• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever

bomberfox said:
Actually a lot of believers claim god cant be observed by mortals something something face will melt off.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh!

Wouldn't that explain the dearth of evidence?

And if it were true, which cannot be totally discounted, wouldn't that dearth of evidence actually be a sufficiency of evidence to establish that the statement "There is a God." is an accurate statement of reality?
 
devildavid said:
So what? Idiotic people don't change facts by their idiocy.
Click to expand...
And you have some "facts" that provide concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence to establish that "There is no God." (as opposed to the opinion "I believe that there is no God.")?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If someone does not have personal experience with something (be it "material" or "immaterial") then, if they accept second (or worse) hand information regarding the existence of that thing, they BELIEVE that that thing is "real".

If someone does not have personal experience with something (be it "material" or "immaterial") then, if they DO NOT accept second (or worse) hand information regarding the existence of that thing, they DO NOT BELIEVE that that thing is "real".

Neither of those two conditions has the slightest bearing on whether or not that thing is "real".

I'm quite prepared to bet that the Sun will appear to rise in the East tomorrow morning (to the extent of betting the ranch on it). On the other hand, I do not totally dismiss the possibility that the Sun might "go nova" while I am sleeping and, hence, will NOT appear to rise in the East tomorrow morning (although I don't make any plans that take that possibility into account).

See above for the difference between "knowing" and "believing". A person can "believe" in something to such a level that they will always act as if that something is "real" and (depending on what that thing is) the odds may very well favour (and to an immense degree) them in their decision based on what they "believe to be real".

I have never, personally, seen a COVID-19 virus. Based on the second-hand (and worse) information that I have received, I am prepared to believe that the COVID-19 virus is "real" and to base my actions on that belief.

There are many others who have, also, not personally seen a COVID-19 virus. Based on the second-hand (and worse) information that they have received (which is the same as the information that I have received), they are NOT prepared to believe that the COVID-19 virus is "real" and they base their actions on that belief.

Now, suppose (just for the sake of argument) that I was the ONLY person in the whole world who believed that the COVID-19 virus was "real".
  • Would that mean that the COVID-19 virus was NOT "real"?

Or, to take another example, if this were the 10th Century and I was the only person in the world who believed that women got pregnant because of the melding of small cells (that neither I nor anyone else had seen) that were contained in the ejaculate of males upon small cells (that neither I nor anyone else had seen) formed in the woman's ovaries.
  • Would that mean that it was not "real" that women got pregnant because of the melding of small cells (that neither I nor anyone else had seen) that were contained in the ejaculate of males upon small cells (that neither I nor anyone else had seen) formed in the woman's ovaries?
Click to expand...

Personal experience doesn't define reality, nor does personal belief, or personal observation. Reality doesn't bend to everyone's personal experience or beliefs.

Betting has nothing to do with reality.

If reality is defined by each individual then there is no definable reality and the word means nothing and we are discussing nothing. It is just word games.
 
devildavid said:
But betting does not require research.
Click to expand...
Only if you want to "bet stupid".

You can bet that a flipped coin will land on edge and stay there if you want to. It doesn't take a whole lot of research to realize that me giving you 70 to 1 odds on it happening if that is the way you want to bet (I mean, there ARE three [heads, tails, and edge] sides to a coin and the area of the edge is [depending on the coin] around 1/10th the area of either the "heads" or the "tails" and so the coin "should" land "heads" 30 times, "tails" 30 times, and "edge" 1 time) isn't quite as good a deal as it sounds like it is on paper.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
And you have some "facts" that provide concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence to establish that "There is no God." (as opposed to the opinion "I believe that there is no God.")?
Click to expand...

There can be no facts about something not existing if it is something which is imaginary.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Only if you want to "bet stupid".

You can bet that a flipped coin will land on edge and stay there if you want to. It doesn't take a whole lot of research to realize that me giving you 70 to 1 odds on it happening if that is the way you want to bet (I mean, there ARE three [heads, tails, and edge] sides to a coin and the area of the edge is [depending on the coin] around 1/10th the area of either the "heads" or the "tails" and so the coin "should" land "heads" 30 times, "tails" 30 times, and "edge" 1 time) isn't quite as good a deal as it sounds like it is on paper.
Click to expand...

There are no rules of how to bet. Betting does not impact reality.
 
Logicman said:
Nonsense. I have the historical Gospels and epistles. You guys have hot air and nothing of substance to knock down the resurrection. YOU HAVE NOTHING.
Click to expand...
You have the purportedly accurate and reliable "Gospels and epistles" (accuracy and reliability vouched for by those with a very strong vested interest in having those "Gospels and epistles" accepted as accurate and reliable) which you have accepted as accurate and reliable and which have convinced you to believe that "the resurrection" actually happened because they are accurate and reliable.

Other people have taken their own look at the purportedly accurate and reliable "Gospels and epistles" (noted that their accuracy and reliability is vouched for by those with a very strong vested interest in having those "Gospels and epistles" accepted as accurate and reliable) and have NOT accepted them as accurate and reliable and which have NOT convinced them to believe that "the resurrection" actually happened because those "Gospels and epistles" do not, in their opinion, constitute accurate and reliable reports of what they purport to describe.

