Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

Is there a reliable method which deals with the supernatural realm?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Juni {^á´¥^}


"Don't judge other people just because they sin differently from you!" ~ Anon

Three things you (probably) don't know about Islam
[www.youtube.com]

Welcome To Belgistan -- The New Muslim Capital Of Europe
[www.youtube.com]

Jun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a reliable method which deals with the
> supernatural realm?

Wow, Wade. Kierkegaard'd love you.

Yeah.

Faith.

(Which you, to this moment, don't have and, therefore, can't pass judgment on.)

But, it's all I need to demonstrate that all you said in that post in factually in error. It also provides me with an opportunity to show that you lie about us and what we believe.

Shouldn't that be enough?

One factual error?! Wow burn me at the stake. Sorry pb I'm only human. However I still believe Marks 16. 1-8 is not much of a resurrection story compared to the other gospels.

So you've picked one factual error. What about the rest of points I've brought up in my posts? Are they factually correct? They must be considering the zeal you've shown in pointing out my errors.


Well, linc, it certainly isn't the place I'd go first.

Talk to ff. He brought it up.

Linc pb is being cagey again. We all know the first place he'd go, and he's gone there before several times in this thread alone. I've address his sole source and naturally he cannot counter anything I've posted about his magic talisman,1 Corinthians 15.

He hasn't addressed the inconsistency between the stories of Paul's encounter with the risen jesus in Acts compared to 1 Corinthians 15.8. He doesn't address the question Did Paul see Jesus or just hear a voice?

He hasn't addressed the fact that Paul gives no details about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 except that Jesus died and rose on the third day.

He hasn't address the fact that Paul gives little to no details about Jesus' life and at times contradicts Jesus preachings.

He hasn't address the fact in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul clearly states that resurrection is more spirtiual than physical.

One letter by a man that never met Jesus, obviously knew very little about the man's life, death and supposed resurrection is the strongest evidence pb has for his claim Jesus rose from the dead. This is the same person who calls himself a historian. Now is this self deception or just plain lying?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2010 08:17AM by Fascinated_foreigner.

pb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is there a reliable method which deals with the
> > supernatural realm?
>
> Wow, Wade. Kierkegaard'd love you.
>
> Yeah.
>
> Faith.
>
> (Which you, to this moment, don't have and,
> therefore, can't pass judgment on.)

I do "utilise" faith for things which are "unknowable" at times, however I have no absolute faith in faith. You "deal" with the supernatural with "faith" I'd agree. But you can't "know" the supernatural through "faith". However when I used the word "deal" earlier, I've meant "to acquire factual knowledge regarding..." in contrast to this.

Faith is something that which when we've acknowledge that certain things are just unknowable, and thus we'd "just have faith" and accept one way or the other (according to our prejudice and wants).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Juni {^á´¥^}


"Don't judge other people just because they sin differently from you!" ~ Anon

Three things you (probably) don't know about Islam
[www.youtube.com]

Welcome To Belgistan -- The New Muslim Capital Of Europe
[www.youtube.com]

What pb calls "faith" most people would just call "self-deception"-- no different than the Heaven's Gate cult that thought they were going to be whisked away on a spaceship hidden in comet Hale-Bopp if they just ate poison yogurt. The word faith is more legitimately used to mean loyalty or devotion to an intangible thing such as honor, love or patriotism rather than a credulous acceptance of bizarre claims. Faith healers such as Peter Popoff trade in a false faith that is really gullibility.

One factual error?!

No!

But, this is yet another one.

"It [the Resurrection] certainly is a physical occurrence"---pb

If it was, we can apply the natural laws to it and the resurrection would have violated those laws and it’s reliability would be subject to the empirical evidence that demonstrates that it couldn't have happened any more than elephants can or could have flown. If it were a supernatural rather than a physical occurrence, there would’t be any laws…so anything could have happened.

"I'm a little sketchy on the biblical texts to which you refer. When did His body appear to some people while it was invisible to others?"

Mark 16:9, 12

Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons.

He also appeared in a different form (remember this is supposed to be a “physical body”). Physical bodies don’t take “different forms”.

Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country.

Yet when Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul was blinded but the men that were with him weren’t. They could hear Jesus talking but they couldn’t “see him”.

