Nash8
Interesting.
So you admit that my position is TRUE, in that we can not be sure.
As is for anything else in life.
But then characterise my position as not respectable and meaningless.
So it is true, and I am correct about the claim I am challenging being a fallacy.
As far as your position being not respectable, from my perspective it has changed numerous times, without you actually saying "my opinion has changed". You've just kinda evolved it over time without ever really saying you changed anything, and no, I don't really find that position highly respectable.
As far as being meaningless, pointless was a better term for it. Your position, now, has meaning, but within the context of this thread, and from my perspective in life in general, it is pointless to argue from that position, unless you are arguing against someone who is saying something is 100% proven or true, then your position would have a point to it.
Within the context of the thread, and from what I've seen, no one is arguing that Jesus' existence is 100% proven, save for maybe Outhouse, and I don't agree with him when he says that it is a fact either.
What people have been arguing on the other hand, is that Jesus' historicity is
MORE LIKELY to be true, than him being a fictional character, based on the evidence that we have.
So essentially from my perspective, your argument that Jesus' existence is not "100% proven" is a Red Herring from the get-go because it's not relevant to the debate at hand.
The debate at hand is whether the evidence we have supports a mythical Jesus or a historical Jesus, not whether Jesus historicity is 100% proven. Do you understand what I mean?
And your objection to that is that it is not a respectable or meaningful position? Because I am 'incredibly slow and stupid'?
And that made some sort of sense to you how?
As stated above, my objection to your position is that it is not relevant to the topic at hand. You are essentially arguing for a position that no one is arguing with you about, at least not most of the main contributors to this thread that I have seen.
Secondly, I did not claim that you were incredibly slow and stupid, that was another member on the forums. But I do find it hard to believe that if you are as educated as you say you are, that you can't understand the point that I'm trying to make to you, which I will make one more time.
Unless someone is saying that something IS a 100% proven fact, the position that something is NOT a 100% proven fact is not a relevant position.
Again, no one is arguing with you that Jesus' historicity is 100% proven (and if they are arguing that point then I don't agree with them either) they are arguing that the evidence that we have supports that Jesus' historicity.
So the counter position to that argument is that the evidence we have does not support Jesus' historicity.
There are no other positions to hold in this particular debate, yet you seem dead set on holding a totally different position nonetheless.
Why don't you write a quick post summarizing your views on Jesus' historicity. I think that would clear a lot of things up, because I see you stating that many different views, that while not opposing, are not necessarily related to on another, and that could be a point of confusion.
Nash8
I can simplify if it helps.
I don't think it will, but your welcome to try.
How can my position be both true and meaningless?
One example that someone on this forum gave to me a while back, that is great for demonstrating this point.
Let's say we are trying to decide what causes someone to be a serial killer. We do a study, and find out that all serial killers drink water. While it is true that all serial killers drink water (because all human's do), it is meaningless for our original inquiry because it doesn't really tell us anything about why people are serial killers.
The same thing goes for the position that Jesus' historicity is not 100% proven. While I agree with you that the above statement is true, it doesn't tell us anything regarding the point of this debate.
Which the point of this debate is to decide "Is it more likely that Jesus was a real person or a mythical creation based on the evidence that we have?"
So in summary, you are presenting a true statement, but it, in reality, has nothing to do with what is being debated.
Another example for ya. Let's say I switch my position up on this subject to "The Earth is round". While I think we can both agree that the statement is true, would you not also agree that it is pointless with regard to the subject at hand?
And if it is true, why are you guys contesting it?
Who exactly is contesting that Jesus' historicity is 100% proven? Please name names.
I believe we left it at a similar point in the past when you conceded that it was true that we can not be sure - but it was a useless answer.
It is not a useless answer altogether, but it is a useless answer within the context of this thread/debate?
So alternatively could you please explain how an answer can be both the most accurate and useless?
Refer to my above examples regarding serial killers and the earth being round.
Is that really the best you've got? Because it is not really very well thought through I'm afraid. Sure, the correct and most accurate position is not respectable, meaningless and useless? It's just correct?
My new position regarding this matter is that 2 + 2 = 4. So there, now I have the most correct and most accurate position on this thread, which is simultaneously the least respectable, the most meaningless, and the most useless. It's just correct.