NEITHER of those two have the faintest bearing on whether or not "the resurrection" actually occurred.
 
devildavid said:
Personal experience doesn't define reality, nor does personal belief, or personal observation. Reality doesn't bend to everyone's personal experience or beliefs.

Betting has nothing to do with reality.

If reality is defined by each individual then there is no definable reality and the word means nothing and we are discussing nothing. It is just word games.
Click to expand...
You are starting to begin to understand. You don't yet understand, but you are at least showing a faint glimmering of the beginning of a hint of a small appreciation of the actual extent of the question.
 
devildavid said:
There can be no facts about something not existing if it is something which is imaginary.
Click to expand...
Did you know that the statement "God is imaginary." is a positive "assertion of fact"?

If one makes a positive "assertion of fact" one can be called upon to provide the concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence upon which they based their "assertion of fact".

You just made a positive "assertion of fact".

Please provide the concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence upon which you based your positive "assertion of fact".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You are starting to begin to understand. You don't yet understand, but you are at least showing a faint glimmering of the beginning of a hint of a small appreciation of the actual extent of the question.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm beginning to "get" your pseudo-philosophical BS and see it for what it is. Total nonsense and word games that ultimately mean zip.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that the statement "God is imaginary." is a positive "assertion of fact"?

If one makes a positive "assertion of fact" one can be called upon to provide the concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence upon which they based their "assertion of fact".

You just made a positive "assertion of fact".

Please provide the concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence upon which you based your positive "assertion of fact".
Click to expand...

Gods only exits in books and have never been observed, just like other imaginary things like goblins and fairies in storybooks. But of course in your pseudo-philosophical pretentious world we can't call anything imaginary without your mantra of verifiable, reliable evidence. Hence, anything that can be imagined can be true because there is no way to produce evidence of it being imaginary. Oh, what a philosophical quandary! How deep! What are we to do!
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
There are if you want to win.

Betting IS reality.
Click to expand...

You just made a positive "assertion of fact".

Please provide the concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence upon which you based your positive "assertion of fact".
 
The NFL is better documented.
 
devildavid said:
You just made a positive "assertion of fact".

Please provide the concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence upon which you based your positive "assertion of fact".
Click to expand...
OK, so let me rephrase that rather injudicious choice of words.

"Betting IS reality, or maybe not, but that's the way I run things around here."

PS - Don't for a minute think that you are going to sidetrack me from attempting to educate you in the subtle distinctions between "knowing" and "believing".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
OK, so let me rephrase that rather injudicious choice of words.

"Betting IS reality, or maybe not, but that's the way I run things around here."

PS - Don't for a minute think that you are going to sidetrack me from attempting to educate you in the subtle distinctions between "knowing" and "believing".
Click to expand...

That statement is meaningless. How you run things? You don't run things.

You can't educate me in something that you obviously overestimate your expertise in.
 
VySky said:
Compelling argument
============


Every other consequential person of history came into the world to live. The death of other religious leaders—such as Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Mohammad, and Confucius—brought an anticlimactic end to their lives and their work.

But Christ came into the world as God’s son in order to die and pay the price for man’s sin. His sacrifice was the ultimate climax of his life, done for the benefit of all mankind—opening the way to eternal life in heaven for all who believe.

Of the four major world religions built on personalities, only Christianity claims its founder is still alive, having overcome death through resurrection. No Jew ever believed that, after Abraham died and was interred, his tomb ever became empty. After Buddha died, no disciple ever claimed that he or she saw or spoke to him again.

thefederalist.com

Jesus's Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event

Because of their experience with the resurrected Jesus, the apostles were in a unique position to know Jesus was truly the Son of God.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com
Click to expand...
You don’t really understand Buddhism, do you?

It shows.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You have the purportedly accurate and reliable "Gospels and epistles" (accuracy and reliability vouched for by those with a very strong vested interest in having those "Gospels and epistles" accepted as accurate and reliable) which you have accepted as accurate and reliable and which have convinced you to believe that "the resurrection" actually happened because they are accurate and reliable.

Other people have taken their own look at the purportedly accurate and reliable "Gospels and epistles" (noted that their accuracy and reliability is vouched for by those with a very strong vested interest in having those "Gospels and epistles" accepted as accurate and reliable) and have NOT accepted them as accurate and reliable and which have NOT convinced them to believe that "the resurrection" actually happened because those "Gospels and epistles" do not, in their opinion, constitute accurate and reliable reports of what they purport to describe.

NEITHER of those two have the faintest bearing on whether or not "the resurrection" actually occurred.
Click to expand...

You've eared yourself a challenge then: How about you show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). PERSON, PLACE OR EVENT. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious. Please follow the instructions above. Let's see that bad boy.
 
Logicman said:
First show me the scientific studies that demonstrate that God and the supernatural - i.e. a resurrection - do not and cannot exist?

So, science isn't on your side and neither is history.

As for your nonsensical "circular logic" claim, understand this:

The Gospels / New Testament are not circular logic / reasoning. In fact, they weren't even "the Bible" in the first century. What they were, were some two dozen individual manuscripts, written by mostly different authors at different times in different locales. As such, those manuscripts constitute MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT REPORTS OR CONFIRMATIONS for the life of Christ, etc. So, the "circular reasoning" claim is not only sophomoric, but disingenuous as well.
Click to expand...

Stop the really stupid posts. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom