Magic

[dianaiad]

You are asking what natural laws did an imaginary entity use? It's really silly to even contemplate that.

Suppose you try to use some example from the real world.

Why do you claim that Jesus is imaginary?

........waiting for the circular argument....

 

[dianaiad]

So let's put the goalposts back on real ground, not the make-believe ground of a man-made religious vision. Your scenarios are no different than any scenarios from Dungeons and Dragons (except they aren't as good).

Problem for you is that there are records of those things happening, records that claim to report truth. They don't claim to be fiction. Therefore we have to examine them in that light.

So.

Why don't you believe that people saw what they claim they saw?

Because the things that they saw (like walking on water, the virgin birth, other things) are impossible according to you?

But we can do them. Therefore they are not impossible. What next?

 

[ecco]

Why do you claim that Jesus is imaginary?

........waiting for the circular argument....

The circular argument that is given by believers.

Jesus of the Bible is real.
How do we know Jesus of the Bible is real?
The Bible of Jesus says Jesus of the Bible is real.

Were you thinking of a different circular argument?

Wrong thread but, the extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus is virtually non-existent.

 

[ecco]

Problem for you is that there are records of those things happening, records that claim to report truth. They don't claim to be fiction. Therefore we have to examine them in that light.

No. First you have to provide evidence that they are real.
Again, wrong thread, but you have no evidence that Moses parted a sea. There is not even any evidence that the exodus is real although Biblical scholars, Christian and Jew, have been searching for over 50 years.

Why don't you believe that people saw what they claim they saw?
Because the things that they saw (like walking on water, the virgin birth, other things) are impossible according to you?

Because there is no evidence that these things ever actually occurred.



But, perhaps, I'm wrong...
Please provide the names and firsthand accounts of any people who saw the creation of Adam from dust.
Please provide the names and firsthand accounts of any people who survived 40 days and nights in a wooden boat filled with two of every kind of living critter.
Please provide the names and firsthand accounts of any people who saw Jesus walking on water.
Please provide the names and firsthand accounts of any people who saw the Holy Ghost impregnating Mary.
Please provide the names and firsthand accounts of any people who saw the birth of Jesus.
Please provide the names and firsthand accounts of any people who heard and recorded the 2000+ words of the sermon on the Mount.

 

[dianaiad]

The circular argument that is given by believers.

Jesus of the Bible is real.
How do we know Jesus of the Bible is real?
The Bible of Jesus says Jesus of the Bible is real.

Were you thinking of a different circular argument?

Wrong thread but, the extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus is virtually non-existent.

"Virtually nonexistent' isn't 'utterly non-existent.' There is enough evidence out there to indicate that an itenerant preacher/teacher named Jesus or Joshua or something wandered around that area at that time, and was tried, sentenced and crucified.

There is little extra biblical evidence, (except in the apocrypha and in documents found later) that claims divinity for Him. Mind you, stuff that claimed divinity for Him tended to be counted AS scripture, so that raises a problem...

And you will notice that *I* have never made the

God exists
Because the bible says so
And the Bible is true because
God wrote it

Argument. That's not why I believe in God or in His Son, Jesus.

Besides, YOU are the one claiming that Jesus was imaginary. It's your job to prove that He was/is, not mine to prove that He wasn't. I'm waiting for your argument regarding that.

Which will, I predict, be circular.

Come to think of it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to simply dismiss Him as existing in any manner whatsoever.

Shoot, that's like history teachers deciding that Aristotle didn't exist AT ALL because we don't have any of HIS written words; only things reported of him.

Oh. Wait. Do you think that Aristotle was a real person?

 

[dianaiad]

No. First you have to provide evidence that they are real.

No, first we have to establish that the work being referred to CLAIMS to be 'real.'

Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings, for instance, doesn't do that. They CLAIM to be fiction in the first place.

The next thing is....WHO needs to provide evidence of 'reality,' and to whom? We are talking about magic and the perception of it; in this case, actual events that happen (like the cargo planes that drop supplies) and the perception by witnesses that those things are 'magic.'

Like, for instance, thunderstorms or volcanic eruptions, that used to be put down to 'magic' or divine punishment or signs....but we have now come to understand. Perhaps not duplicate (though cloud seeding can mess with the weather a little) but at least we know the processes now. And volcanoes and storms are real things that have been perceived as magic, just as those cargo planes were perceived as magic....and they aren't.

Again, wrong thread, but you have no evidence that Moses parted a sea. There is not even any evidence that the exodus is real although Biblical scholars, Christian and Jew, have been searching for over 50 years.

You are quite right. we have absolutely no archaeological evidence of the Exodus, or Moses himself, for that matter. ...or that Joshua brought down the walls of Jericho by blowing trumpets and marching around the city. WE, however, could do both. Or at least we could figure out how to do both. It would take awhile, there's no reason to do either, it would be expensive....but we could do it. So it doesn't matter whether the Red Sea parting actually happened or not. We can repeat it. We've done more ambitious things, after all. I've never ridden on it, but how many people get on a train in Folkestone, Kent in the UK, and ride under the ocean to Callais (more or less) in France? Dunno about you, but that took more work and more ingenuity, I think.

To be honest, I've read some pretty fantastic FICTION that proposed things that were considered nonsensical magic at the time they were published....that we not only repeat, but eclipse, now.

Jules Verne had quite an imagination.

For that matter....so did the folks who wrote "the Jetsons,' (flat screen TV's, video calling, tanning beds, roomba (rhroomba? whatever) vacuum cleaners...) and Isaac Asimov, who predicted a LOT of stuff, including wireless electronics and appliances....

Star Trek; flip phones, medical scanners, i-pads,

Oh, (shrug) a LOT of things that were considered to be 'magic' and turned out to be achievable.

My point with you is simple. What I see you and others doing is utterly dismissing anything you don't like or that messes with your world view 'magic,' and because you call it 'magic,' figure that you can utterly discount it. Say 'it's not possible because it's just nonsensical magic' and you won't even consider the possibilities.

It is the flip side of the 'Godidit" and 'God of the gaps' idea. I disagree with both approaches.

Yes, if we theists see something we call a miracle, many of us tend to say 'godidit' and figure that we have no more responsibility to deal with it. God did it, that's the end of it, and that's all we have to know.

But YOU are pulling the 'if we can't prove it happened, or if we don't know what happened, then it DIDN'T HAPPEN and we don't need to deal with it".

Both approaches may be comfortable for the believers in them, but neither one works well.

My own belief system tells me that yeah, God created the universe and everything in it, and yes, some of the things we see are not explainable, even as God did it. However, that doesn't let US off the hook. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FIND OUT HOW 'God did it." It's one of the things we are to do here.


Or...God did it. Ergo, it can be done. Ergo, we can find out how and do it too.

And if we can imagine it, we can probably, some day, DO it.

 

[Valjean]

No, first we have to establish that the work being referred to CLAIMS to be 'real.'

Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings, for instance, doesn't do that. They CLAIM to be fiction in the first place.

Truth claims are often a products of later apologists, and the line between objective truth and didactical tales was not a prime concern of the storytellers.

There are truth claims for lots of holy scriptures. The claims themselves are usually hearsay or later fabrications by apologists. What makes the Bible any different?

The next thing is....WHO needs to provide evidence of 'reality,' and to whom? We are talking about magic and the perception of it; in this case, actual events that happen (like the cargo planes that drop supplies) and the perception by witnesses that those things are 'magic.'

Like, for instance, thunderstorms or volcanic eruptions, that used to be put down to 'magic' or divine punishment or signs....but we have now come to understand. Perhaps not duplicate (though cloud seeding can mess with the weather a little) but at least we know the processes now. And volcanoes and storms are real things that have been perceived as magic, just as those cargo planes were perceived as magic....and they aren't.

The reasonable approach is, and always has been, skepticism pending concrete evidence. Just because no other mechanism for a phenomenon can be discerned does not add credibility to unevidenced, fabulous "explanations."
[/quote]You are quite right. we have absolutely no archaeological evidence of the Exodus, or Moses himself, for that matter. ...or that Joshua brought down the walls of Jericho by blowing trumpets and marching around the city. WE, however, could do both. Or at least we could figure out how to do both. The point isn't that we could reproduce the event. The issue is that the Exodus, as described in the Bible, would have left evidence; it would have left "the wilderness" piled high with evidence. It would have led to a crash in the Egyptian economy -- and Egyptians kept records. It would have been headline news in neighboring nations -- but we have none of this.

It would take awhile, there's no reason to do either, it would be expensive....but we could do it. So it doesn't matter whether the Red Sea parting actually happened or not. We can repeat it.

