Myth: man invented electricity

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, your hypothetical question is a thinly disguised rhetorical question which does nothing to support the conclusion you obviously think it does.

You demand objectivity, honesty, pragmatism from theists yet retreat when asked questions that could expose your own irrationality.

My question is entirely reasonable David, any honest person considering these matters would have no reticence in answering.

But you cannot answer the question because you are unwilling to be honest so you reach for your amateur debaters toolkit for a tool, that tool is to declare the question I asked you inadmissible on the alleged grounds that it is "a thinly disguised rhetorical question" and voila your problem is solved.

We examine these writings for what they are. Writings used to promote a religious belief, not to report for posterity an amazing event that took place.

Yes I know what you think about this David, and you may or may not be right, what I don't know is what you would actually do if you had witnessed such inexplicable events 2,000 years ago, if you had what could you do to convey this to later generations.

Of course you refuse to answer honestly, of course you reject the question because its uncomfortable for you, we all know that all you could do is write down what you witnessed or convey what you witnessed to someone else, there is NOTHING ELSE anyone could do under those circumstances.

Once again you resort to Trumpian tactics in your desperation to avoid being honest with me, but so be it, people are what people are.

 

[watsup]

You demand objectivity, honesty, pragmatism from theists yet retreat when asked questions that could expose your own irrationality.

My question is entirely reasonable David, any honest person considering these matters would have no reticence in answering.

But you cannot answer the question because you are unwilling to be honest so you reach for your amateur debaters toolkit for a tool, that tool is to declare the question I asked you inadmissible on the alleged grounds that it is "a thinly disguised rhetorical question" and voila your problem is solved.



Yes I know what you think about this David, and you may or may not be right, what I don't know is what you would actually do if you had witnessed such inexplicable events 2,000 years ago, if you had what could you do to convey this to later generations.

Of course you refuse to answer honestly, of course you reject the question because its uncomfortable for you, we all know that all you could do is write down what you witnessed or convey what you witnessed to someone else, there is NOTHING ELSE anyone could do under those circumstances.

Once again you resort to Trumpian tactics in your desperation to avoid being honest with me, but so be it, people are what people are.

Mostly ad hom, plus the ridiculous suggestion that water can be instantaneously turned into wine or that someone could walk on water.

 

[devildavid]

You demand objectivity, honesty, pragmatism from theists yet retreat when asked questions that could expose your own irrationality.

My question is entirely reasonable David, any honest person considering these matters would have no reticence in answering.

But you cannot answer the question because you are unwilling to be honest so you reach for your amateur debaters toolkit for a tool, that tool is to declare the question I asked you inadmissible on the alleged grounds that it is "a thinly disguised rhetorical question" and voila your problem is solved.



Yes I know what you think about this David, and you may or may not be right, what I don't know is what you would actually do if you had witnessed such inexplicable events 2,000 years ago, if you had what could you do to convey this to later generations.

Of course you refuse to answer honestly, of course you reject the question because its uncomfortable for you, we all know that all you could do is write down what you witnessed or convey what you witnessed to someone else, there is NOTHING ELSE anyone could do under those circumstances.

Once again you resort to Trumpian tactics in your desperation to avoid being honest with me, but so be it, people are what people are.

Funny thing is, you are engaging in the Trumpian tactic of accusing others of exactly what you are doing.

Your so-called question is a cheap debating trick which refuse to fall for.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Funny thing is, you are engaging in the Trumpian tactic of accusing others of exactly what you are doing.

Your so-called question is a cheap debating trick which refuse to fall for.

Very well, going forward, if you refuse to answer a question after two requests from me to do so, I will assume an answer, that answer will be what I personally suspect is the truthful answer to the question, which for one reason or another you are unwilling to provide.

So moving forward, if you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so.

So then when you demand "there's no evidence" that Jesus did such things, this is an illogical position because it is clear the only evidence we could expect is some preserved written record.

Furthermore because the events were so shocking, a great effort would be devoted to ensuring this information is preserved, tremendous value would be attached to the preservation of such incredible information.

Now it is pretty obvious to me that because such huge significance was attached to this information and written copies were the only way to preserve this for future generations, a practice of making meticulous copies would be strongly emphasized from the outset knowing that many copies would be inevitably lost due to their fragility.

In addition, due to the very obvious risk of the information being lost forever, as many copies as could be created would be created.

The above David is a very reasonable expectation if and only if such incredible events were observed, that the events were true and did occur.

And what do we actually find when we explore this subject David?

