Magic

dianaiad said:

Do not confuse 'mythology' as 'absolute nonsense that should be thrown out and totally disregarded."

Click to expand...

Why did you put quotes around that in a reply to me? Were you, deceitfully, trying to make it appear that I said that?

I never said, nor do I believe that "mythology is absolute nonsense that should be thrown out and totally disregarded".

dianaiad said:

I think it's well founded.

I don't give a good hoot whether you think my belief is unfounded, and I sure don't have to prove anything to you in order for me to believe.

Click to expand...

Of course, you don't. Your belief is well-founded in your life long indocrtination.

dianaiad said:

.....and I'm not demanding that you believe anything at all. I'm simply asking you to argue logically. That's difficult enough.

Click to expand...

It isn't easy arguing against your unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs. It's like arguing against fog.

dianaiad said:

ARE YOU NUTS?

THAT was my claim; that things which are perceived as magic are perceived that way mostly because the observers don't understand the event or the processes. That a 'sufficiently advanced technology' may well be able to cause the event or the process, and that people can understand it. That the difference between that sufficiently advanced technology and 'magic' is not a difference at all, but only a difference in understanding/perception.

I don't happen to believe in woo-woo magic. NOTHING that actually happens is 'magic' the way you define it; if "God did it,' He did it according to laws of physics that He knows and we don't. Yet. It may LOOK like something we don't understand and can't ever duplicate and 'out of the clear blue,' but it's not.

YOU are the one who has been arguing the opposite point, not me.
YOU are the one who has been claiming that if it 'looks like magic,' then it never happened.

Click to expand...

Whatever. I'm not going to go back over pages of posts - again. You will just dismiss the obvious - again.

WalterTrull said:

How does life created by a certain organization of atoms differ from magic?

Click to expand...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke

ecco said:

You are making a claim that a 1/3 of god impregnated a young virgin and the result of that pregnancy walked on water, died, came back alive and then disappeared (up into heaven).

Click to expand...

No, actually, I am not.

MY claim is that I believe that to be true, personally. I don't have to prove that it is true to anybody, especially you, before I am allowed to believe it. WHY I believe it is my business. It is sufficient that I think the evidence is sufficient for my own belief.

The only claim I have made here is that I believe it. The only thing I need do to prove that I believe it is to restate that. I believe it. There you go.

You, however, have made a very different sort of claim. You haven't said that you don't believe. You made your claim a statement of fact, and insist that I accept it AS fact. For that, Ecco, you have to give ME sufficient evidence to change my mind, that I will accept.

I do not insist that you accept, as true or factual, that Jesus was the divine Son of God, born of the virgin Mary. I do, given that there IS evidence that Jesus the man actually existed, insist that you prove your claim that he didn't, since that's the claim you seem to be making; not that YOU BELIEVE he didn't, but that, straight out, he didn't.

ecco said:

Rational people would say that is an extraordinary claim. It is your burden to support that extraordinary claim. That you cannot do. Your "belief" and your repeated assertions are meaningless.

Click to expand...

Would be, if that were the claim I was making. However, the only claim I've made is that I believe something to be true. Not that it IS true, but only that I believe it to be true. There is a difference. It would be a good idea to identify and learn it.

ecco said:

Exactly! Now you understand! The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claims. YOU are making the claims about Jesus. "YOU have the burden of proof." Unfortunately, for you, there is no evidence to support your extraordinary claim.



Hilarious.

Click to expand...

Except that i have made no such claims about Jesus. YOU did, I didn't. My only claim was that 'I believe." I have no intention of attempting to prove His divinity, empirically or objectively. I can't. Nobody can.

Nobody can prove that He was NOT divine, either. It's one of those problems. All you can do is list probabilities and your own standards of disbelief. You are attempting to turn the burden of proof because you know you cannot support your own claims, and it's not going to work.

YOU are claiming that no such person, divine or ordinary, existed at all. Now THAT is an extraordinary claim, seems to me.

ecco said:

There is evidence that a 1/3 god on earth who walked on water was crucified? Please do present it.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I SAID there was evidence for the crucifixion. That is, there is evidence that a certain man, a preacher tried for..whatever...was crucified. I made NO claims about divinity or miracles.

Remember, it is YOUR claim that there was no such person as Jesus that is at issue here. Stay on topic. I, at least, have attempted to keep the topic on magic. You are the one who keeps haring off into the wheat field somewhere.

ecco said:

As you know, I was comparing the evidence for the angel Moroni to the evidence for Jesus.

The evidence for the angel Moroni is that we have first-hand writings and testimony from a known individual.

The evidence for Jesus is a bunch of stories written well after the fact by completely unknown individuals.