The Bible never said anything about the Red Sea parting. Why would a fleeing people even head in that direction, knowing escape was cut off by a massive water barrier; a barrier with nothing beyond it but more desert?
Escape was clearly to the North.

If the Bible and the Christians were really interested in the truth it would have corrected that well known translation error as soon as it was discovered.

We've done more ambitious things, after all. I've never ridden on it, but how many people get on a train in Folkestone, Kent in the UK, and ride under the ocean to Callais (more or less) in France? Dunno about you, but that took more work and more ingenuity, I think.

The point isn't that we could reproduce a fantastic claim with current technology. We could not reproduce the claims with period technology.

To be honest, I've read some pretty fantastic FICTION that proposed things that were considered nonsensical magic at the time they were published....that we not only repeat, but eclipse, now.

What made it seem fantastic at the time was the development of a technology to accomplish it. Today that technology is a commonplace. Reproducing it would be unremarkable.

My point with you is simple. What I see you and others doing is utterly dismissing anything you don't like or that messes with your world view 'magic,' and because you call it 'magic,' figure that you can utterly discount it. Say 'it's not possible because it's just nonsensical magic' and you won't even consider the possibilities.

It's magic in that no mechanism was even proposed, plus it was beyond the technological capabilities of the time.

But YOU are pulling the 'if we can't prove it happened, or if we don't know what happened, then it DIDN'T HAPPEN and we don't need to deal with it".

The reasonable approach to any claim is skepticism pending evidence. We don't believe in many biblical claims for the same reason we don't believe in Bigfoot -- or you don't believe in unicorns.

My own belief system tells me that yeah, God created the universe and everything in it, and yes, some of the things we see are not explainable, even as God did it. However, that doesn't let US off the hook. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FIND OUT HOW 'God did it." It's one of the things we are to do here.

Science is actively working on the 'how'. What we really need to establish is the existence of the 'who'.

 

[dianaiad]

Truth claims are often a products of later apologists, and the line between objective truth and didactical tales was not a prime concern of the storytellers.

There are truth claims for lots of holy scriptures. The claims themselves are usually hearsay or later fabrications by apologists. What makes the Bible any different?

The Bible, like other mythology (and do not mistake me here: 'mythology' does NOT mean 'utterly false and nonsensical". it means 'creation and teaching stories' and does not necessarily mean that it is false.) consists of stories and the relation of events and moral tales written by people who were 'there at the time,' or at least by those who had very different cultures and viewpoints than we do. What they saw and perceived is not what WE see and perceive, or would if we were viewing the same events or had the same lesson to teach.

The Bible, which I firmly believe to be scripture, can only be confirmed AS scripture subjectively; going to the Source for confirmation. A lot of it is metaphor. Some of it is inaccurately witnessed and related events. Some of it is 'the winners write the history.' Some of it is dead on accurate. The lessons in it, however, are important and it contains, I believe, the Word of God.

What this means for ME is that I treat it with the respect it is due, but I don't worship it. I worship the One Who is talked about in it.

That might help clear up some confusion as to how I approach things...especially the 'magic' described?

The reasonable approach is, and always has been, skepticism pending concrete evidence. Just because no other mechanism for a phenomenon can be discerned does not add credibility to unevidenced, fabulous "explanations."

(sigh)

We are talking about magic here, not the Bible, really. It doesn't really matter if an event is described accurately, or whether it happened at all. The point is, I'm seeing an attitude here of 'if I can dismiss this thing as 'magical,' that is, there is no possible cause of this thing that we can understand or describe, then it didn't happen, couldn't happen, and won't ever happen in any manner whatsoever."

THAT is what I'm arguing against.

The New Testament speaks of the Virgin Birth, which for millenia has been held up as the most unbelievable bit of 'magic' ever described. Sceptics have been dismissing the whole idea of the Savior BECAUSE of that story, because of course a virgin birth simply wasn't possible. Mary must have been fooling around, or raped by a Roman soldier (that one crops up a lot) or some other thing....or recently, that Jesus never existed at all...

Whatever, the whole thing was dismissed BECAUSE of course a virgin birth wasn't even a possibility. Therefore, any belief in Jesus as the divine Son of God was utterly impossible. Because it was 'magical thinking.'

