Post by aaaPost by AttilaThen Jesus didn't really go to heaven. He just rose up
into the earth.
Jesus rose up into the Earth's atmosphere first and after
that he rose up into Heaven.
Where is the evidence supporting that?
Where is the evidence supporting the existence of such a person?
It's all recorded in history books and in the best selling
book in the world - The Bible.
The bible is the claim, not the evidence, as CH said.
However, the truth of the Bible is the evidence.
You are assuming it contains truth. Why is that? How do you know it
isn't all lies?
It's not an assumption. It's assured conviction because it's the Word of
God.
That is the assumption. Where is your supporting evidence?
The evidence is found in following the Word of God in real life. What's
found in real life can never be an assumption.
That is not evidence. It is an assumption and is ambiguous.
Life is never an assumption. There is nothing ambiguous in life.
I am talking about evidence, not life.
Life is the evidence.
To you perhaps but not to anyone else. Does that tell you anything
other than everybody but you must be wrong?
No one can deny life.
Irrelevant. The existence of life does not automatically prove
anything about any god.
God is only found and realized in real life.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the existence of any
god.
That's because you are blind to God who is spiritual instead of physical.
I have yet to see any evidence that supports anything spiritual being
real. Therefore I consider the subject imaginary.
That statement will not change - I have posted it for you at least a
dozen times.
Post by aaaPost by AttilaYou are still wrong.
For something as profound as Jesus's alleged life, there
is surprisingly little independent mention. And before
you go there, Josephus is highly suspect.
There is more than one way to prove a person's existence. Einstein
doesn't need to be proven historically. His theory will forever be the
evidence of his existence.
Which theory would that be? There are several possibilities, some of
which have been proven wrong. Plus the obvious - the existence of a
theory is not proof of the existence of a particular person unless it
can be proven that person developed that theory.
What are you talking about? Are you going to deny that Einstein
developed his own theory?
He developed more than one theory and just because his name is on a
theory is not evidence that he developed that theory. Or ever
existed. Independent evidence is required.
Everybody knows what Einstein's theory is.
He had two - Special Relativity and General Relativity. He received
his Nobel Prize "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and
especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect."
Since they are all his theories, what's the difference? Did he steal one
of them from someone else?
No, but you talk as if there is only one thing.
I don't want to be specific. What's wrong with that?
Of course you don't. But you did talk about Einstein and "his theory"
when there is more than one theory and none of them earned the Nobel
Prize.
Why is that important? It has nothing to do with my point.
Yes it does. It shows your statement " Einstein doesn't need to be
proven historically. His theory will forever be the evidence of his
existence." is in error. He had at least two theories and his best
known accomplishment was not based on either of them.
One theory is enough. There is no need to be specific. So it doesn't matter.
If a theory exists that only supports it's existence. It had nothing
to do with who developed it or whether it is valid or not.
The theory can't appear by magic. It has to be developed by the scientist.
It probably was developed by someone but it does nothing to support
the existence of any particular someone without supporting evidence.
Anyone could have developed the theory.
Post by aaaPost by AttilaThe theory is the evidence.
Not by itself it isn't.
Blind denial. A scientific theory is always the evidence of the scientist.
A scientist. Additional evidence is required to identify the
scientist involved.
If there is no scientist involved, there can't be a scientific theory in
the first place.
But which scientist? That is the question.
No. The question is about the existence of the scientist. It's not about
the name of the scientist.
" Einstein doesn't need to be proven historically. His theory will
forever be the evidence of his existence."
That's right.
That is what you said and that is what you need to support with
evidence.
It's just simple logic. If you can refute the logic, you have to accept
the conclusion.
I don't "have to accept" anything. Your so-called logic is
irrelevant.
Supporting evidence is required.
Post by aaaPost by AttilaSomeone invented the wheel. Who?
The wheel is the evidence of its maker. Who is the maker is entirely
another question.
That was exactly the question. Who invented the wheel?
The question is about his existence. It's not about his name. If you
want argue about the name, you have already acknowledged the existence
of the person.
Actually historians think no one person invented the wheel but it
developed in several unrelated cultures.
Pure speculation. In ancient time, it is not possible to pass the same
story across different cultures, regions, and times.
It isn't a story. It is the development of a tool. You may as well
say one person invented the hammer, the spear, or developed fire.
These were occurrences that happened to multiple isolated societies.
Post by aaaIf it's indeed the
same story, it can only be the work of God.
That is about as meaningful as ""Oh, look! A pile of poop! That
proves there is a god!"
Post by aaaPost by AttilaTherefore the existence of the wheel does not automatically mean
someone invented it.
False. The invention requires the inventor.
Oh? Does that also go for the spear, the hammer, the bow, the wheel
and fire? All of which were developed by isolated groups that had no
possibility of ever coming into contact.
Post by aaaPost by AttilaTo simply say something was done and therefore someone must have done
it is about as meaningless a comment as it is possible to make
The philosophy of Jesus is not an ordinary thing.
I have no idea what it is but I am sure someone else could have
written it.
Post by aaaIt's based on the real
life of Jesus.
How do I know you are not lying?
Post by aaaIt can't be created by anyone else.
See above.
Post by aaaPost by AttilaIn the exact same way, the spiritual and
philosophical teaching of Jesus is already the evidence of the
historical Jesus.
Nope. Not even close for many reasons. Vagueness and ambiguity being
the main culprits.
The only vagueness is due to your blind denial of the teaching of Jesus.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the existence of any
such person ever existed.
Blind denial already. That may be a new record.
You can't beat your own record. It's still nothing but your blind denial.
It didn't take you long to reach that standard evasion.
I'm only pointing out the fact.
The only fact here is that you always end up in evasion.
That is still your blind denial of the fact.
More evasion.
More blind denial.
Still evading.
That's you. Stop evading now.
More evasion.
That's you. Stop evading now.
You are still evading the issue.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
Trump 2020
There are four despicable occupations:
Pimps
Politicians
Priests
Reporters
National Socialist American Worker's Party
formally known as the Democrat Party.
Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.