Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Owlswing]

Yes if everyone stops posting Vlad will stop..........great idea what?

Once again you misquote a post to try and make yourself look clever.

I did NOT say "if everyone stops posting Vlad will stop.

What I DID say was

It will continue as long a there is one person willing to respond to Vlad's posts.

Any response to Vlad is what he requires, his raison d'etre - ignore him and he will have no reason to post anything.

I know that you have an astronomically high opinion of yourself, but you are not the only person to whom responses can be made on this Forum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Desperate stuff. Actually “science” can analyse a lot about its origins as you’d know if you’d bothered to read anything about it, but no-one suggests that the explanation so far is complete. Is that a “shortfall” in science itself? There’s no reason to think so – rather it’s more likely a shortfall in as far as science has taken us so far.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo the logically challenged,

The KCA's initial premise is that the universe had a beginning. There’s no way to establish whether or not that’s the case...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Desperate stuff. Actually “science” can analyse a lot about its origins as you’d know if you’d bothered to read anything about it, but no-one suggests that the explanation so far is complete. Is that a “shortfall” in science itself? There’s no reason to think so – rather it’s more likely a shortfall in as far as science has taken us so far.

In which Liar Boy presumably thinks he's making a point of some sort, but there's no guessing what he thinks it to be.

Oh well.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo the logically challenged,

The KCA's initial premise is that the universe had a beginning. There’s no way to establish whether or not that’s the case...

Ditto.

[Spud]

You raise one fair point out of two here. Religionists don't know/have proof whether the universe is eternal or created ex nihilo.

Correct: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Hebrews 11:3

The Aristotelian and Thomist arguments though are designed to work for either eventuality.......Not many antitheist people know that.

That the universe is or could be eternal does not eventually answer the question, ''why something and not nothing?''

[jeremyp]

Correct: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Hebrews 11:3

Yes, but how do we know that you are right?

Also, if you are right, why is there a god rather than no god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but how do we know that you are right?

Also, if you are right, why is there a god rather than no god?

There must be something congenital about religionists that means they are not able to understand that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to a tricky question.

[jeremyp]

So the answer to my first question is "we don't know that we are right, it's just a guess" and the answer to the second question is "we don't know".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the answer to my first question is "we don't know that we are right, it's just a guess" and the answer to the second question is "we don't know".

For me I don't know why there is a God rather than no God.

In terms of God I experience God even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of God. You or indeed anyone will not get that but I am sure Spud will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.

Hope that helps.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

For me I don't know why there is a God rather than no God.

In terms of God I experience God even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of God. You or indeed anyone will get that but I am sure Spud will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.

Hope that helps.

For me I don't know why there is a Colin the Leprechaun rather than no Colin the leprechaun.

In terms of Colin the leprechaun I experience Colin the leprechaun even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of Colin the leprechaun. You or indeed anyone will get that but I am sure my mate Fred who's also a leprechaunist will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.

Hope that helps.

Still, provided neither of is daft enough to assert our respective personal beliefs to be objective facts for other people too there's no harm done I guess.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

For me I don't know why there is a Colin the Leprechaun rather than no Colin the leprechaun.

In terms of Colin the leprechaun I experience Colin the leprechaun even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of Colin the leprechaun. You or indeed anyone will get that but I am sure my mate Fred who's also a leprechaunist will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.

Hope that helps.

Still, provided neither of is are daft enough to assert our respective personal beliefs to be objective facts for other people too there's no harm done I guess.

An objective fact is an objective fact even if nobody believes it Hillside.

Your tragedy is of course the possibility of a creator or a divine answer to the question why something and not nothing.

Where we have two entities then we can exercise probability. Leprechauns are more likely to have been made up. So much so that we can risk calling you a complete numpty for believing them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

For me I don't know why there is a Colin the Leprechaun rather than no Colin the leprechaun.

In terms of Colin the leprechaun I experience Colin the leprechaun even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of Colin the leprechaun. You or indeed anyone will get that but I am sure my mate Fred who's also a leprechaunist will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.

Hope that helps.

Still, provided neither of is daft enough to assert our respective personal beliefs to be objective facts for other people too there's no harm done I guess.

Fred doesn't post here Hillside. He must be a good friend since he is entertaining the Leprechaun thing. Fred and I take it in turns entertaining you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

An objective fact is an objective fact even if nobody believes it Hillside.

Whoosh!

Your problem here being that you no more have a means to demonstrate that your personal belief "God" is an objective fact than I can demonstrate that my personal belief "Colin the leprechaun" is an objective fact. That's when you always head for the door remember?

Your tragedy is of course the possibility of a creator or a divine answer to the question why something and not nothing.

Gibberish.

Where we have two entities then we can exercise probability. Leprechauns are more likely to have been made up. So much so that we can risk calling you a complete numpty for believing them.

Oh dear. Why on earth would you think them to be more likely to be made up than your pick of the available god beliefs? Absent a cogent argument for either, the "numptiness" is equally distributed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Whoosh!

Your problem here being that you no more have a means to demonstrate that your personal belief "God" is an objective fact than I can demonstrate that my personal belief "Colin the leprechaun" is an objective fact.

Gibberish.

Oh dear. Why on earth would you think them to be more likely to be made up than your pick of the available god beliefs? Absent any kind of cogent argument for either faith belief, the "numptiness" is equally distributed.