Except, er.....the only reason we don't have virgin births all over the place now is because we've made rules about in vitro fertilization that make it very problematic that the procedure would be performed on a virgin. Rules. ....but the procedure is very straight forward and is a simple office visit. We know how to do it ourselves.

Which means that we can no longer dismiss the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a magical construct and impossibility. I mean, sheesh, if WE can, certainly GOD can, right? One can, of course, continue to dismiss the story of Jesus, but not because of the impossibility of a virgin birth.

The point isn't that we could reproduce the event. The issue is that the Exodus, as described in the Bible, would have left evidence; it would have left "the wilderness" piled high with evidence. It would have led to a crash in the Egyptian economy -- and Egyptians kept records. It would have been headline news in neighboring nations -- but we have none of this.

No, we don't...but remember two things. First, it turns out that only about 6000 people left Egypt with Moses, and that Egypt's economy was not based upon slave labor. The pyramids, for instance, were not built with slave labor, but by rather well paid workers. Their economy would not have been hit that hard.

Second, the Egyptians were really good at reinventing history. If they didn't like what happened, they simply went in and erased it. They got rid of all the monuments, defaced the inscriptions and repurposed the statuary. What WAS a statue to one unpopular or despised king would become a statue to some other pharaoh. Now....you have, not millions, but a very few thousand, nomadic people roaming around the desert for forty years back when they didn't have plastic to show up forever. Just how much evidence do you think there would be?

Now me, I would love to see some pottery shards or whatever, but I don't expect any. There have been, I'm quite certain, many nomadic people around for whom we have no evidence at all but chance literary mention from other folks.

But that's not the point of this discussion regarding 'magic,' anyway. The point is, dismissing such an idea because it can be attributed to magic is shortsighted.

The Bible never said anything about the Red Sea parting. Why would a fleeing people even head in that direction, knowing escape was cut off by a massive water barrier; a barrier with nothing beyond it but more desert?
Escape was clearly to the North.

It doesn't say 'Red Sea.' That's tradition. What it SAYS is the sea at Pi-hahiroth, opposite Baal-zephon. Many folks think it's the 'reed sea.' Wherever, don't get picky. This was an example, not a claim of 'hey, it really happened, so there."

Remember, I am NOT saying that 'hey, we can do it and that proves that it happened"

I'm arguing against the 'we couldn't do it ourselves then, and the folks then called it magic, therefore it absolutely did not and could not have happened."

My argument is Clark's argument: some of what has been dismissed as magic is simply technology we didn't (and perhaps still don't) understand. Therefore maybe it happened and maybe it didn't, but we can't dismiss it because we didn't understand it at the time, and perhaps still don't.

Because someday perhaps we will and can repeat it.

The classic example is what was brought up by another poster; the cargo cults. Now the believers attributed the whole thing to magic, didn't they? They reacted understandably to those planes, according to their own beliefs, culture and understanding of the world. They were wrong in their approach, and in their stories, and they called it 'magic.'

But the cargo planes actually existed and did drop those supplies.

Now tell me....if you were an anthropologist several thousand years from now and ALL you had to go on was the oral history and written records of those believers, and got the story of the cargo planes only from THEIR perceptions, with their attempt to fit those planes into their own worldviews, do you think you would dismiss the events as 'never having happened?"

That is the attitude I'm fighting.

When I was a bunch younger, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was dismissed as fantasy; magic.

................yet we now have archaeological evidence that those cities did exist, and were destroyed in some cataclysmic event. The theories are all over the place, but there are cities and there is the line/time of the destruction. For a very long time Troy was considered to be strictly mythology. Until it got found, and it got found because one guy decided that dismissing something BECAUSE it could be dismissed as magic was a dumb idea.

It's the instant dismissal of anything even remotely attributed to 'magic' that I'm arguing against. I'm not arguing that we accept everything 'magical' as real.

If the Bible and the Christians were really interested in the truth it would have corrected that well known translation error as soon as it was discovered.
The point isn't that we could reproduce a fantastic claim with current technology. We could not reproduce the claims with period technology.

How does that matter?

Remember, we ARE talking about God here. What makes you think that He could not have done then what we can do now?

Mind you, confirming the existence of God must be done in other ways. I'm not claiming that because we can do something NOW it proves that God exists and 'did it' THEN, just that we can't use the 'we couldn't have done it then' as proof of His non-existence...or proof that it didn't happen at all.

