Wrong. Because according to your logic, ‘If I can’t disprove aliens exist, it doesn’t instantly make it a fact.’ Again you have to re-think your statements you make, otherwise you are arguing in a circular manner.
Well..... according to
your logic it is fact unless shown otherwise. I look upon things like this: If we have no proof we need that proof before any of us can be satisfied. We are in no position to just accept something at face value. We can talk about gravity and apples all day but they're completely different scenarios and i consider doing such as a mere waste of real time. If you can't see the difference regarding gravity as fact and god as fact then there's little point in continuing.
As for aliens.... You agree with me there is no proof to suggest they dont exist and there's plenty of evidence to suggest they do? If so, wouldn't it be better to look at that evidence and study it instead of just denying it. Even if there were aliens it hardly shows jesus or god as non existant so would it matter if you spent time studying it? I like to search for answers by looking at the evidence we have. As such i consider the possibility that every other god people believe in may be true. Do you consider the other gods and study them aswell as your own belief? My lack of concentration solely for one belief means i can look at all of them without bias.
Not according to Professor Thomas Arnold
Professor Thomas Arnold is irrelevant. Is he ultimately correct because he can theorize? If your arguments are grounded solely on the sayings of Mr Arnold fair enough, but that in no way constitutes proof to anything. Ok, big deal... he was a headmaster for 14 years.. what's that got to do with anything? Nothing really. Apparently, according to you, he said: "...than the great sign which God [has] given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." He sounds like a religious guy.. which pretty much removes any true reliability thanks to probable bias. There are a million scientists turned religious, and a million religious turned scientific people. Not any one of them is proof of anything regardless to how many certificates of 'i learnt this subject well' they have.
Therefore, according to your logic, anything you did not witness did not happen or can’t be proven. The implication of that logic would encompass historical events before your birth, including the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, the signing of the Magna Carta, the War of 1812, Christopher Columbus’s discovery of the new world, the Black Plague, and the Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar. You should reconsider the statement because that logic is also full of holes.)
I'm pretty sure you can tell the difference in our topic vs Pearl Harbor. If not ........... As for the Gallic wars by Julius Ceasar i wont comment. I wasn't there. I do get your point but let's stay on the same pattern of chat.....so....
The viking belief in Valhalla- Odin etc.
The Sumerian belief in Mortal space travelling 'gods'.
The Iliad, the Odyssey. the story of the wooden horse, Ulysses etc...
This is along the lines we speak. Whether or not someone dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, whether Kennedy was assassinated etc are irrelevant topics here. Would you concur that Odin was/is real, the Sumerian Gods, (Anunnaki), were factual etc?
But none, under close scrutiny, are considered to be justifiable explanations for the empty tomb and the martyrdom of the first Christians other than Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples in flesh and blood.
Tomb raiders..... As for Jesus rising from the dead and appearing to his disciples in flesh and blood..... Don't get me wrong i agree with you 100%. Jesus
did rise from the dead. Where does that mean it's because of God? Personally i'd say he was an alien with the ability to ressurrect as shown 1,500 years earlier in the Sumerian scriptures. Now you perhaps see how easy it is to interpret a story? I believe you entirely that Jesus rose from the dead, however it doesn't neccesarily equal that which you believe. Thus whether he rose from the dead or not is still hardly adequate proof of your claims to god. As it isn't undeniable proof i just cant throw all my eggs into that one basket. Once again Sumerian scripture shows many occasions of dead beings ressurrecting. In the bible theres a part about 'crying for Damuzi', (Tammuz). That's from Sumerian writing where they were crying for the Sumerian God Damuzi who died and couldn't be ressurrected. It's strange knowing a Jewish calender month is named after a Sumerian God.
However aside from the bad luck Damuzi suffered there are many cases of Gods who could ressurrect from death. Does that instantly mean the Sumerian Gods are real just as your is cause Jesus rose from the dead too?
Not according to Sir Lionel Luckhoo, whose 245 consecutive murder trial victories earned him a place in The Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s most successful lawyer
Ok cause your buddy lionel luckhoo was a good lawyer god is instant fact? Wow omg the guy got in the guiness book of records??? Well how can anyone doubt him? His look at evidence is as worthless as anyones. It's all about interpretations. Like i said- i do not doubt the ressurrection of jesus, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with god, heaven, being good to one another or anything else along those lines.
This is now the second time you have been as petty to assume truth in the hands of two people. One can claim being a headmaster the other can claim he's in the GBOR. And? I fail to see the relevance. There's a guy in the guiness book of records who ate more beef and onion pies in one day than any other man on the planet. Doesn't mean i'd believe him if he told me green three footed monkeys existed.
The historical part of the resurrection (which the evidence has stood up under close scrutiny in a court of law)
What would you expect as disproof? If a guy found some 2000 year old text that said: "Jesus did not res, it was a magic trick" would you instantly consider that undeniable fact against his ressurrection? yes or no? Please answer.
If you say no then how can you consider a 2000 year old text that says he did as undeniable proof?
If you say yes then you obviously just accept everything at face value. In your line of understanding the courts would just accept it as proof against.
is that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose on the third day. He appeared to his disciples, five hundred other eyewitnesses, and Saul of Tarsus (a persecutor of the early Christians).
Ok, like i said.... sure whatever.... he did rise from the dead- it's hardly a miracle if you read Sumerian texts.
The faith part begins when I understand the reason why he died on the cross
Exactly my point. Faith..... He could have risen from the dead as part of alien powers. You rely on mere faith to assume otherwise. As such we do NOT have any facts and cannot regard it as so until we see that proof. Thank you for completely stating my argument.
Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith for those who understand the reasons why it happened and have accepted it.
Accepted..... I don't just 'accept'. I need the actual facts. That's where we differ. If i rot in hell for it, so be it, but i cannot just buy something whole heartedly unless it is absolute fact.
Could you please quote the reference for your example stated above?
(And are you sure this really happened? Remember, you weren’t there to witness these people dying during World War II.)
Go back and read it.. I didn't state anything, i asked a question. I said: "How many people...". I didn't make a statement cause i wasnt there to know exactly how many people. It was merely to point out you cant say nobody would because you dont know everybody. Understand?
Actually it fits very well within the context of your arguments.
You said to deny history is foolishness.... My answer to that is to just, (in your own words), 'accept' something on faith is stupid. You may be wrong, you may very well be right.... That's exactly why i don't just 'accept it'. It's nothing more than one big 'might or might not'.
Your response above reminds me of a Monty Python skit called ‘The Argument Department’. Should I reply with “No they don’t” in order keep this segment of the argument going?
Do as you please...... If sir leonard Nimoy, or whatever his name is, allows you.
Yet you weren’t there to witness the events written within it, so how do you know if it is true?
I don't. Thanks for making my point again. You don't, i don't, sir lennie 'i got a blue peter badge' doesn't know either. We study and search we don't just 'accept'.
So the challenge to look at the “evidence surrounding” the resurrection has been countered by a challenge to disprove the existence of alien beings (presumably intelligent life from another planet).
Well whatever..... like i said- i agree jesus ressed from the dead. But for the sake of mutual challenge you now show me the evidence to support the ressurrection of jesus- all and any evidence you have. I will show you evidence to support alien existence, (intelligent life- seeing as alien life of the not so intelligent variety has been found). Agreed?
I accept the challenge only if you accept the challenge to look at the “evidence surrounding” the resurrection. Agreed?
Well..... let's state you probably know more of jesus ressurrection than i do, and i probably, (after 17 years study, and one personal sighting), know more about alien life than you do. (Of course that's just an assumption but it will probably turn out better that way).
BTW........ Welcome back
