Jesus Christ, Our Saviour

[Nearly Sane]

NS

Vlad seems to think anything written only 20 years ago should be believed. That was his point.

And it was ippy that raised the issue of the length of time as being relevant, I just don't see it as an interesting discussion, as I don't think that ippy, you, or I doubt claims of rising from the dead as less believable because of time.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know what it would take to convince me about these presumed by many to be actual biblical happenings, sure as anything I would have to accept irrefutable proof now what that proof would have to consist of I've no idea and I very much doubt I will be giving up on my view that the religious stuff, all of it, it's man made it seems so obvious to me.

Regards ippy

It's not your problem to define a methodology that would allow supernatural claims to be evaluated, that's for those that claim they happen. But probability arises from naturalistic methods, and using it to refer to supernatural claims makes no sense.

[ippy]

Applying probabilities to supernatural claims in the absence of any methodology to evaluate such claims is specious. Not that that gives any help to Vlad's claims.

Makes more sense than anything Vlad comes out with and that's it, it is a probability nothing more than that, therefore the preceding, 'it's highly likely'.

There you are N S something else for you to needlessly pick holes in, enjoy.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

I may be mistaken, Nearly Sane, but I thought a public forum means that we can talk to everyone freely and involve those who enter into the theme of the post with their ideas on the subject...even if you would prefer they didn't...as long as we retain a measure of responsibility, which I always try to do.

.

You can, indeed, but as pointed out my post was about a specific point someone had made and your posts on no way addressed that. It just seems to me a complete waste of time for you to write out themself people you are not replying to, and then needing those named to read in detail through a pis t that is in no sense a reply to anything they wrote.

[NicholasMarks]

Sparky, you still haven't explained why such a powerful personage as God should care whether people believe in him or not.  If he really cared, it would have been simple to provide good evidence that ensured every human he created would be convinced.

Instead he sends his son to preach in a backwater part of the world - at a time when communications were almost impossible - for only three short years ... and expects everyone to take his word for it!

If I were God, the least of my worries would be whether humankind - of all the creatures I had created - believed in me ... but if it did worry me, I'd make certain of it.

Or do you think he's incapable of that?

The difference between you and God jjohnjil is that you don't have the knowledge that passeth all understanding. It has been 2000 years now since Jesus endured his pain and suffering and generally speaking, few are paying a blind bit of notice which means that this global danger foreseen in the Holy Bible will come and go leaving only those who paid heed to God's message...then...exactly as you perceive...God will be left with an entire world full of followers and believers who worship his name. Though the antiChrist will bend a little when forced to they always turn back to evil and I'm afraid the past 2000 years has shown us this.

[Nearly Sane]

Makes more sense than anything Vlad comes out with and that's it, it is a probability nothing more than that, therefore the preceding, 'it's highly likely'.

There you are N S something else for you to needlessly pick holes in, enjoy.

Regards ippy

If you don't think accurately reflecting what probability is in your posts worthwhile, then you are both being unclear and wrong.

[NicholasMarks]

You can, indeed, but as pointed out my post was about a specific point someone had made and your posts on no way addressed that. It just seems to me a complete waste of time for you to write out themself people you are not replying to, and then needing those named to read in detail through a pis t that is in no sense a reply to anything they wrote.

I know it is all circular argument NS...but if someone starts a topic as I have done here...then anyone who responds to it is responding to that topic including the person who started it...otherwise you are saying that a topic is entitled to be hi-jacked and given to others who prefer to sidetrack that topic and the Jesus Christ, Our Saviour, topic is far too important for that.

 

[ippy]

If you don't think accurately reflecting what probability is in your posts worthwhile, then you are both being unclear and wrong.

I see unless it's a multi page thesis it'll never be clear enough for you, any reasonable person, there are some, would be able to get the gist of my posts on this subject, but of course there's always one.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

I see unless it's a multi page thesis it'll never be clear enough for you, any reasonable person, there are some, would be able to get the gist of my posts on this subject, but of course there's always one.

Regards ippy

Size doesn't matter, accuracy does.

[Nearly Sane]

I know it is all circular argument NS...but if someone starts a topic as I have done here...then anyone who responds to it is responding to that topic including the person who started it...otherwise you are saying that a topic is entitled to be hi-jacked and given to others who prefer to sidetrack that topic and the Jesus Christ, Our Saviour, topic is far too important for that.

No, a thread can have multiple points, and different arguments in it. Again I have no problem if you want to reply to specific points but given your reply had nothing to do with that part of the discussion, it's just inaccurate to portray it as if it paid any heed to my post.

[ippy]

Size doesn't matter, accuracy does.

You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person N S, this pedant side of you seems to take you over at times, why don't you give it a rest, today would be good day for a start.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person N S, this pedant side of you seems to take you over at times, why don't you give it a rest, today would be good day for a start.

Regards ippy

Ad hominem fallacy rides again.