What made it seem fantastic at the time was the development of a technology to accomplish it. Today that technology is a commonplace. Reproducing it would be unremarkable.

It's magic in that no mechanism was even proposed, plus it was beyond the technological capabilities of the time.
The reasonable approach to any claim is skepticism pending evidence. We don't believe in many biblical claims for the same reason we don't believe in Bigfoot -- or you don't believe in unicorns.

Science is actively working on the 'how'. What we really need to establish is the existence of the 'who'.

Ah, yes.

I don't believe that we can establish 'Who' through science. All science can do is work on the 'how.' That's OK though, as long as science stays away from attempting to prove 'who,' or that there is no 'who,' and religion concentrates on 'who' and doesn't worry about 'how.' The two march along together just fine, if they don't try to do each other's job.

 

[ecco]

Besides, YOU are the one claiming that Jesus was imaginary. It's your job to prove that He was/is, not mine to prove that He wasn't. I'm waiting for your argument regarding that.

I will be glad to do that as soon as you, or any Jesus believer can prove that psychic snowflakes are just imaginary. That's kinda silly, isn't it? You know, as well as I know, as well as any rational person knows, that people making extraordinary claims are the ones who must provide the evidence.

You cannot show evidence for a crucifixion and a resurrection any more than you or I can show evidence for Santa Clause.

There is as much evidence for The Angel Moroni as there is for Jesus.
There is as much evidence for Ballulla as there is for Jesus.

IT is also obvious from reading the Gospels that the writers tried to make their narratives sound like first-hand observations when we know they weren't.

 

[ecco]

And volcanoes and storms are real things that have been perceived as magic, just as those cargo planes were perceived as magic....and they aren't.

Yeah. That's been my argument all along. Just because something was perceived as magic doesn't mean it was magic which is what you have been arguing. Do I really need to keep pointing that out?

 

[ecco]

Oh, (shrug) a LOT of things that were considered to be 'magic' and turned out to be achievable.

My point with you is simple. What I see you and others doing is utterly dismissing anything you don't like or that messes with your world view 'magic,' and because you call it 'magic,' figure that you can utterly discount it. Say 'it's not possible because it's just nonsensical magic' and you won't even consider the possibilities.

BS! You want to use the word "magic" when the proper word is "superstitious nonsense".

When I was a child I had two books on rockets and the solar system. I did not consider the contents to be "magic" or "superstitious nonsense". Rather the things described were a sign of things to come.

When I was a child I was sent to Sunday school for a couple of Sundays. There I was taught all about Adam & Eve and Noah and the Flood and all the cutesy animals. Even at age nine, I recognized superstitious nonsense when I saw it.

I can still keep them separate. I also understand the difference between fiction, like Harry Potter, and superstitious nonsense like the Bible stories - like a story of a 1/3 of god also referred to as a holy ghost raping a young virgin.

 

[ecco]

You are quite right. we have absolutely no archaeological evidence of the Exodus, or Moses himself, for that matter. ...or that Joshua brought down the walls of Jericho by blowing trumpets and marching around the city. WE, however, could do both.

When are you going to understand that "we could do both" has NOTHING to do with whether or not it ever happened? As Wikipedia says...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The_ExodusThe Exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites

Just like the stories in the NT are the founding myth of Christianity.

 

[ecco]

My own belief system tells me that yeah, God created the universe and everything in it, and yes, some of the things we see are not explainable, even as God did it. However, that doesn't let US off the hook. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FIND OUT HOW 'God did it." It's one of the things we are to do here.

"BELIEF" Unfounded belief.

 

[dianaiad]

I will be glad to do that as soon as you, or any Jesus believer can prove that psychic snowflakes are just imaginary.

Oh, get over it.

I'm talking about your evident claim that a man named Jesus, an itenerent preacher who was the beginner of Christianity, never actually existed as a human being.

Do not equivocate here. THAT is your claim, and you have to prove that. I believe that He is/was the Son of God, but the only thing I have to do to prove THAT claim is repeat it. I believe it.

There you go. That doesn't prove to anybody that He IS/WAS the divine Son of God, but that wasn't my claim. My claim is that I believe He is/was. I don't have to prove to you or anybody else that He is/was, and I have never made that claim. That's something you have to figure out for yourself, and frankly, isn't my problem.