"Re: "he is said never to have died again..." Explain."

What part don’t you understand? Physical bodies last, at most , about 120 years and they all die. When do you think Jesus resurrected body died?

"Well, His pre-crucifixion body is said to have walked on water"

So, do you want to claim that as an historical fact too?

"The physical parts...?"---Pondy

This is probably one of many areas in which I differ from pb. I have little doubt that there is more to reality than what we can experience in the touch, see, feel, realm. I think there are aspects of reality that transcend what we can physically experience. Pb would probably call those aspects of transcendent reality the supernatural. For him it seems, supernatural acts can violate the laws of the touch, see, feel, realm. As I said, I, personally think there might be what pb calls the supernatural, but I wouldn’t call it that because even though it transcends the physical reality that we experience…it transcends it but is compatible with it. It violates none of what we call natural law. Think of living in a two dimensional reality. In a flat, two-dimensional reality, we have the laws of geometry, a triangle has three sides etc. That’s all we’re capable of experiencing with our senses. We’d have no concept of volume in that world, however, if we add a third dimension, we now not only have flat triangles, but we can understand a pyramid and the concept of volume, which is not conceivable in a two-dimensional reality. Yet everything in the three dimensional reality is completely compatible with the two dimensional one. It violates none of its laws. My guess is, pb, in the two dimensional world, would consider volume something supernatural .

I have little doubt that there is more to reality than what we can experience in the touch, see, feel, realm. I think there are aspects of reality that transcend what we can physically experience.-islander

i wonder how anyone could know that.

personally i feel this way about that: its possible that parts of reality lie beyond our ability including our technological ability to sense but theres no reason to believe anything in particular about it.

there may be a god or an invisible flying spaghetti monster who actually controls parts of reality but there is no reason to believe that there is.

isle,

If it was, we can apply the natural laws to it and the resurrection would have violated those laws and it’s reliability would be subject to the empirical evidence that demonstrates that it couldn't have happened any more than elephants can or could have flown. If it were a supernatural rather than a physical occurrence, there would’t be any laws…so anything could have happened.

There is evidence--from the gospels, at least--that the event was investigated and the laws of nature thoroughly considered. The tomb was searched and found to be empty. If the resurrection was merely a spiritual phenomenon, the body would not have been affected. But, the testimony of the gospels clearly makes the point that the body was not in the grave. In the famous 'Doubting Thomas' story, Thomas started out just like you: as a first-class sciencist. He demanded to be able to stick his finger in the hole in Jesus' hand and his hand in Jesus' side. You're acting as if there was no investigation of the claims that Jesus rose from the grave took place.

The fact is that the testimony of the Gospels is that all the followers of Jesus started out sciencists with your frame of mind and became convinced that a physical resurrection took place.

"I'm a little sketchy on the biblical texts to which you refer. When did His body appear to some people while it was invisible to others?"

Mark 16:9, 12

Hmmm.

What kind of whacky Bible do you have? In my Bible the last verse in Mark is 16:8. Now, if the game is to start making up Bible verses, let me know. I'm sure I can come up with some real doozies that'd make your head spin.

"Re: "he is said never to have died again..." Explain."

What part don’t you understand? Physical bodies last, at most , about 120 years and they all die. When do you think Jesus resurrected body died?

I want to know who said that He never died again. You said, that that's said. Who said it? Where? When? In what context?

"Well, His pre-crucifixion body is said to have walked on water"

So, do you want to claim that as an historical fact too?

At least I can tell you where that is said.

I'll claim that in another thread another time. I'm not a sciencist. You are demonstrating that YOU are.

its funny that pb is now claiming that jesuss disciples were sceintists at a time when no one was a scientist let alone the uneducated followers of a mystical jewish rabbi. this may be pbs most absurd claim yet.

rather than to thoroughly and methodically investigate any claims of supernaturalism jesuss followers were all too ready to believe those claims just like pb is ready to believe them today. rather than to start from a position of healthy scepticism they like pb start from a position of beleif.

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The physical parts...?"---Pondy
>
> This is probably one of many areas in which I
> differ from pb. I have little doubt that there is
> more to reality than what we can experience in the
> touch, see, feel, realm. I think there are aspects
> of reality that transcend what we can physically
> experience.
> Pb would probably call those aspects
> of transcendent reality the supernatural.

