Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ok - it's an interesting concept. But it sounds as meaningless as saying a man with a penis could be a woman. Once the words "man" and "woman" stop meaning anything because the people who use the words say they can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean and the words defy an agreed definition, then it's not surprising that people who like the words they use to mean something just dismiss words like "humanity", "god" and "divine" as meaningless as they are indifferent to abstract concepts that cannot be cannot be understood with the intellect because they cannot be objectively defined.

Nobody is trying to dismiss words. Jesus Humanity isn't ditched because we accept his divinity.

"humanity" and "divinity" as you have used it here just seem to be subjectively understood social constructs similar to "gender". The concept of "humanity" is that by definition it is physically and mentally imperfect and fallible because humans are  imperfect and fallible. If your concept of "divinity" includes the characteristic of perfection, something cannot be both perfect and imperfect at the same time.

No imperfection in Jesus humanity is ever implied in Christianity. Just because we are imperfect.
Jesus is the acme of human perfection and I for one wish to convey the solidity of that.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you're defining it in relative terms, then. This directly contradicts many of the claims you've made before and the definition in the version of the argument you referenced earlier. It also immediately rules out a single necessary entity because pretty much everything is necessary for something else. The universe is full of necessary entities.

Straight into the fallacy of composition.

To which the answer is a resounding "don't know" and it might be nothing at all.

It wouldn't, but, according to your definition of necessity above, pretty much everything is necessary in some way for something.

Again, according to your definition above, the universe is necessary for everything in it and we have no idea if we can extrapolate further.

Just calling something foolish isn't an argument. 

I was using what you'd previously claimed were properties of a necessary entity. Now you've moved the goalposts and anything can be necessary, so you really need to make up your mind.

You've made things worse for yourself, not better.

No, I haven't beer is necessary for a beer belly, God is necessary for the universe. I maintain you are burdened with a lifetime of not thinking in contingent and necessary terms.

[Stranger]

No, I haven't beer is necessary for a beer belly, God is necessary for the universe.

Baseless assertion.

I maintain you are burdened with a lifetime of not thinking in contingent and necessary terms.

Necessity in the way you've just changed your mind to, is entirely familiar to me but it doesn't work as an argument for a god because, whereas the universe is clearly necessary for everything in it, there is nothing to indicate that it is contingent on anything else.

[Outrider]

Yes, but that would be possibly the most effective way of demonstrating his love to mankind, would it not? John 3:16.

No.

Forgiveness without a blood sacrifice would be better, but... Not holding children accountable for the alleged flaws of their forebears... not imposing (or even threatening) eternal, transferrable punishments for a temporal 'crime... adequately securing hazardous materials?

As with any abusive relationship, it's not necessary the extent of the love that's being questioned but rather the nature of it and the manifestation of it. If this is real, it's an abusive relationship that we should be helping each other to get out of.

Even then 'I'm going to kill myself (temporarily) to show you that I love you' is just straight up emotional abuse, it's a self-centred, obssessive act of a deranged psyche.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Baseless assertion.

Necessity in the way you've just changed your mind to, is entirely familiar to me but it doesn't work as an argument for a god because, whereas the universe is clearly necessary for everything in it,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Then for the sake of pete tell us what in the universe is not contingent!!!

Are you saying that without what we observe there wouldn't be a universe. That makes the universe contingent because it would be dependent on it's parts. Necessity isn't an emergent property for goodness sake.

It can't be what is contingent so what is it about the universe that is necessary. Come on it's supposed to be clear.

[Outrider]

Can Jesus fleshy kidney be divine. no. Can it mix with divinity no (what is there to physically mix with) Can Jesus body be divine no What were the Kidney and body? Material.
Is jesus human spirit divine no, is it empirically observable no, is it eternal yes.
Is God Necessary yes. Can his necessity mix with human spleen physically, No, what is there to mix with?
Is God spirit, Yes
Is He eternal Yes
If God is necessary then he is at the base of all heirarchies.
If God determines the outcome of those heirarchies then he can determine the heirarchy on which Jesus humanity depends on. He can be in on Jesus or as we say incarnated as Jesus.

