) to make a coherent argument to that effect. That's why you're the only one here who's attempted (yet again) the negative proof fallacy. 

A challenge for you: why not at least try to make an argument that doesn't rely on one or several logical fallacies? You never know - the attempt at least might do you some good for your future efforts.

[Hope]

That something is written in a book does not make it evidence for the claims the book makes.

but nor does the opposite apply

Other tests are needed for that.

And there are plenty of those, which because of your understanding of life aren't acceptable to you.  It doesn't mean that they are unacceptable.

Yes really, and Hope fallacy No. 13: the tu quoque. That others may have committed a logical fallacy doesn't get you off the hook of using it too.

I agree, but as I'm not making those same logical fallacies, it doesn't apply.

Hope fallacy No. 23: the straw man. No-one does argue that.

Sorry, but I've heard it used by a number of high-profile people on your side of the debate over the years, so the straw man accusation is on you, not me.

Hope fallacy No. 9: assertion. If someone says in a book, "I really believe X" there's no particular reason not to believe him. When though the thing he believes is a miracle story/leprechauns/whatever then the onus is on him (or the person who argues that he was correct in his belief) to make a coherent argument to that effect. That's why you're the only one here who's attempted (yet again) the negative proof fallacy. 

good to see you trying to avoid the natural consequences of your assertion.  You made an assertion, so where is the evidence to back it up.

A challenge for you: why not at least try to make an argument that doesn't rely on one or several logical fallacies? You never know - the attempt at least might do you some good for your future efforts.

Sorry, Shakes, but just because you believe the argument to be relying on logical fallacies, doesn't mean - as you say earlier in the post - that it does.

[Shaker]

That was bluehillside you were replying to, not me

And to state that an argument is replete with logical fallacies entails being able to correctly identify such fallacies, which many here can do and many others - you included - cannot.