Click to expand...

the evidence for Him as the Son of God is, pretty much yes. However, that doesn't seem to be your claim. Your claim seems to be that no such a person as Jesus ever existed AT ALL, divine or not. THAT is what you have to prove, and for THAT we have extrabiblical evidence. Not much, certainly, but some....which is considerably more than we have for anybody ELSE of his station at that time. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he didn't exist at all, and that seems to be your claim.

If I'm wrong about that, feel free to correct me, but frankly you do seem to be committing eisegesis a lot here.

ecco said:

You are losing your own case.

Click to expand...

You have no clue what case I"m making, because you aren't paying attention.

ecco said:

Why did you put quotes around that in a reply to me? Were you, deceitfully, trying to make it appear that I said that?

I never said, nor do I believe that "mythology is absolute nonsense that should be thrown out and totally disregarded".

Click to expand...

My apologies if I got that wrong.

How DO you define 'mythology?"

ecco said:

Of course, you don't. Your belief is well-founded in your life long indocrtination.



It isn't easy arguing against your unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs. It's like arguing against fog.

Click to expand...

You aren't arguing against my beliefs, because I'm not arguing FOR my beliefs. Pay attention.

I am insisting that you prove your evident claim that no such person as Jesus ever existed. I am not, after all, claiming that He was/is divine; the only claim I make there is that I believe He was/is. That's a whole different thing.

ecco said:

Whatever. I'm not going to go back over pages of posts - again. You will just dismiss the obvious - again.

Click to expand...

Well, that's typical.

You realize that the above statement is a very much less than gracious admission of defeat, right?

osgart said:

Vitalism is the only alternative. That life is a separate natural force that uses chemistry to enable the expression of life.

Click to expand...

My hunch is that mentalism might be closer. Although, I think it misplaces the source of awareness, or at least confuses it.

ecco said:

You are making a claim that a 1/3 of god impregnated a young virgin and the result of that pregnancy walked on water, died, came back alive and then disappeared (up into heaven).

Rational people would say that is an extraordinary claim. It is your burden to support that extraordinary claim. That you cannot do. Your "belief" and your repeated assertions are meaningless.

Click to expand...

dianaiad said:

No, actually, I am not.

MY claim is that I believe that to be true, personally.

Click to expand...

Yes. That is clear. You are the person making an extraordinary claim. It is upon you to provide evidence to support that claim.

dianaiad said:

You, however, have made a very different sort of claim. You haven't said that you don't believe. You made your claim a statement of fact, and insist that I accept it AS fact. For that, Ecco, you have to give ME sufficient evidence to change my mind, that I will accept.

Click to expand...

I made the claim that the Jesus of your Bible is a myth. That is no more of an extraordinary claim than saying that Atlas or Mithras are mythical characters. I am under no obligation to provide any evidence.

dianaiad said:

I do not insist that you accept, as true or factual, that Jesus was the divine Son of God, born of the virgin Mary. I do, given that there IS evidence that Jesus the man actually existed, insist that you prove your claim that he didn't, since that's the claim you seem to be making; not that YOU BELIEVE he didn't, but that, straight out, he didn't.

Click to expand...

I don't care that a man named Jesus existed. The entity under discussion is the 1/3 god who was created by another 1/3 god impregnating a virgin.

dianaiad said:

Except that i have made no such claims about Jesus. YOU did, I didn't. My only claim was that 'I believe." I have no intention of attempting to prove His divinity, empirically or objectively. I can't. Nobody can.

Click to expand...

dianaiad said:

YOU are claiming that no such person, divine or ordinary, existed at all. Now THAT is an extraordinary claim, seems to me.

Click to expand...

We were discussing the Jesus of your Bible. The one who was created when a 1/3 god impregnated a virgin. Do you now want to talk about someone else?

Also, we were not talking about his divinity, we were talking about his existence. His divinity is discussed in the Bible you believe in and, in the context of this discussion, is taken for granted.

If you want to change over and say that, 2000 years ago there was at least one itinerant preacher named Jesus walking around, OK. But he ain't the guy in your Bible.

ecco said:

Yes. That is clear. You are the person making an extraordinary claim. It is upon you to provide evidence to support that claim.

Click to expand...

Of course. Let me try this again. My claim is that I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, did all the miracles and was crucified and resurrected.

Here is the proof of that claim. I believe it. There you go. I have just proven the claim I made, that I BELIEVE IT.

Ecco, I did NOT claim, categorically, that Jesus was born of a virgin, did all the miracles and was crucified and resurrected. I claimed that I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS. Do you understand the difference?

Clearly you do not, or you wouldn't keep this asininity up. I am being extremely careful in my word choice here, and in the claim I make. If I had categorically claimed that He absolutely was as I believe He was, and that you have to believe it because it happens to be fact, by George, you would have a point.