I CERTAINLY don't have to establish the reality of psychic snowflakes in order to point out that if YOU make a claim, YOU have the burden of proof. And you are claiming the existence of psychic snowflakes, I'm not.

Y'know, you COULD attempt to use some actual logical thought here.

That's kinda silly, isn't it? You know, as well as I know, as well as any rational person knows, that people making extraordinary claims are the ones who must provide the evidence.

....and what extraordinary claim have I made, ecco? That I believe something? Well, that's not extraordinary. I believe. There you are.

YOU are the one making an extraordinary claim here....that there was never any person called Jesus who taught for three years, was crucified and who is credited as the founder of Christianity. I'd call that, in the face of the evidence we do have, a pretty extraordinary claim.

You cannot show evidence for a crucifixion and a resurrection any more than you or I can show evidence for Santa Clause.

there is evidence for the Crucifixion. The resurrection...not so much objective, non-biblical historical evidence, but then I haven't made that claim. I believe it, but that's not the same thing.

There is as much evidence for The Angel Moroni as there is for Jesus.

A great deal less, actually. I believe that, too, though. However, since I haven't MADE any claims about the reality of Moroni, that's a tad off topic. Would you care to get ON topic?

Which is (whisper this) MAGIC?
There is as much evidence for Ballulla as there is for Jesus.

IT is also obvious from reading the Gospels that the writers tried to make their narratives sound like first-hand observations when we know they weren't.

No, actually, we don't know that. Or rather, we know that some of that was not first hand, but since the Gospels were not, in the main, written by the men credited with them, we don't actually know precisely who knew what and how.

So? YOUR claim was that no man named Jesus, referred to in the NT, ever existed AT ALL.

That is an extraordinary claim. You get to prove that. We DO have extrabiblical evidence as to His existence.

 

[dianaiad]

Yeah. That's been my argument all along. Just because something was perceived as magic doesn't mean it was magic which is what you have been arguing. Do I really need to keep pointing that out?

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.

 

[dianaiad]

When are you going to understand that "we could do both" has NOTHING to do with whether or not it ever happened? As Wikipedia says...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The_ExodusThe Exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites

Just like the stories in the NT are the founding myth of Christianity.

Mythology is the collection of creation stories, and moral tales, of a culture.
Most mythology is non-factual
But not all of it is, and
ALL mythology is true, in that all of it teaches cultural values and the mores of a culture.

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

 

[dianaiad]

"BELIEF" Unfounded belief.

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.

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

 

[osgart]

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

Supposedly once you achieve this precise arrangement of molecules and atoms then life should automatically poof into existence. There is no evidence that this is the case. Its a science based faith that life is only chemistry.

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

One day they will find out who is right. If vitalism is correct then that opens the door to spirituality.

 

[ecco]

Oh, get over it.

I'm talking about your evident claim that a man named Jesus, an itenerent preacher who was the beginner of Christianity, never actually existed as a human being.

Do not equivocate here. THAT is your claim, and you have to prove that. I believe that He is/was the Son of God, but the only thing I have to do to prove THAT claim is repeat it. I believe it.

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.

I CERTAINLY don't have to establish the reality of psychic snowflakes in order to point out that if YOU make a claim, YOU have the burden of proof. And you are claiming the existence of psychic snowflakes, I'm not.

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.

Y'know, you COULD attempt to use some actual logical thought here.

Hilarious.

 

[ecco]

there is evidence for the Crucifixion.

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

A great deal less, actually. I believe that, too, though. However, since I haven't MADE any claims about the reality of Moroni, that's a tad off topic.

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.

No, actually, we don't know that. Or rather, we know that some of that was not first hand, but since the Gospels were not, in the main, written by the men credited with them, we don't actually know precisely who knew what and how.

You are losing your own case. Correct, we don't know who wrote them.

Who wrote the following? How did the author know the details?

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.​

Who wrote the following? The author writes as though he was there quoting Jesus and describing His actions. How did the author know the details?

But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? 6But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” 7And he arose and departed to his house.​

So? YOUR claim was that no man named Jesus, referred to in the NT, ever existed AT ALL.

My claim is that no person 2000 years ago was a 1/3 god who walked on water, performed miracles, died, came back to life and disappeared.

We DO have extrabiblical evidence as to His existence.

Yet you haven't shown any. Are you really going to trot out discredited snippets from Flavius Josephus and Tacitus?