God is Dead (1 Viewer)

[Angel]

That is the claim. Now, can you provide more than religious dogma and rhetoric to show that it , you know, actually true?

That is your claim. Can you show that is more than a personal belief, a subjective illusion you tell yourself? Can you translate your 'private knowledge' into 'public knowledge'?

Yes, I have. You have actually provided nothing but religious dogma and empty claims.

Can RAMOSS provide more than "dogma" and "rhetoric" and "personal belief" and "subjective illusion" FOR HIS PANTHEISM?
Can RAMOSS "show that [HIS PANTHEISM] , you know, [is] actually true"?

We may never know because RAMOSS is always attacking the theism of others, while keeping his own pantheism tucked away in the closet and safe from attack.
No one has called RAMOSS out on his closet pantheism before this.
Time to call RAMOSS to account for his pantheism, dontcha think?

Now what are the odds RAMOSS will ignore this post?

Namaste.

 

[zyzygy]

There's quite a bit of evidence for it... look into it if you wish

In the LOTR trilogy there is quite a bit of evidence for the existence of Gandalf.

 

[Angel]

In the LOTR trilogy there is quite a bit of evidence for the existence of Gandalf.

This is the something we might expect to hear from a ten-year-old.
New Atheism has made infantilism all the rage in religious debate.

Namaste.

 

[gfm7175]

In the LOTR trilogy there is quite a bit of evidence for the existence of Gandalf.

Sure, but there's also quite a bit of evidence that J.R.R. Tolkien is an author of fantasy works, the LOTR trilogy being three of those fantasy works.

 

[gfm7175]

You're a bit off in your questioning as usual, RAMOSS.

If your studies show that affecting the brain (and the word is "affecting," not "effecting," by the way)--if your studies show that affecting the brain affects the mind, then you are only reasonably allowed to ask for evidence that affecting the mind affects the brain. I believe there is such evidence from science itself.

Do you understand this?

To demand evidence that "the mind does not require the brain," you would have to have provided evidence that the brain does not require a mind. Your reported studies don't show this. Even unconsciousness is a state of mind.

Unless you can show that the brain does not require mind, you overreach in demanding to be shown that mind does not require the brain.

Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "require," and I'm not sure you're sure, but if we're talking about necessary and sufficient conditions, then in order to demand that someone show that the brain is not a necessary or sufficient condition for the existence of mind, then it falls to you to show that the brain is a necessary or sufficient condition for mind.

Your studies do not show this. They show correlations and a certain causal relation, but they do not show that the brain is a necessary or sufficient condition for the existence of mind, and this is what you would need to show in order to reasonably demand to be shown that brain is not a necessary or sufficient condition for the existence of mind.

In short, you're demanding that gfm show the contrary of what you have not shown.

Now hide.

Namaste.

Damn, I directly answered his question (which was a correct answer and a perfect example of what he was asking of me) without even considering whether it was a valid question or not, which you proved here that it was not even a valid question to begin with.

Edit: And yes, I see that he has ignored my response to him, your response to him, and the point you made to him about his pantheism... He has no problem attacking our views, but he seems to cower away whenever the needle points in his direction.

 

[devildavid]

And this is known as 'shifting the burden of proof' and also 'false equivalency'. We HAVE evidence there is something that is physical.. and quite often, there is a conceptual component to it. (For example, a computer will have both 'hardware' and 'software'.. and the software' interacts with the hardware to be able to produce a result. The software is not physical, so it's not entirely physical in nature.

And, I want you to show that the statement Whatever created space, time, and matter has to be, by necessity, spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, correct? is true. I don't know if it is. How can you determine that. Is 'timeless' and 'spaceless' even possible? Prove it.

Software is physical. The problem here is that we tend to see things as not physical when it is just a more subtle form of physical. This causes the mind/brain confusion.

 

[devildavid]

Well, the difference is that CPU software requires physical hardware to work, while the mind does not require the brain, nor the rest of the physical body, to work.

Here is a claim for which there is no evidence.

 

[gfm7175]

Here is a claim for which there is no evidence.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is perfect evidence that mind survives outside of physical embodiment.

 

[CharisRose]

Here is a claim for which there is no evidence.

Corporation

https://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/corpor.html

Roseann

 

[CharisRose]

Here is a claim for which there is no evidence.