But that isn't my claim. I am not insisting that you believe as I do. I am not insisting that you agree about Jesus and His life. I am claiming that I BELIEVE it. That is a very, very different thing.

YOU, however, are making the 'positive' claim....that..."I made the claim that the Jesus of your Bible is a myth. That is no more of an extraordinary claim than saying that Atlas or Mithras are mythical characters. I am under no obligation to provide any evidence."

Yes. You are. you aren't telling me that you BELIEVE that He is mythical. You are out and out claiming that he never existed either as a divine being OR as a mortal character.

For that, Ecco, you need to provide proof.

Now I suggest that if you can't figure out the difference between claims here, that you go find a logic teacher or a philosophy professor and get him or her to explain it to you.

ecco said:

I don't care that a man named Jesus existed. The entity under discussion is the 1/3 god who was created by another 1/3 god impregnating a virgin.

Click to expand...

That is not the impression I got. However, if that is where you are at the moment, that a man named Jesus may well have existed and is who all the stories are about, probably, that's fine with me.

His mere existence certainly doesn't mean that any of those extraordinary stories about him are actually true. You don't have to believe any of 'em. However, if you are going to claim that none of them are true, period, then yeah, you do have to provide some proof.

Because you made the 'positive' claim.

Now, if you had restricted yourself, as did I, to merely claiming a belief; that you do not BELIEVE that Jesus was at all divine or that any of the extraordinary stories about Him are true, we wouldn't be arguing here. One cannot argue, logically or empirically, about what one believes, if the claim is 'I believe' or 'I don't believe,' any more than one can argue with the statement 'I like vanilla better than chocolate ice cream."

ecco said:

We were discussing the Jesus of your Bible. The one who was created when a 1/3 god impregnated a virgin. Do you now want to talk about someone else?

Also, we were not talking about his divinity, we were talking about his existence. His divinity is discussed in the Bible you believe in and, in the context of this discussion, is taken for granted.

Click to expand...

By whom? Not by me. If YOU take it for granted, then you put a great deal more faith in the bible than I do. Talk about double standards!

ecco said:

If you want to change over and say that, 2000 years ago there was at least one itinerant preacher named Jesus walking around, OK. But he ain't the guy in your Bible.

Click to expand...

yes he is. Whether all the stories about Him in the bible are true or not doesn't mean much as to the actual existence of the man the stories are about.

WalterTrull said:

My hunch is that mentalism might be closer. Although, I think it misplaces the source of awareness, or at least confuses it.

Click to expand...

It could be both vitalism and mentalism come to think of it. The source of awareness distinct from any known physical processes. I have a hunch it is both.

dianaiad said:

Of course. Let me try this again. My claim is that I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, did all the miracles and was crucified and resurrected.

Here is the proof of that claim. I believe it. There you go. I have just proven the claim I made, that I BELIEVE IT.

Ecco, I did NOT claim, categorically, that Jesus was born of a virgin, did all the miracles and was crucified and resurrected. I claimed that I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS. Do you understand the difference?

Click to expand...

dianaiad: I don't claim Jesus is God - I believe Jesus is God.

Again, do you really understand what you write?

dianaiad said:

yes he is. Whether all the stories about Him in the bible are true or not doesn't mean much as to the actual existence of the man the stories are about.

Click to expand...

If the stories in the Bible are not true, why do you worship Jesus as a God?
If the stories in the Bible are not true, Jesus was nothing more than one in a long line of philosophers.
If the stories in the Bible are not true, who was Jesus referring to when he said: "Father, forgive them..."?

Your position and arguments are getting sillier each time you post.


Perhaps the LDS (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints)
has different views than...
The Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are "one"

ecco said:

If the stories in the Bible are not true, why do you worship Jesus as a God?
If the stories in the Bible are not true, Jesus was nothing more than one in a long line of philosophers.
If the stories in the Bible are not true, who was Jesus referring to when he said: "Father, forgive them..."?

Your position and arguments are getting sillier each time you post.


Perhaps the LDS (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints)
has different views than...
The Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are "one"

Click to expand...

Ecco, you are madly haring all over the place. When you can settle on a topic, let me know.

osgart said:

It could be both vitalism and mentalism come to think of it. The source of awareness distinct from any known physical processes. I have a hunch it is both.

Click to expand...

My problem with vitalism is the inherent dichotomy. I don’t think that the mind over matter scenario seems reasonable. Malleable mental structure does. Malleable how is the pertinent question. My feeling is that we’re looking at the answer without recognizing it. I don’t mean to imply that I have the answer, but there are pointers.

dianaiad said:

Ecco, you are madly haring all over the place. When you can settle on a topic, let me know.

Click to expand...

More ducking and dodging.