Is a watering can physical yes, is there any necessity to it no. It is wholly contingent.

So your position now is that Jesus was not wholly divine?

That addresses the flaw I'd pointed out in your argument.

Now all you need to do is justify the notion of 'spirit'...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.

Forgiveness without a blood sacrifice would be better, but... Not holding children accountable for the alleged flaws of their forebears... not imposing (or even threatening) eternal, transferrable punishments for a temporal 'crime... adequately securing hazardous materials?

As with any abusive relationship, it's not necessary the extent of the love that's being questioned but rather the nature of it and the manifestation of it. If this is real, it's an abusive relationship that we should be helping each other to get out of.

Even then 'I'm going to kill myself (temporarily) to show you that I love you' is just straight up emotional abuse, it's a self-centred, obssessive act of a deranged psyche.

O.

Jesus did not commit suicide.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Others here have already dismantled most of your latest suite of logical howlers, straw men, shiftings of the burden of proof, false analogies etc so there’s no point in me doing it too. Mind you, it was a good call to call something a “mystery” recently rather than “it’s magic innit”, which is what you actually meant – clerics too do that a lot so they appear slightly less to be chancers that way.

Anyway, you also though claimed a while back to have “special faculties” – ie, a god detector presumably – that others presumably lack. What would these “faculties” be exactly, and why do you think you have them? Are the akin to Joseph Smith’s magic specs perhaps, or maybe you think you were just born with an extra sense the rest of us lack?

Do tell!     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Jesus did not commit suicide.

He did if he was simultaneously "god".

[Stranger]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Then for the sake of pete tell us what in the universe is not contingent!!!

I don't know if anything is.

Are you saying that without what we observe there wouldn't be a universe. That makes the universe contingent because it would be dependent on it's parts. Necessity isn't an emergent property for goodness sake.

An empty universe may or may not be impossible but if you include the space-time manifold as a 'part' then, yes, the universe would be contingent on its parts and its parts would be contingent on the universe as a whole too. And, of course, the universe would be necessary for its parts and at least some parts would be necessary for the universe.

You don't seem to have realised the implications of suddenly defining necessity as being relative.

[Outrider]

Jesus did not commit suicide.

Everything that happens is foreordained by an omniscient creator - God identified a reality where he, as Jesus, would be crucified, and manifested that reality. In the story, Judas and the Romans are the tools by which God achieves this. The ultimate reality of 'with great power comes great responsibility' is that with infinite power comes absolute responsibility.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nobody is trying to dismiss words. Jesus Humanity isn't ditched because we accept his divinity. No imperfection in Jesus humanity is ever implied in Christianity. Just because we are imperfect.
Jesus is the acme of human perfection and I for one wish to convey the solidity of that.

It doesn't really matter what you are trying or intending. The point I was trying to convey was that the words "humanity" and "divinity" are rendered meaningless in the way you use them because humanity is by definition imperfect and something cannot be both perfect and imperfect, without the words "perfect" and "imperfect" becoming meaningless. In the same way that the terms "man" and "woman" become meaningless once some members of the transgender community start using the term "woman" to mean someone with a penis. 

If words become meaningless by the way you use them, it's not really surprising that any arguments that contain those meaningless words also become meaningless, and therefore unconvincing. It's not really surprising to you is it that some people require words used in an intellectual argument to mean something in order to have any hope of finding the argument convincing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Others here have already dismantled most of your latest suite of logical howlers, straw men, shiftings of the burden of proof, false analogies etc so there’s no point in me doing it too. Mind you, it was a good call to call something a “mystery” recently rather than “it’s magic innit”, which is what you actually meant – clerics too do that a lot so they appear slightly less to be chancers that way.

Anyway, you also though claimed a while back to have “special faculties” – ie, a god detector presumably – that others presumably lack. What would these “faculties” be exactly, and why do you think you have them? Are the akin to Joseph Smith’s magic specs perhaps, or maybe you think you were just born with an extra sense the rest of us lack?

