- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,181
- Reaction score
- 15,237
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Sure and there are countless ways to see humor in this, but my question was serious what would you actually do if you found yourself in that position?
what would you actually do to let every one know about you if you were all powerful and knew about all people and wanted all people to know you?
That isn't an answer, that's another question.
1 you can answer would you talk to a few out of billions across millennia or would you find a better way?
I'll readily answer almost any question you ask, but I do think questions should be answered in the order they are asked.
Strange how there are a lots of posts here but rather fewer actual answers.
More ad-hominem, very well, if you must, you are who you are I suppose.
This is a very poor argument for the case that written records have no evidential value David, there are rather a lot of historians, archeologists and Egyptologists who'd be surprised to hear your view on this.
(Incidentally "evidence" is not the same as "proof" David, perhaps this is where you came off the rails?)
Hear! Hear! Especially the first three sentences. They define Sherlock exactly.Not so strange that intellectual dishonesty gets the attention it deserve. Instead of demanding an answer to a set-up question and using cheap debating tactics, just make your case. Don't pretend you are really interested in getting answers to questions framed such that you expect only one answer. This is just another weak theist argument similar to the claim that is trotted out that no one would die for a belief that they knew wasn't true, so therefore the belief must be true. No, that is not the only conclusion. Another is that people really believe in something without requiring full objective knowledge that what they believe is factually true. So they can write down things that they strongly believe in without that being evidence of the things actually happening. People have all kinds of motivations for writing things down.
Not so strange that intellectual dishonesty gets the attention it deserve.
Instead of demanding an answer to a set-up question and using cheap debating tactics, just make your case.
Don't pretend you are really interested in getting answers to questions framed such that you expect only one answer.
This is just another weak theist argument similar to the claim that is trotted out that no one would die for a belief that they knew wasn't true, so therefore the belief must be true.
No, that is not the only conclusion.
Another is that people really believe in something without requiring full objective knowledge that what they believe is factually true.
So they can write down things that they strongly believe in without that being evidence of the things actually happening. People have all kinds of motivations for writing things down.
The evidential value is based upon what type of documents that they are. The bible is not considered a rendering of history.
Did I use the word "proof"?
I never mentioned the Bible David nor did I ever say it was a "rendering of history" so you're in danger of drifting into another strawman argument here.
No not explicitly but it seems you draw no distinction between "proof" and "evidence" or do you?
That's a very obvious ad-hominem attack.
So was that.
So is that (if you object to the question because you believe it has only one answer then why didn't you point that out?)
It wasn't an argument it was a question.
But you just complained that it was intentionally framed to have only one answer, you seem quite confused.
What question is that an answer to? not the one that I asked that's for sure.
Very interesting amateur psychology David but not an answer to my very simple and rather polite question.
I never mentioned the Bible David nor did I ever say it was a "rendering of history" so you're in danger of drifting into another strawman argument here.
No not explicitly but it seems you draw no distinction between "proof" and "evidence" or do you?
The fact is David that the earliest gospel manuscripts we have date from the 2nd century (100 - 199) AD, centuries before any "bible".
The facts are also that these documents are the most extant of documents from antiquity and their composition date is much closer to the events they describe than almost all other documents from antiquity.
These are both facts, by all means dispute then if you wish to.
I did point out your obvious tactic.
That you call it simple and polite does not change its intellectual dishonesty. It is an argument posing as a question, as is clearly evident by how it is framed.
I did not use the word proof. Stop the intellectual dishonesty. My use of the word evidence means exactly what it says and nothing more is implied.
Close, but no cigar. None of the documents date from a time there were possible eyewitnesses writing down what they saw. It could only have been passed down orally until the point it was ever put into writing.
Other than the Bible, what other historical documents "report" these amazing events?
Not really, all you've pointed out is that I wrote something you do not like, rather than discuss politely you instead elect to attack my integrity.
Again accusing me of being dishonest is an ad-hominem attack David.
If you cannot reason without attacking my integrity then that's a very serious shortcoming in the efficacy of your own argument, nothing more.
So enough of this pettiness.
Yes and I admitted that above, you did not use the word "proof" I apologize, I stand corrected.
But I would like to ask you what you understand as the difference between "proof" and "evidence"?
I never said any of the manuscripts did date from the time there might have been eyewitness.
I never said that it couldn't be passed on orally until first written down, furthermore it is very obvious that a story will be passed on orally until the first time it's passed on in writing!
I'll assume this is just an error on your part, I'd hate to imply that you were being dishonest.
None to my knowledge.
I am correctly pointing out your intellectual dishonesty.
And correctly pointing out that you disguise your argument as a simple and polite question. In debating, not all questions require answers.
If you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described in the Gospels, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) I put it to you that you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so, or do nothing, ignore the information.
You referred specifically to actions taken by Jesus, yet you dishonesty pretend you are asking an open hypothetical question.
If you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described in the Gospels, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) I put it to you that you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so, or do nothing, ignore the information.
Then it turns out that the actions you specially pointed out were not written about at the time they happened.
Not really, all you've pointed out is that I wrote something you do not like, rather than discuss politely you instead elect to attack my integrity.
Again accusing me of being dishonest is an ad-hominem attack David.
If you cannot reason without attacking my integrity then that's a very serious shortcoming in the efficacy of your own argument, nothing more.
So enough of this pettiness.
Another ad-hominem, here's what I assume you're referring to David:
Note that "miracle" is in quotation marks David, note too that "turning vats of water into wine" is prefixed with "e.g.", describing anything in that as dishonesty is an ad-hominem attack, nothing more.
The question is asking what you would do, had you lived some two thousand years ago, were you to witness something inexplicable, shocking, remarkable whatever it may be, for example someone turning water into wine.
The post then goes on to show that in the case of the gospels, these documents do fit the pattern of what we'd expect if they did originate from an event or observation like that, you've said nothing of substance that counters that view.
I never said anything was "written about at the time they happened", this is a strawman argument David.
I'd hoped for a stimulating discussion about this but instead I get repeatedly insulted and attacked.
But this is no surprise I suppose, this is what atheism ultimately amounts to, where it always leads to, false accusations, personal attacks, assaults on one's character.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?