[NicholasMarks]

No, a thread can have multiple points, and different arguments in it. Again I have no problem if you want to reply to specific points but given your reply had nothing to do with that part of the discussion, it's just inaccurate to portray it as if it paid any heed to my post.

I don't go round and round in circles with any one NS. You were mentioned because you were on the list of previous responders since my last posting. You may think this is unnecessary  but I don't like to leave anyone out. Sorry if this caused offence, but I often do, it seems, without really trying....Still, faith in Jesus Christ, heals all wounds...and I feel his energy at work all ready...It's a pity it is so hard to convey that faith to others.

 

[Nearly Sane]

I don't go round and round in circles with any one NS. You were mentioned because you were on the list of previous responders since my last posting. You may think this is unnecessary  but I don't like to leave anyone out. Sorry if this caused offence, but I often do, it seems, without really trying....Still, faith in Jesus Christ, heals all wounds...and I feel his energy at work all ready...It's a pity it is so hard to convey that faith to others.

It's not causing offence, it's just pointless to portray your posts as replies to something that you aren't making any effort to reply to.

[ippy]

Ad hominem fallacy rides again.

Why this need of yours to be a smart arse all of the time?

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Why this need of yours to be a smart arse all of the time?

Regards ippy

Is there any chance you might address the arguments?

[ippy]

Is there any chance you might address the arguments?

Well yes but perhaps not about the needlessly silly, petty stuff, I shall now look forward to receiving your next, no doubt, smart arse response.

Regards ippy

[BeRational]

Without faith in Jesus Christ we leave ourselves exposed to another truth...That nasty minded people will gang-up behind our backs and orchestrate their own reasoning in a harmful way...without us having any defence against them...except, of course, the faith we have in Jesus Christ...and I may have mentioned it once or twice...that solid faith in Jesus Christ means we are living a science that passeth all understanding, BeRational...one of its arms being to discredit, besmirch and try to nullify the existence of Jesus Christ. I call this the antiChrist who aren't beyond the odd lie or two.

But faith cannot tell you anything about Jesus.

You can use faith to believe anything.

Do you care if your beliefs are true, or do you just like your beliefs to make you happy?

[Nearly Sane]

Well yes but perhaps not about the needlessly silly, petty stuff, I shall now look forward to receiving your next, no doubt, smart arse response.

Regards ippy

I simply suggest that talking accurately about claims and how to assess them is important. It helps if you examine things logically.

[ippy]

I simply suggest that talking accurately about claims and how to assess them is important. It helps if you examine things logically.

We use differing ways of expressing ourselves I intend to carry on making my perhaps basic use of English, if my English isn't precise enough for you N S, tough, you may be looking for something like the Booker prize for literature I don't know, well that's fine with me, I'm not looking for any such thing now nor am I ever likely to be.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

We use differing ways of expressing ourselves I intend to carry on making my perhaps basic use of English, if my English isn't precise enough for you N S, tough, you may be looking for something like the Booker prize for literature I don't know, well that's fine with me, I'm not looking for any such thing now nor am I ever likely to be.

Regards ippy

It has nothing to do with your use of English, rather your misuse of logic.

[ippy]

It has nothing to do with your use of English, rather your misuse of logic.

You continually misread me due, I think, to your set on rails way of using English.

Regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

You continually misread me due, I think, to your set on rails way of using English.

Regards ippy

Then if you think I am misreading you, explain why. Simply reacting by saying  I want long posts is incorrect and isn't enlightening.


As regards the point raised in this case, in what way am I misreading you if I suggest that using the term probability is inappropriate as regards supernatural claims, since we have no way to establish anything about probability for such claims?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sparky, you still haven't explained why such a powerful personage as God should care whether people believe in him or not.  If he really cared, it would have been simple to provide good evidence that ensured every human he created would be convinced.

Instead he sends his son to preach in a backwater part of the world - at a time when communications were almost impossible - for only three short years ... and expects everyone to take his word for it!

If I were God, the least of my worries would be whether humankind - of all the creatures I had created - believed in me ... but if it did worry me, I'd make certain of it.

Or do you think he's incapable of that?

Then again outside your 'wonderful' words you might be goddodging.


You are obviously excluding people who believe in god from your 'analysis' of what god must be like. So you have dodged already.


As a Christian convert I can attest to goddodging, know others who goddodged.

Famous, if unsuccessful Goddodgers include Augustine and Bunyan who at times desperately wished after encountering God that there had been any revelation other than Jesus.

[ippy]

Then if you think I am misreading you, explain why. Simply reacting by saying  I want long posts is incorrect and isn't enlightening.


As regards the point raised in this case, in what way am I misreading you if I suggest that using the term probability is inappropriate as regards supernatural claims, since we have no way to establish anything about probability for such claims?

It's a probability you will continue to think I'm not using your terms, as usual, and you would be right.

Regards ippy