Sorry Leprechauns are more likely to be made up because they are so, well LOCAL are you sure it's leprechauns you experienced?

Were they Irish, have green suits and smoked their pipes upside down?

Were you napping and woke up as the news was reporting Ken Dodds funeral?

or are you serious about believing Leprechauns.

Come on Hillside look us in the eyes and say it.

I do believe in Leprechauns, I do believe in Leprechauns, I do, I do, I do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Sorry Leprechauns are more likely to be made up because they are so, well LOCAL are you sure it's leprechauns you experienced?

NON SEKWITURE ALERT NON SEKWITURE ALERT!

Universality or parochialism have bugger all to do with whether or not something is made up.

Were they Irish, have green suits and smoked their pipes upside down?

Does you god have a white beard and a booming voice?

Were you napping and woke up as the news was reporting Ken Dodds funeral?

More gibberish. If you seriously think leprechauns to be more likely to be made up than "god", why not finally have a go at explaining why without lurching immediately into logical fallacy or lying?

[Rhiannon]

Vladdo,

For me I don't know why there is a Colin the Leprechaun rather than no Colin the leprechaun.

In terms of Colin the leprechaun I experience Colin the leprechaun even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of Colin the leprechaun. You or indeed anyone will get that but I am sure my mate Fred who's also a leprechaunist will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.

Hope that helps.

Still, provided neither of is daft enough to assert our respective personal beliefs to be objective facts for other people too there's no harm done I guess.

From a theist viewpoint here you are comparing apples with dogs. The little people would be created, nor creator. They can’t be used to answer questions about our existence, as god can.

It’s much more interesting to consider why this god and not that. Why Jesus and not Gaia for example. Christianity itself could be seen as a form of polytheism with its different gods - vengeful, jealous, loving, radical, just etc. Which god people end up experiencing depends on their own personalities and life experiences in turn.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Rhi,

From a theist viewpoint here you are comparing apples with dogs. The little people would be created, nor creator. They can’t be used to answer questions about our existence, as god can.

Not really. If you want to assume a “creator” why stop at just one? You could postulate one with no antecedent or a trillion with no antecedents with equal facility – after all, if you want to magic one creator out of the infinite regress problem why not do the same for lots of them?

The point here too of course is the one Vlad always ignores – namely that if an argument works equally for god and for leprechauns then it’s probably a bad argument. Ascribing different characteristics to them (universe creating vs dancing) doesn’t change that.   

It’s much more interesting to consider why this god and not that.

Well, why this belief about a god rather than that belief about a god I’d have thought but ok…

Why Jesus and not Gaia for example. Christianity itself could be seen as a form of polytheism with its different gods - vengeful, jealous, loving, radical, just etc. Which god people end up experiencing depends on their own personalities and life experiences in turn.

Well yes. Assuming that some theistic beliefs have done well when others haven’t must mean that the former are true and the latter aren’t is just your common-or-garden survivorship bias. It also presents Christians who think that way with a problem given that their suite of beliefs are believed by fewer people than believe in different ones.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Incidentally, although Vlad doesn't seem to have been arsed to read it the Hawking lecture I linked to is worth a look. This about the nature or reality is good I think:

"I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works. A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation.

In terms of the positivist approach, one can compare two models of the universe. One in which the universe was created last year and one in which the universe existed much longer. The Model in which the universe existed for longer than a year can explain things like identical twins that have a common cause more than a year ago. On the other hand, the model in which the universe was created last year cannot explain such events. So the first model is better. One can not ask whether the universe really existed before a year ago or just appeared to. In the positivist approach, they are the same. In an unchanging universe, there would be no natural starting point."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there is a moderator reading I don't understand, when there are specific leprechological threads, and when topics are usually directed to the appropriate thread, why Hillside is just able to go wither he will and leave steaming piles of Leprechology,,,,,like leaving some kind of cat to mark it's territory with something stinking.

This is the Christianity thread is it not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

If there is a moderator reading I don't understand, when there are specific leprechological threads, and when topics are usually directed to the appropriate thread, why Hillside is just able to go wither he will and leave steaming piles of Leprechology.

This is the Christianity thread is it not?

I see your mistake here. If you want to discuss Christianity of the "isn't god great?" variety we have a faith sharing area for that. This area though includes the epistemology of Christian beliefs, so using analogies to examine that is perfectly legitimate.

Hope that helps.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

I see your mistake here. If you want to discuss Christianity of the "isn't god great?" variety we have a faith sharing area for that.

Yes and whenever you say that the moderators usually jump because the forum is run for your benefit.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Yes and whenever you say that the moderators usually jump because the forum is run for your benefit.

More gibberish. The chances of me persuading the Mods to jump to anything are about the same as those of you constructing a logically cogent argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. This area though includes the epistemology of Christian beliefs, so using analogies to examine that is perfectly legitimate.

Yes and I suppose we have to allow for your shite analogies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes and I suppose we have to allow for your shite analogies.

Then why not try to explain why they're "shite" rather than just spit the dummy?

Surely after all this time you must have an argument of some kind to validate the claim mustn't you?

Something?

Anything at all?

Just a tiny smidgin of an argument-let maybe?

No?