Do tell!     

Well one does make mistakes along the way however people have now been exposed to concepts that have been, and you should understand this most of all, turdpolished from the theist atheist debate and  I have pushed the point  your strange relationship with argument based on evidence has come to light namely your atheism and default position is based on all we can see except when it suits you to use a part of the cosmos that hasn't been observed or evidenced.

So, it's been worth it.

As far as these angels of reason, these magistrates of soundness who's praises you sing for allegedly, but unevidentially, bringing me down seem to believe that the universe may be contingent and necessary but think it a travesty that Jesus, not nearly as big as the universe, can in no possible way be contingent and necessary.

Talk about arguing above your pay grade ha, ha ,ha.

[Stranger]

Well one does make mistakes along the way however people have now been exposed to concepts that, and you should understand this most of all, turdpolished from the theist atheist debate and because I have pushed the point your strange relationship with argument based on evidence has come to light namely your atheism and default position is based on all we can see except when it suits you to use a part of the cosmos that hasn't been observed.

What you've actually shown is that you don't have the first hint of a grasp of the burden of proof, which is probably why you've been totally unable to understand what's being going on here and what a fool you've made of yourself.

As far as these angels of reason, these magistrates of soundness who's praises you sing for allegedly but unevidentially have brought me down seem to believe that the universe may be contingent and necessary but think it a travesty that Jesus, not nearly as big as the universe, can in no possible way be contingent and necessary.

Talk about arguing above your pay grade ha, ha ,ha.

Again, the joke's on you. Nobody was arguing that Jesus can't be both necessary and contingent except based on what you'd previously claimed about necessary entities. It was a reductio ad absurdum of your claims.

Ha, ha, ha indeed.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can Jesus fleshy kidney be divine. no. Can it mix with divinity no (what is there to physically mix with)
Can Jesus body be divine no

But I thought the New Testament asserts that Jesus came to be born through divine intervention with a woman, with that divine intervention taking the place of a man in the reproductive process. So how could the zygote that became Jesus (and his kidneys) have come to be other than through mixing of material (Mary's oocyte) with some unspecified divinity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't really matter what you are trying or intending. The point I was trying to convey was that the words "humanity" and "divinity" are rendered meaningless in the way you use them because humanity is by definition imperfect and something cannot be both perfect and imperfect, without the words "perfect" and "imperfect" becoming meaningless. In the same way that the terms "man" and "woman" become meaningless once some members of the transgender community start using the term "woman" to mean someone with a penis. 

If words become meaningless by the way you use them, it's not really surprising that any arguments that contain those meaningless words also become meaningless, and therefore unconvincing. It's not really surprising to you is it that some people require words used in an intellectual argument to mean something in order to have any hope of finding the argument convincing?

To start talking about the collective ''humanity'' is to misunderstand the incarnation. Jesus did not not incarnate as humanity but as a human.
I agree all but one of humanity is imperfect. Most people on this board would reject the notion of perfection presumably because they think it cannot be or imperfection of humanity.

Jesus is firstly the ultimate in humanity, secondly he is the perfect human being, thirdly sin is nailed down as that which stops us from being perfect.

I do not see how using words in such stark and concrete terms as I am doing makes them meaningless or what my discussion has to do with your analogy.

To my mind it is the mealy mouthed ''know what I mean'' euphemistic, understatement of middle class people that renders english meaningless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well one does make mistakes along the way…

You said it. Why though will you never address your countless mistakes once they’re explained to you?

…however people have now been exposed to concepts that, and you should understand this most of all, turdpolished from the theist atheist debate…

Gibberish. Did this mean something in your head when you typed it?

…and because I have pushed the point your strange relationship with argument based on evidence has come to light namely your atheism and default position is based on all we can see except when it suits you to use a part of the cosmos that hasn't been observed.