From wikipedia:

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work. There are over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages, such as Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.

and

"In evaluating the significance of these statistics...one should consider, by way of contrast, the number of manuscripts which preserve the text of the ancient classics. Homer's Iliad...is preserved by 457 papyri, 2 uncial manuscripts, and 188 minuscule manuscripts. Among the tragedians the witnesses to Euripides are the most abundant; his extant works are preserved in 54 papyri and 276 parchment manuscripts, almost all of the later dating from the Byzantine period...the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millennium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant which were copies within a century or so after the composition of the original documents".

From a Bible information site:



and



These statistics, charts and numbers David are what you regularly refer to as "facts".

The facts do indeed fit the expectation of what we'd find if a herculean effort were made by the initial observers to preserve the information with the technology available at the time, and this in turn strongly supports the belief that these events must have been true and were genuinely witnessed, no other explanation makes any real sense.

There are really no grounds for the atheists oft heard claim that there's no evidence Jesus existed, no evidence Jesus performed miracles, the data - when honestly analyzed in light of the prevailing technologies of the time - is exactly what one would expect to find.

Therefore - what is written in the New Testament is very very likely true.

 

[watsup]

Very well, going forward, if you refuse to answer a question after two requests from me to do so, I will assume an answer, that answer will be what I personally suspect is the truthful answer to the question, which for one reason or another you are unwilling to provide.

So moving forward, if you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so.

So then when you demand "there's no evidence" that Jesus did such things, this is an illogical position because it is clear the only evidence we could expect is some preserved written record.

Furthermore because the events were so shocking, a great effort would be devoted to ensuring this information is preserved, tremendous value would be attached to the preservation of such incredible information.

Now it is pretty obvious to me that because such huge significance was attached to this information and written copies were the only way to preserve this for future generations, a practice of making meticulous copies would be strongly emphasized from the outset knowing that many copies would be inevitably lost due to their fragility.

In addition, due to the very obvious risk of the information being lost forever, as many copies as could be created would be created.

The above David is a very reasonable expectation if and only if such incredible events were observed, that the events were true and did occur.

And what do we actually find when we explore this subject David?

From wikipedia:



and



From a Bible information site:

View attachment 67300309

and

View attachment 67300310

These statistics, charts and numbers David are what you regularly refer to as "facts".

The facts do indeed fit the expectation of what we'd find if a herculean effort were made by the initial observers to preserve the information with the technology available at the time, and this in turn strongly supports the belief that these events must have been true and were genuinely witnessed, no other explanation makes any real sense.

There are really no grounds for the atheists oft heard claim that there's no evidence Jesus existed, no evidence Jesus performed miracles, the data - when honestly analyzed in light of the prevailing technologies of the time - is exactly what one would expect to find.

Therefore - what is written in the New Testament is very very likely true.

There's not a bit of real evidence that Jesus performed miracles, your sophistry attempt at logic notwithstanding.

 

[devildavid]

Very well, going forward, if you refuse to answer a question after two requests from me to do so, I will assume an answer, that answer will be what I personally suspect is the truthful answer to the question, which for one reason or another you are unwilling to provide.

So moving forward, if you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so.

So then when you demand "there's no evidence" that Jesus did such things, this is an illogical position because it is clear the only evidence we could expect is some preserved written record.

Furthermore because the events were so shocking, a great effort would be devoted to ensuring this information is preserved, tremendous value would be attached to the preservation of such incredible information.

Now it is pretty obvious to me that because such huge significance was attached to this information and written copies were the only way to preserve this for future generations, a practice of making meticulous copies would be strongly emphasized from the outset knowing that many copies would be inevitably lost due to their fragility.

In addition, due to the very obvious risk of the information being lost forever, as many copies as could be created would be created.

The above David is a very reasonable expectation if and only if such incredible events were observed, that the events were true and did occur.

And what do we actually find when we explore this subject David?

From wikipedia:



and



From a Bible information site:

View attachment 67300309

and

View attachment 67300310

These statistics, charts and numbers David are what you regularly refer to as "facts".

The facts do indeed fit the expectation of what we'd find if a herculean effort were made by the initial observers to preserve the information with the technology available at the time, and this in turn strongly supports the belief that these events must have been true and were genuinely witnessed, no other explanation makes any real sense.

There are really no grounds for the atheists oft heard claim that there's no evidence Jesus existed, no evidence Jesus performed miracles, the data - when honestly analyzed in light of the prevailing technologies of the time - is exactly what one would expect to find.

Therefore - what is written in the New Testament is very very likely true.

All you have demonstrated is that there was an attempt to preserve certain documents. That says absolutely nothing about the content of those documents.

 

[watsup]

All you have demonstrated is that there was an attempt to preserve certain documents. That says absolutely nothing about the content of those documents.