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516

person

n. 1) a human being.

2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation.

However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

Roseann

 

[zyzygy]

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is perfect evidence that mind survives outside of physical embodiment.

Alleged resurrection.

 

[CharisRose]

Here is a claim for which there is no evidence.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/natural person

legal Definition of natural person

: a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law — compare juridical person, legal person

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/juridical person

legal Definition of juridical person in the civil law of Louisiana : an entity (as a partnership or corporation) that is given rights and responsibilities — compare natural person
Note: The rights and responsibilities of a juridical person are distinct from those of the natural persons constituting it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/legal person

legal Definition of legal person
: a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and especially the capacity to sue and be sued

Roseann

 

[gfm7175]

Alleged resurrection.

Which is pretty well supported by eyewitness testimony and the four gospels as well as other historical accounts of that time period. There is even "enemy testimony" that Jesus' body wasn't in the tomb anymore.

https://crossexamined.org/10-reasons-accept-resurrection-jesus-historical-fact/

 

[RAMOSS]

Which is pretty well supported by eyewitness testimony and the four gospels as well as other historical accounts of that time period. There is even "enemy testimony" that Jesus' body wasn't in the tomb anymore.

https://crossexamined.org/10-reasons-accept-resurrection-jesus-historical-fact/

There are problems with that. 1) The four gospels are not eye witness accounts. 2) There are claims for eye witnesses, but we have no direct eye witness testimony. None of the writers of any of the books in the New Testament are eye witnesses. The closest someone can claims is that Paul allegedly had 'visions'. He claimed there were 500 eye witness, but none of those alleged witnesses wrote anything. The Gospels are written decades later, and there is no strong evidence that they were written by the person to whom they are attributed to.

As for the other 'historical accounts'... they are second hand accounts that are either talking about Christians, or is information gotten from Christians... (or are forgeries)

 

[gfm7175]

There are problems with that. 1) The four gospels are not eye witness accounts.

If you say so...

2) There are claims for eye witnesses, but we have no direct eye witness testimony. None of the writers of any of the books in the New Testament are eye witnesses. The closest someone can claims is that Paul allegedly had 'visions'. He claimed there were 500 eye witness, but none of those alleged witnesses wrote anything.

Yeah, many of them were.

The Gospels are written decades later,

Why does this matter? 9/11 happened 16.5 years ago, yet I can remember exactly where I was and what I was doing at the time it happened. I had other "intense" moments from first grade that I can still fully remember to this day, and will always remember... I would think the resurrection would be something that I could remember for a lifetime... Plus, the apostles had everything to lose and nothing to gain in regards to saying that the resurrection happened.

 

[Angel]

There are problems with that. 1) The four gospels are not eye witness accounts. 2) There are claims for eye witnesses, but we have no direct eye witness testimony. None of the writers of any of the books in the New Testament are eye witnesses. The closest someone can claims is that Paul allegedly had 'visions'. He claimed there were 500 eye witness, but none of those alleged witnesses wrote anything. The Gospels are written decades later, and there is no strong evidence that they were written by the person to whom they are attributed to.

As for the other 'historical accounts'... they are second hand accounts that are either talking about Christians, or is information gotten from Christians... (or are forgeries)

Are there similar problems with the Torah?
Did G_d give the Torah to the Israelites, as you once said in a post?

 

[RAMOSS]

If you say so...


Yeah, many of them were.


Why does this matter? 9/11 happened 16.5 years ago, yet I can remember exactly where I was and what I was doing at the time it happened. I had other "intense" moments from first grade that I can still fully remember to this day, and will always remember... I would think the resurrection would be something that I could remember for a lifetime... Plus, the apostles had everything to lose and nothing to gain in regards to saying that the resurrection happened.

Which scriptures in the bible do you think were written by eye witnesses?? Can you give a list? Let's look at that claim, using Christian theologians and see if that can be stated without ambiguity. I know some there are some ultra conservative theologans that do think that, but they are not the majority. Can that claim hold up to scrutiny?

Which ones do you want to examine, and I will be glad to point out modern Christian scholarship that shows that , no, it wasn't.