Except of course no such thing has happened – what you consistently have done is to straw man the position of your interlocutors into the claim “the universe is its own necessity” rather than their actual position of “you have no cogent argument that the universe cannot be its necessity”, and then demanded that they defend your straw man. It’s either stupid or dishonest behaviour (or both) but you clearly have no intention of stopping.       

So, it's been worth it.

If you think your lie is “worth it”, that’s a matter for you.

As far as these angels of reason, these magistrates of soundness who's praises you sing for allegedly but unevidentially have brought me down seem to believe that the universe may be contingent and necessary but think it a travesty that Jesus, not nearly as big as the universe, can in no possible way be contingent and necessary.

The misapprehension is bone deep here. Yet again: YOU are the one asserting that the universe must be contingent on something else, so it’s YOUR job to justify that claim. Endlessly shifting the burden of proof instead to demand people justify your straw manning version of their merely explaining why you have no justification for the claim is embarrassing.       

Talk about arguing above your pay grade ha, ha ,ha.

You might want to consider stopping digging about now. Really though.

[ProfessorDavey]

Jesus is firstly the ultimate in humanity,

Unevidenced assertion

secondly he is the perfect human being,

Unevidenced assertion

thirdly sin is nailed down as that which stops us from being perfect.

Unevidenced assertion

Yawn.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I thought the New Testament asserts that Jesus came to be born through divine intervention with a woman, with that divine intervention taking the place of a man in the reproductive process. So how could the zygote that became Jesus (and his kidneys) have come to be other than through mixing of material (Mary's oocyte) with some unspecified divinity.

What version of the bible are you using or are you referring to the Bible commentary supplement of the Lancet?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

To start talking about the collective ''humanity'' is to misunderstand the incarnation. Jesus did not not incarnate as humanity but as a human.

Ok. But a human is imperfect. That is one of the characteristics of being human - your imperfections -physiologically, intellectually, emotionally, chemically, psychologically etc; The human body is vulnerable, therefore imperfect. The human mind is vulnerable, therefore imperfect.

I agree all but one of humanity is imperfect.

I am not seeing how that statement is different from asserting that a woman can have a penis?

Most people on this board would reject the notion of perfection presumably because they think it cannot be or imperfection of humanity.

Not sure about rejecting the notion of perfection. We can all see imperfections therefore it makes sense to come up with the notion that something free of imperfections would be the definition of perfect. A flawed vulnerable human body and mind would have imperfections. The possibility exists that something that is not a human body or mind could be perfect.

None of us would be able to demonstrate that anything is perfect so I would think most people on this board could only assert perfection about something - the same way a person asserts gender.

Jesus is firstly the ultimate in humanity, secondly he is the perfect human being, thirdly sin is nailed down as that which stops us from being perfect.

The imperfection of sin, which is some chemical/spiritual/moral/emotional/ psychological imperfection observed in a human is part of the definition of being human. Unless the word "sin" means something else to you? To me saying that Jesus is without sin but also human is like saying a person with a penis is a woman - for me it just does not compute - either human and imperfect or not human and perfect but human and perfect sounds meaningless - what is the need for asserting the human part? Of course anyone can assert it, and some/ many may and do enthusiastically support the idea of human and perfect but my point is that it's not surprising if other people shrug their shoulders and find it too meaningless to engage with other than out of politeness. 

I do not see how using words in such stark and concrete terms as I am doing makes them meaningless or what my discussion has to do with your analogy.

Yes I get that you cannot see my point, in the same way that I cannot understand your "human but perfect" point. We are each limited to what we can see. Not really sure what either of us can do to  understand something if it just doesn't make sense to us. 

To my mind it is the mealy mouthed ''know what I mean'' euphemistic, understatement of middle class people that renders english meaningless.

You're right - language and how it is used is imperfect. That was my point - it's not really surprising that some / many people aren't convinced by imperfect arguments in imperfect languages about abstract concepts.

[ProfessorDavey]

What version of the bible are you using or are you referring to the Bible commentary supplement of the Lancet?