Probably.

> For him it seems, supernatural acts can violate the laws
> of the touch, see, feel, realm.

Yeah. "Can." I can think of no reason to suppose that a reality that exists separate from the natural reality would, of necessity be subject to the laws of that other reality.

> As I said, I, personally think there might be what pb calls the
> supernatural, but I wouldn’t call it that
> because even though it transcends the physical
> reality that we experience…it transcends it but
> is compatible with it.

Perhaps, isle, you'd be more accurate to say you BELIEVE that.

> It violates none of what we
> call natural law. Think of living in a two
> dimensional reality. In a flat, two-dimensional
> reality, we have the laws of geometry, a triangle
> has three sides etc. That’s all we’re capable
> of experiencing with our senses. We’d have no
> concept of volume in that world, however, if we
> add a third dimension, we now not only have flat
> triangles, but we can understand a pyramid and the
> concept of volume, which is not conceivable in a
> two-dimensional reality. Yet everything in the
> three dimensional reality is completely compatible
> with the two dimensional one. It violates none of
> its laws. My guess is, pb, in the two dimensional
> world, would consider volume something
> supernatural .

Yeah. It comes down to you just being better than the people who disagree with you, aint?

Lucky for you that you're just, well, better than I.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have little doubt that there is more to reality
> than what we can experience in the touch, see,
> feel, realm. I think there are aspects of reality
> that transcend what we can physically
> experience.-islander
>
> i wonder how anyone could know that.
>
> personally i feel this way about that: its
> possible that parts of reality lie beyond our
> ability including our technological ability to
> sense but theres no reason to believe anything in
> particular about it.
>
> there may be a god or an invisible flying
> spaghetti monster who actually controls parts of
> reality but there is no reason to believe that
> there is.

indy,

Just so you understand that that is a belief. It's unjustified and can't be justified any more that Osama's belief that 72 virgins await him at the end of this earthly journey.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its funny that pb is now claiming that jesuss
> disciples were sceintists...

No. Sciencists--people who will settle only for a natural explanation of any event.

I can think of no reason to suppose that a reality that exists separate from the natural reality would, of necessity be subject to the laws of that other reality.-pb

you cant think of any reason to suppose that a reality that exists separate from the natural reality would of necessity NOT be subject to the laws of that other reality either.

so where does that leave you?

there is no reason to believe anything in particular about something that cannot be sensed by us or by our technology. its all only a guess and your guess is just as bad as any other.

"there is no reason to believe anything in particular about something that cannot be sensed by us or by our technology. its all only a guess and your guess is just as bad as any other. " -- indy

That is the most purely unjustiable faith statement I've ever read on this board.

Good for you.

No. Sciencists--people who will settle only for a natural explanation of any event.-pb

how can you claim that jesuss followers were people who would settle only for a natural explanation of any event when they so easily and quickly settled for a supernatural explanation to explain the circumstances surrounding jesuss death??

if those same people had spent ten minutes with the great kreskin they would believe that he was god.

Just so you understand that that is a belief. It's unjustified and can't be justified any more that Osama's belief that 72 virgins await him at the end of this earthly journey.-pb

im fully aware that christianity and islam are only unjustified beliefs.

"What kind of whacky Bible do you have? In my Bible the last verse in Mark is 16:8. Now, if the game is to start making up Bible verses, let me know. I'm sure I can come up with some real doozies that'd make your head spin"---pb

I'm never surprised anymore at the things you can make up.The Bible I used is commonly known as the Authorized “King James” version. In it, Mark 16 has 20 verses. Which Bible are you using?

"I want to know who said that He never died again. You said, that that's said. Who said it? Where? When? In what context?

I, for one, am saying it. Are you arguing that (according to the story) Jesus did die again? If you are, you’re the first person I’ve known to ever make that claim. Present your evidence that leads you to believe he died again.

"I'm not a sciencist. You are demonstrating that YOU are."

Why, thank you pb. I definitely take that as a compliment.

good point islander. people sometimes forget the bible was composed by normal fallible men and is not inerrant.