 

[Angel]

Which scriptures in the bible do you think were written by eye witnesses?? Can you give a list? Let's look at that claim, using Christian theologians and see if that can be stated without ambiguity. I know some there are some ultra conservative theologans that do think that, but they are not the majority. Can that claim hold up to scrutiny?

Which ones do you want to examine, and I will be glad to point out modern Christian scholarship that shows that , no, it wasn't.

Are traditional Pardes exegesis and modern historical-critical exegesis of the Torah univocal?
Which approach do you, RAMOSS, prefer?

 

[gfm7175]

Which scriptures in the bible do you think were written by eye witnesses?? Can you give a list? Let's look at that claim, using Christian theologians and see if that can be stated without ambiguity. I know some there are some ultra conservative theologans that do think that, but they are not the majority. Can that claim hold up to scrutiny?

Which ones do you want to examine, and I will be glad to point out modern Christian scholarship that shows that , no, it wasn't.

I guess I don't really see the point of entering down this rabbit hole with you. The facts concerning Jesus’ death, burial, empty tomb, and post-mortem appearances can be established independently of knowing exactly who wrote the gospels. And a gap of decades from the event to the event being recorded is a very short gap in comparison to much secular Greco-Roman history.

 

[Angel]

I guess I don't really see the point of entering down this rabbit hole with you....

Rabbit hole is right. Which conveniently doubles as an ostrich hole sometimes too, for one or two of us.

 

[gfm7175]

So many people seem to misunderstand what "God is Dead" means.

Ol' BobDick knows what's up...

 

[RAMOSS]

I guess I don't really see the point of entering down this rabbit hole with you. The facts concerning Jesus’ death, burial, empty tomb, and post-mortem appearances can be established independently of knowing exactly who wrote the gospels. And a gap of decades from the event to the event being recorded is a very short gap in comparison to much secular Greco-Roman history.

That point is.. you do not know who wrote the gospels. You know who the gospels are attributed to, but you do not know who wrote them. Not only that.. I can use strictly Christian theologians to make that point. I can even avoid bishop spong, and not use Bart Erhman at all with my references.

 

[Angel]

That point is.. you do not know who wrote the gospels. You know who the gospels are attributed to, but you do not know who wrote them. Not only that.. I can use strictly Christian theologians to make that point. I can even avoid bishop spong, and not use Bart Erhman at all with my references.

What about all the Torah questions you're ducking? You've outed yourself, man.
Why should a Christian engage your pet quibbles with Christianity when you ignore every attempt to engage you on the Torah?

Namaste.

 

[gfm7175]

That point is.. you do not know who wrote the gospels. You know who the gospels are attributed to, but you do not know who wrote them. Not only that.. I can use strictly Christian theologians to make that point. I can even avoid bishop spong, and not use Bart Erhman at all with my references.

Ok. Let's assume, for arguments sake, that you are absolutely correct and I only know who the gospels were attributed to, not who authored them. So what? I repeat my prior post to you, and will add in some bold this time...

I guess I don't really see the point of entering down this rabbit hole with you. The facts concerning Jesus’ death, burial, empty tomb, and post-mortem appearances can be established independently of knowing exactly who wrote the gospels. And a gap of decades from the event to the event being recorded is a very short gap in comparison to much secular Greco-Roman history.

Now, if you would address the questions concerning the Torah that Angel noticed you're ignoring, I would be ever grateful...

 

[RAMOSS]

Ok. Let's assume, for arguments sake, that you are absolutely correct and I only know who the gospels were attributed to, not who authored them. So what? I repeat my prior post to you, and will add in some bold this time...

I guess I don't really see the point of entering down this rabbit hole with you. The facts concerning Jesus’ death, burial, empty tomb, and post-mortem appearances can be established independently of knowing exactly who wrote the gospels. And a gap of decades from the event to the event being recorded is a very short gap in comparison to much secular Greco-Roman history.

Now, if you would address the questions concerning the Torah that Angel noticed you're ignoring, I would be ever grateful...

If it is a question from Angel, I have had Angel on ignore for months, so I have not seen any question about the Torah. When it comes to the concerning Jesus's death, and burial, and post-mortum appearance.... let's see your non-biblical sources for those... Can you show any that are indeed independent of the Christian scriptures? None of the standard ones (Pliney, Tacitus) are independent, and the passages in Josephus are insertions