Any version of the bible supplemented by what we now know (but people didn't know then) about human reproduction and development.

So if Jesus wasn't born following sexual reproduction he's (theoretically) have to have been the product of pathenogenesis (in which case he would have been female) or the claimed divine intervention would have to have replaced the male gamete within the reproduction process which would mean the divide (literally) rising, well actually fusing with the material oocyte.

That the writers of the bible knew nothing about reproductive biology is irrelevant - arguments from ignorance aren't credible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What version of the bible are you using or are you referring to the Bible commentary supplement of the Lancet?

Perhaps you could lend him your copy – the Bible commentary supplement of Grimm’s Fairy Tales?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ok. But a human is imperfect. That is one of the characteristics of being human - your imperfections -physiologically, intellectually, emotionally, chemically, psychologically etc; The human body is vulnerable, therefore imperfect. The human mind is vulnerable, therefore imperfect.
I am not seeing how that statement is different from asserting that a woman can have a penis? Not sure about rejecting the notion of perfection. We can all see imperfections therefore it makes sense to come up with the notion that something free of imperfections would be the definition of perfect. A flawed vulnerable human body and mind would have imperfections. The possibility exists that something that is not a human body or mind could be perfect.

None of us would be able to demonstrate that anything is perfect so I would think most people on this board could only assert perfection about something - the same way a person asserts gender.
The imperfection of sin, which is some chemical/spiritual/moral/emotional/ psychological

You seem to be hedging your bets here

imperfection observed in a human is part of the definition of being human. Unless the word "sin" means something else to you? To me saying that Jesus is without sin but also human is like saying a person with a penis is a woman - for me it just does not compute - either human and imperfect or not human and perfect but human and perfect sounds meaningless - what is the need for asserting the human part? Of course anyone can assert it, and some/ many may and do enthusiastically support the idea of human and perfect but my point is that it's not surprising if other people shrug their shoulders and find it too meaningless to engage with other than out of politeness. 
Yes I get that you cannot see my point, in the same way that I cannot understand your "human but perfect" point. We are each limited to what we can see. Not really sure what either of us can do to  understand something if it just doesn't make sense to us. 
You're right - language and how it is used is imperfect. That was my point - it's not really surprising that some / many people aren't convinced by imperfect arguments in imperfect languages about abstract concepts.

I cannot see how you can have a concept of human imperfection outside the context of human perfection. Of course we don't have to have empirically seen human perfection but we are aware of it hence our awareness of imperfection. The idea of not being right must betray some state of being right. I believe it was socrate's who meditated on the appearence of the perfect person and concluded that he would be eventually be put to death on, presumably, the principle of nobody liking a smartarse.

I suppose what I am saying is the concept of the imperfect is meaningless without the concept of perfection and in the same impenetrable way imperfection and the awareness of it has been transmitted to us from earliest humanity so has the impenetrable and confused idea and awareness of perfection. Biblically I think the term is used far less than the word perfected or perfecting and of course the key issue is the discussion of sin and holiness.

In terms of physical and environmental impairment. I'm sure that happened with Jesus but that challenges us to ponder whether it is the external that corrupts us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any version of the bible supplemented by what we now know (but people didn't know then) about human reproduction and development.

So if Jesus wasn't born following sexual reproduction he's (theoretically) have to have been the product of pathenogenesis (in which case he would have been female) or the claimed divine intervention would have to have replaced the male gamete within the reproduction process which would mean the divide (literally) rising, well actually fusing with the material oocyte.

That the writers of the bible knew nothing about reproductive biology is irrelevant - arguments from ignorance aren't credible.

We know the Y chromosome to be a reduced version of the x chromosome hence conditions like haemophilia. So given you can start a reproductive process with a single cell neither a male gamete nor a resulting female is a necessity................ God of course could raise a male gamete ''from the dust''(to go full bible) but doesn't even have to go there.

Since the bible doesn't describe the process we are fairly free to speculate IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So is there a separate chromosome for these supposed “special faculties” of yours then?

Why so coy?