I enjoyed this… Thought you might like it as well…
2 Likes
Evidence is in the hands of the believer and those who seek after truth. The truth is Jesus and His view is a real world view. Atheist are worldviews within society. Jesus world view includes everything and everyone including the spiritual world.
1 Like
Now, there is a bunch of circular bullshit. No wonder you are so dizzy. If you stopped spinning for a moment you might be able to see the world around you.
2 Likes
No true Scotsman fallacy.
Blah blah blah, some more unevidenced stuff, and blah blah blah…
Nope atheists are people who don’t believe in any deity or deities, and their worldviews would necessarily be atheistic, but atheism is not, by definition a worldview.
No one can know what the Jesus character in the gospel myths believed or did not believe.
Belief should be based on evidence, it is very telling that you are stating here plainly that you do the opposite, and bend evidence to a belief you have been indoctrinated into, and are emotionally invested in.
If you have any interest in what is true, then evidence comes first, and belief second, anything else is bias.
I take it that you never went to public school and learned the definition.
I disagree. That’s what your fellow Christians would like you to believe. In truth Christianity was made up by the Romans. There’s no compelling evidence what so ever that your imaginary friend ever existed.
You don’t know a damn thing about Atheists.
I don’t believe you. You say a god exists, present concrete evidence for your statements. You made the claim, its now your job to prove it. If you cannot prove it, then you’re a liar.
Oh look, one I’ve missed while otherwise engaged.
Wrong.
Even a brief period of time spent in a properly constituted science class, tells those who pay attention therein, that diligent labour is frequently required in order to provide proper evidence for a postulate. Especially if the postulate in question is intricate and involves a large quantity of technical detail hidden within.
I’ll come to the matter of how much harder still it can be, upon occasions, to succeed in this matter in the realm of pure mathematics. Be patient …
And it’s at this juncture, that pure mathematics becomes apposite to introduce. Because truth outside that realm is notoriously difficult even to define in a rigorous manner. A lesson scientists learned when, after 250 years of success of the Newtonian physics enterprise, they started encountering entities and interactions that were beyond the remit of Newtonian physics to explain. Hence the emergence of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Which means that there are problems with the notion of “truth” in the concrete realm that are still exercising learned minds today.
Indeed, even if we choose to use “consonance with observational reality” as a working definition of “truth” in the concrete realm, that history of scientific development teaches something important about postulates in that realm. Namely, that reality could always throw a curve ball when one least expects it, though as more knowledge is obtained, the more we are able to rule out curve balls involving the logically inconsistent, the physically unreal and the outright fantastic.
So, on to pure mathematics. Which, operating as it does in the abstract realm, benefits from the manner in which a robust definition of “truth” can be formulated, within formal axiomatic systems. Namely, that postulates are considered to be true, if they can be derived from axioms of the system, or previously derived theorems, in an error free manner.
But even here, pure mathematicians have learned some sobering lessons. Fermat’s Last Theorem took 350 years to crack, and the proof involved branches of mathematics that did not exist in Fermat’s time. The theories of elliptic functions and modular forms are mid to late 20th century developments, and only by using those tools, did a proper proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem become possible.
It’s even worse in the case of some other problems, which still defeat world class mathematicians. Such as whether or not there exists a constructive proof that a closed form analytical solution exists to the Navier-Stokes Equations, a problem made all the more ferocious by the fact that this system of equations, in its fullest expression, is a system of tensor differential equations. Then there’s the Riemann Hypothesis, a proof of which would revolutionise our understanding of prime numbers and make all manner of new cryptographic tools possible. That one, like the Navier-Stokes Equations problem, has a million dollar prize attached to it.
But it’s even worse still - Kurt Gödel proved in the 1930s, that every sufficiently powerful and expressive formal axiomatic system has limits to its ability to derive true propositions.He proved, via an ingenious method, that for any given formal axiomatic system, it is possible to construct a postulate that is true, if and only if it cannot be proven in the formal axiomatic system in question. There may exist a different choice of formal axiomatic system within which that postulate is a provable theorem, but that other choice of formal axiomatic system will have its own undecidable postulates.
So if even pure mathematics is subject to restrictions here, only a fool would issue rash declarations about “truth” against that background of sometimes bitter learning.
And right on cue comes a rash declaration, of the sort I’ve just explained in detail we should avoid. Not least because, as you’ve already been told repeatedly, just because your favourite mythology asserts something doesn’t mean for one moment that the assertion is true. Indeed, we KNOW that several of the assertions presented within the pages of your favourite mythology are not merely wrong, but fatuous and absurd.
Quite simply, your favourite Bronze Age mythology doesn’t rise to the level of competence required to be considered worthy of a point of view . The only matter on which your mythology is reliable, is the matter of informing us of the propensity of its authors to engage in fanciful fabrication. The idea that this collection of fairy tales is informative about much of the real world is a joke, given how much of said mythology is obviously farcical to anyone who paid attention in properly constituted classes devoted both to science and history.
Was this functionally literate wibbling supposed to mean something? You can’t even display competence with respect to basic English grammar and semantics. Do you expect to be treated seriously, every time you present a dismal performance of this sort?
Again, several here, reading your frankly sub-prokaryotic output, wonder if you ever attended a genuine educational establishment at any time in your life. You certainly offer no evidence here that you have.
If Jesus’ worldview was so comprehensive, why didn’t he spell it out for us in writing, rather than leave it to the disciples of his disciples to convey the gospels decades after he died?
In fact, the NT is such a garbled, contradictory mess one suspects that Jesus may not have wanted anyone to make any effort to express that which may be ultimately ineffable for him. Instead, it seems obvious that the apostles were to leave the heavy lifting of saving souls to the Holy Ghost.
Of course, it would not have been mentioned in any of his biographer’s books, but Jesus’ admonition to not publish (if he was real and if it was issued) seems to have been gradually ignored as the opportunity to monetize his “good news”, and turn it into countless, wildly divergent DBA’s with Jesus name over the door, became too lucrative to resist.
I think you mean “anything”, why didn’t he write anything at all ever.
Nope, not one word written in the gospel myths is contemporary, they are anonymous accounts, dated decades after the events they purport to describe. The names were arbitrarily assigned over 3 centuries later, at the first council of Nicaea. CITATION
1 Like
It seems to me that the biggest problem Bible thumpers face is this: if the god described in their book is omnipotent he has the power to speak for himself just as he would have the power to prevent anyone from speaking for, or telling lies about him.
But even the most fervent advocate of biblical inerrancy admits that neither god or Jesus wrote any of it and the most honest ones recognize that the Bible is full of contradictory statements and assertions which are not supported by any tangible evidence. All of this while a supposedly omnipotent god, who has the omniscience to set things right and the power to stop it all, just sits on his hands.
Of course the apologists have come up with all sorts of complicated rationalizations to purportedly explain away all of this. But the “Essy A”, Occam’s Razor answer seems most reasonable. That is, the god of the Bible doesn’t exist, has absolutely no power (duh) and the existence of the Bible is as close as anyone will get come to conclusively establishing the veracity of an atheist’s disbelief.
IOW, if god were real the Bible wouldn’t be.