Don't forget about the manuscripts lost at the huge fire in Constantinople. And I'd be willing to bet that the Vatican has a treasure trove of old documents that no one ever sees because they don't agree with the Bible.

 

[devildavid]

You demand objectivity, honesty, pragmatism from theists yet retreat when asked questions that could expose your own irrationality.

My question is entirely reasonable David, any honest person considering these matters would have no reticence in answering.

But you cannot answer the question because you are unwilling to be honest so you reach for your amateur debaters toolkit for a tool, that tool is to declare the question I asked you inadmissible on the alleged grounds that it is "a thinly disguised rhetorical question" and voila your problem is solved.



Yes I know what you think about this David, and you may or may not be right, what I don't know is what you would actually do if you had witnessed such inexplicable events 2,000 years ago, if you had what could you do to convey this to later generations.

Of course you refuse to answer honestly, of course you reject the question because its uncomfortable for you, we all know that all you could do is write down what you witnessed or convey what you witnessed to someone else, there is NOTHING ELSE anyone could do under those circumstances.

Once again you resort to Trumpian tactics in your desperation to avoid being honest with me, but so be it, people are what people are.

Your questions are rhetorical at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. Once again, you accuse me of exactly what you are guilty of.

As far as the bible, it was written many years after the events in it took place, by unknown authors for purposes of promoting a religious belief. No one on the scene wrote anything down in an attempt to tell an amazing story so that everyone would know about it.. There were not reporters on the scene. I deal with the reality of what actually happened, not your contrived hypothetical which means nothing at all and does not mean that your conclusion is correct about why it was written.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

All you have demonstrated is that there was an attempt to preserve certain documents. That says absolutely nothing about the content of those documents.

I actually showed far more than that, principally I showed that your answer to my question "But David, what could anyone have done to preserve evidence if these things did happen 2,000 years ago" is obviously "They could only have written a record and striven to preserve it".

That's the answer I'm assuming you'd give and I told you that when you refuse to answer a question two times in a row, I will not permit you to evade, I will answer it for you.

Of course if you disagree that this is your answer then prove it by giving us your own answer, this is all very simple David, why do you make it so difficult for yourself all the time?

The bottom line of course is that you demand "evidence" beyond that which could have been reasonably preserved over 2,000 years, you then elevate that to the claim "there's no evidence" when of course there's evidence.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your questions are rhetorical at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. Once again, you accuse me of exactly what you are guilty of.

Yes you've reacted like this many times, not because of anything improper in my question but presumably out of fear, that to answer honestly will allow me to logically refute some erroneous claim you've made.

Claiming a question is "rhetorical" or "intellectually dishonest" is quite simply an ad-hominem attack.

Here's the question, there is nothing improper about this question David, nothing dishonest:

What would you have done, if you'd seen Christ rise from the dead or turn water into wine? what steps could you take to ensure people knew this happened even 2,000 years in the future from you?

Obviously you must agree, that all you could do would be to write it and take steps to preserve the writing.

As far as the bible, it was written many years after the events in it took place, by unknown authors for purposes of promoting a religious belief. No one on the scene wrote anything down in an attempt to tell an amazing story so that everyone would know about it.. There were not reporters on the scene. I deal with the reality of what actually happened, not your contrived hypothetical which means nothing at all and does not mean that your conclusion is correct about why it was written.

There are rather a lot of unprovable assertions there David and some strawmen too, I mean do you expect me to let this go without comment "There were no reporters on the scene" David there was no press, printing, radio or TV 2,000 years ago in case you didn't know, very few people could read let alone write. Furthermore you would never reject other documents from antiquity on these grounds, quite a remarkable position you take here, really quite remarkable.

The fact of the matter is (and I think you know this full well) that if the events described in the Gospels actually did take place then the only evidence that it would be possible to find, is written documents that have been systematically and meticulously copied - and that is in fact what we have, the only evidence we could expect is precisely the evidence that we have, I mean what more could anyone really expect?

I'm assuming you agree with that because you refused to answer my questions so I've answered it for you, if you disagree then give me your own answer.

 

[Rumpel]

Who claimed that man invented electricity? That's like saying Newton invented gravity. (spoiler alert: he didn't).

Exactly.
"discover" is the word - not "invent".

 

[Rumpel]

Are you related to Mashmont?

Looks like it!

 

[zyzygy]

Exactly.
"discover" is the word - not "invent".

It is Valery who does not know the meaning of those words.

 

[Rumpel]

It is Valery who does not know the meaning of those words.

As it seems there are many many things that she does not know.

 

[devildavid]

Yes you've reacted like this many times, not because of anything improper in my question but presumably out of fear, that to answer honestly will allow me to logically refute some erroneous claim you've made.

Claiming a question is "rhetorical" or "intellectually dishonest" is quite simply an ad-hominem attack.

Here's the question, there is nothing improper about this question David, nothing dishonest:



Obviously you must agree, that all you could do would be to write it and take steps to preserve the writing.



There are rather a lot of unprovable assertions there David and some strawmen too, I mean do you expect me to let this go without comment "There were no reporters on the scene" David there was no press, printing, radio or TV 2,000 years ago in case you didn't know, very few people could read let alone write. Furthermore you would never reject other documents from antiquity on these grounds, quite a remarkable position you take here, really quite remarkable.

The fact of the matter is (and I think you know this full well) that if the events described in the Gospels actually did take place then the only evidence that it would be possible to find, is written documents that have been systematically and meticulously copied - and that is in fact what we have, the only evidence we could expect is precisely the evidence that we have, I mean what more could anyone really expect?

I'm assuming you agree with that because you refused to answer my questions so I've answered it for you, if you disagree then give me your own answer.

l'll answer the question. No, I wouldn't have. I would have used verbal means. I wouldn't worry about who in the future knew about what I thought I saw.

If you had a belief you wanted to promote, would you put it in writing to create a mythologized account of things you only believed happened in order to sway others? Would you do this if there was no other way to do it except writing it? Answer my question, yes or no.

 

[devildavid]

I actually showed far more than that, principally I showed that your answer to my question "But David, what could anyone have done to preserve evidence if these things did happen 2,000 years ago" is obviously "They could only have written a record and striven to preserve it".

That's the answer I'm assuming you'd give and I told you that when you refuse to answer a question two times in a row, I will not permit you to evade, I will answer it for you.

Of course if you disagree that this is your answer then prove it by giving us your own answer, this is all very simple David, why do you make it so difficult for yourself all the time?

The bottom line of course is that you demand "evidence" beyond that which could have been reasonably preserved over 2,000 years, you then elevate that to the claim "there's no evidence" when of course there's evidence.

You have not demonstrated anything about the contents of the documents. You have only demonstrated that some people wanted to preserve them.

 

[calamity]

I actually showed far more than that, principally I showed that your answer to my question "But David, what could anyone have done to preserve evidence if these things did happen 2,000 years ago" is obviously "They could only have written a record and striven to preserve it".

That's the answer I'm assuming you'd give and I told you that when you refuse to answer a question two times in a row, I will not permit you to evade, I will answer it for you.

Of course if you disagree that this is your answer then prove it by giving us your own answer, this is all very simple David, why do you make it so difficult for yourself all the time?

The bottom line of course is that you demand "evidence" beyond that which could have been reasonably preserved over 2,000 years, you then elevate that to the claim "there's no evidence" when of course there's evidence.

You do realize you are referring to a human rising up from the dead. Correct? IMO, that is not possible. If you want to argue it is possible, then you better bring to the table a shit-ton of evidence and not just some hearsay from zealots.

 

[Valery]

You do realize you are referring to a human rising up from the dead. Correct? IMO, that is not possible. If you want to argue it is possible, then you better bring to the table a shit-ton of evidence and not just some hearsay from zealots.

 

[devildavid]

The insect wasn't really dead. It did not freeze internally. It is physically equipped to survive extreme cold thanks to evolution. Thanks for promoting science.

 

[zyzygy]

The insect wasn't really dead. It did not freeze internally. It is physically equipped to survive extreme cold thanks to evolution. Thanks for promoting science.

Valery fails yet again.

 

[Quag]

You do realize you are referring to a human rising up from the dead. Correct? IMO, that is not possible. If you want to argue it is possible, then you better bring to the table a shit-ton of evidence and not just some hearsay from zealots.

Actually it does happen. Well it appears to happen as occasionally people a mispronounced dead.

peopel who have risen from the dead - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[zyzygy]

Actually it does happen. Well it appears to happen as occasionally people a mispronounced dead.

peopel who have risen from the dead - Google Search

www.google.com

Appears being the operative word.

 

[Valery]

The insect wasn't really dead. It did not freeze internally. It is physically equipped to survive extreme cold thanks to evolution. Thanks for promoting science.

So? It's evidence for God and for resurrection. You asked for it.

 

[stevecanuck]

So? It's evidence for God and for resurrection. You asked for it.

The scientific method according to Valery: Something happened, therefore God made it happen.

 

[Valery]

The scientific method according to Valery: Something happened, therefore God made it happen.

I wouldn't call it scientific, unless you will accept theology as science in this discussion. It is true, nevertheless, as you know, that nothing happens without the will of Allah.